3 ms·

The graph is odd. According to the label, the Y axis is change in economic growth (probably meaning change in change in GDP). Honestly, I don't find it that sur

The graph is odd. According to the label, the Y axis is change in economic growth (probably meaning change in change in GDP). Honestly, I don't find it that surprising that the dots are all over the place. Economic growth is a variable that depends on a lot of things, you can think of it as G = f(education) + N, where N is basically random noise with a variance that is likely quite a bit higher than differences in f(education). So then if you measure G in 1960 and again in 2000, you really aren't measuring anything about f(education), you're only measuring noise. It would be much more interesting to see a comparison of educational standards and GDP growth (not change in GDP growth) over that time period. But even such a graph would be fraught with problems, mainly due to the effect of less developed countries having an easier time in "catching up" to developed countries. Anyway, as it stands I would basically throw that article in the garbage bin. Usually, I would give the author the benefit of the doubt and take more time to think about why my interpretation may be wrong, but this is an economist (maybe?) writing on a website with "economics and liberty" in the title. That's a huge warning sign for crack-pottery with an agenda.

barry-cotter 11y ago
The graph is "odd" because it's looking for causality not correlation. If more developed countries are more educated all it proves is that education is a normal good and that people consume more of it as they get richer. That would prove nothing about whether education causes economic growth. Your point about noisy measurements, such as it is, applies to all macroeconomic measurement. If you're willing to proclaim radical scepticism about all macroeconomics fine. Otherwise this is just an isolated demand for rigour. The authour is on fact an economist and he references two different economics papers in the post, with links in support of his argument. And of course he has an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. The agenda of the agendaless is continuation of the status quo. Neutrality is an illusion.

barry-cotter 11y ago

The graph is "odd" because it's looking for causality not correlation. If more developed countries are more educated all it proves is that education is a normal good and that people consume more of it as they get richer. That would prove nothing about whether education causes economic growth. Your point about noisy measurements, such as it is, applies to all macroeconomic measurement. If you're willing to proclaim radical scepticism about all macroeconomics fine. Otherwise this is just an isolated demand for rigour. The authour is on fact an economist and he references two different economics papers in the post, with links in support of his argument. And of course he has an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. The agenda of the agendaless is continuation of the status quo. Neutrality is an illusion.