Click for full size
Chart

Source: NYT

Category: Economy, Federal Reserve

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

3 Responses to “Three Measures of Central Banks’ Effectiveness”

  1. Manofsteel11 says:

    Are these numbers indicative? A few examples per indicator:
    1. Recent stimulus is skewing GDP by means of government funds + this figure (which is hard to measure anyhow) is further shifted by mismanagement and energy inefficiency (e.g. the EU produces growth units for 2/3 of the energy consumption used in the US – is this sustainable and competitive?)
    2. Rather than unemployment rate (understating underemployment and structural unemployment of those who gave up), try employment to population rate:
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
    3. If the stock market is up, can we halt QE/low interest rates and maintain the trend? Does it reflect a resolution of the underlying problems in the financial sector and/or sustainable utility practices (see shift in recent days, given rising costs and unsustainable dividends) and/or improving technological workforce leading to greater competitiveness in the future?
    All governments are using every trick they can to “deal with” unresolved systemic challenges, demographics, environmental/resource limits, growing inequality and complexity, etc. But are we building solid long-term growth anywhere or is there a need for a paradigm shift?

  2. idaman says:

    austerity makes the difference all three measures

  3. victor says:

    Another set of charts would be useful: deficits and national debt. The US federal deficits are now shrinking and Krugman says that with GDP growth at 3.5 to 4%, they’d be disappearing and national debt levels at some 70% of GDP are just fine for the long run, provided we don’t engage in any stupid wars. He opposes legislation on balanced budgets (as most US States already have and the Germans and Swiss too) as unnecessary. Wishful thinking or the new normal? I know that some of the bloggers here may want to stop reading as soon as they see the word “Krugman” but wait! in rare, very rare instances economists can be right.