Krugman and shoe sales vs growth

Anybody confused? Government spending is the blue line,  real growth is the red line.  Any questions? Look at 1975, a worse pattern. Or 2000, government spending on the rise and growth down. Can we find the opposite? Sure, go back and look at 1981.




Here is  Paul Krugman's  chart:

That regression coefficient is crap, and we do not know which countries lie on the lower left. And we expect  normal growth to include government, and shoe sales,  right along with it.  We have a gaussian blob that matches growth with growth. Try this:
Plot shoe sales vs growth.  If you see the same pattern, then you can be sure Paul is bad at statistics.

And worse:
Take a look at recessions and what do we find? 7/8 of the time a recession falls within two years of a presidential regime change in the USA.  How in the frig is that possible? Why would recessions always line up with presidential elections? If DC were useful in preventing them then one might think that recessions would be quite random.  Anybody hear anything from the dim bulbs at UC Berkeley about that? No, they do not do anything that might violate their priors, a complete waste of California education funds.


What are his other claims?

Deflation goes with zero bound? Give me a break, deflation goes with worn out central banking models. Try the obvious, when bad banking models are common place, banking networks shrink and money dries up and we get deflation.  Apple farming works the same way, when apple farmers are for crap, apples disappear.

Keynesians have not told us a damn thing new in the 80 years since the English dandy educated a bunch of ignorant American economists. Dim bulbs at UC Berkeley might tell us something new about economics, for once, rather than quoting their priors. Otherwise, why taxpayers paying them?