I would say that Mark should just stick to his guns (by the way, this a *fantastic* spot and somebody should be given a medal for it. I wouldn't have thought of this simple cross-check in a million years). The fact is that R&H put up their econometric model and got caught, caught beautifully with the objection "well, how come the audited sample has the same proportions as the supposedly doctored one, laughing boy?" Anything R&H say now is going to look like frantic backpedalling, because it quite likely is.
dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Zarembka Sent: 18 October 2004 19:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mathematics & Venezuela: The real world? RE: Mark Weisbrot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > thanks Paul, > you can post this if you want. > My reply is that this is basically simpler than, I'm afraid, most people > would like to make it. Of course there are many things wrong with their > study. But these do not matter because they made one BIG mistake, which > is that they ignored the audited sample, which they admit was clean. The > sample provides all the evidence that is needed. (See below). > That's really all there is to it, we just need some more experts to > state the obvious. Hi, Mark, Actually, my question was about HOW we should make an impact, not so much what to say. In any case, I'd want to hit them on every weak point, not only one, particularly since some of this looks like an intellectual's game from the outside and a protagnonist may just cite the preferred side and be done with. Has Hausmann and Rigobon replied in any way to your pointing out their "one BIG mistake"?
