Re: Postrel on liberalization

[Diego Miranda <miranda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Alan G Isaac wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Diego Miranda <miranda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If it serves to make an ideological point, many a mediocre economist has
> > often used nominal figures to convince a non-informed reader.  Take for
> > example the analysis about the 'explosive' growth of spending in Arngetina
> > since the late 1990s, or the 'evident' missalignment of relative prices
> > that finally resulted in devaluation.
>
> I am quite sure you are not quoting from the papers under
> discussion, so perhaps you can provide a cite.

Well, I thought we were discussing a press article you submitted,
actually. And I was not, in any case, referring in what you quote above to
the press article  in question, but to your  general claim that not even a
mediocre economist would use nominal figures.  Many do in the press, and
are quite successful in missleading the public.

> > Not only are these fake poverty lines set arbitrarilly  to suit a
> > particular taste for policy,
>
> Are you claiming that these poverty lines are not part of
> the discussion to which Sala-i-Martin is responding??
> You will have a damn hard time making that case.
> Keep in mind this piece has a very simple goal: to show
> that a popular interpretation of the world income
> distribution data is mistaken.

I am not claiming that these 'poverty lines' are not part of the
discussion.  I am arguing that they are not real poverty lines.  Period.

> > but they are hardly  comparable accross
> > countries, even if you use 'constant' 1985 values.  First, the value of
> > the basket  of goods and services that makes up a poverty line varies from
> > country to country. Second, even if you were to accept that due to lack of
> > data you could do without calculating such basket, any other
> > arbitrary 'poverty line' should at least be PPP adjusted, which is not the
> > case in this piece.
>
> Quoting from p.3 of the income distribution piece:
>     "We start with the PPP-adjusted GDP data from Heston,
>     Summers, and Aten (2001)."

Again, I have not read this paper, and I stand corrected.  I just
donwloaded it, so future comments on my part, on this piece, are about the
paper, and not about the press note you submitted to us.

Diego