by Kane » Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:25 pm
I don't get it...that UCLA paper is written by the same two guys that parroted the WSJ piece and its part of their paper's foundation. They mistakenly interpret data to make it fit their narrative and make the obviously outrageous claim that the recovery from the depression was slow/stagnant/plodding when we were seeing 9 - 10% growth...
That's a serious disconnect from reality. And the UCLA is a university, much like Harvard is a university. The bias is represented by past and present associations. Ohanian has a very clear bent.