Hey careful here, what are you calling a quasi science here. Not economics I hope. :) If two shmucks (at Harvard or anywhere else) (1) use excel to support their assertions and (2) make 101 errors, you might blame a) Harvard, b) the validation process of the publication, c) the gullability of the public at large and some economists in particular d) Excel (if you must) and only eventually economic science no?

Couldn't let this attack on my primary beliefs go unchallenged :).

Take care.



>>Read down to paragraph 5.
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/europe/eu-is-pressed-to-reconsider-cuts-as-economic-cure.html?hp&_r=0
>>
>>There were some disputable theoretical elements to what Rogoff, et al did, but the real problem wasn't theoretical at all.
>>
>>It seems that the wizards at Harvard did their analysis in an Excel spreadsheet and one formula had a serious error in it.
>>
>>Of particular note is the nature of the error. It wasn't related to some obscure, esoteric math theory...
>>
>>no.. these geniuses just summed the wrong rows!!!!
>>
>>I've done some doozers, but it would be hard to top this one.
>
>And historically one would laugh hysterically... this is not the first one. What can one expect from a quasi science which generally relies on approximation, thin samples, and tweaking the models to fit the bill - whoever pays that bill, usually we do.