Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
The striking dissimilarity between the hand drawn Phillips curve shown in Figure 2 of Samuelson and Solow (1960) and our econometric estimation of their curve in Hall and Hart (2012) has clearly ruffled some feathers. Forder (2016) is the latest in this ruffling, notwithstanding his contention, also made by Hoover (2015), that the Samuelson and Solow Phillips curve (henceforth SSPC) was neither important nor influential in shaping the course of macro policy during the 1960s and 1970s.
Regrettably, Forder adds little to the discussion. Of the four respects in which he claims our '...treatment fails to withstand scrutiny' (Forder 2016, 49), only two-the estimation period and our use of the Lipsey-style equation-are directly relevant to Hall and Hart (2012), and both are recycled criticisms from Hoover (2015). All the rest is a distraction-an attempt by Forder to elevate issues that were inconsequential to the objective of Hall and Hart (2012) to material significance. Nonetheless, we are glad to respond to his recycled criticisms as well as the distractions.
At the outset we re-emphasize that Hall and Hart (2012) was an econometric exercise whose primary objective was to answer one question: specifically, using econometric techniques available at the time, could Samuelson and Solow (1960, 192) have produced the Phillips curve shown in Figure 2 of their paper that they claimed represented '.the menu of choice between different degrees of unemployment and price stability as roughly estimated from last 25 years of American data'? Stated differently, Hall and Hart (2012) was about the shape of the SSPC, not how important the curve was to inflationary macro policy in the 1960s and 70s or those factors that shift the curve.
We take up those criticisms of Forder that are directly relevant to Hall and Hart (2012) in Section 2, leaving for Section 3 his distractions and other matters.
2. Hoover Redux: The Estimation Period and the Lipsey-style Equation
Forder (2016, 49) argues that '.Samuelson and Solow cannot reasonably be supposed to have estimated a curve.over a period of 25 years', despite the caption to their Figure 2 saying 'roughly estimated from last 25 years of American data' (Samuelson and Solow 1960, 197). Like Hoover (2015), Forder contends that Samuelson and Solow meant the postwar era...