tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post5972283453126684708..comments2024-03-22T22:37:02.639-07:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: Lazy MacroeconomicsStephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger248125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-74601472942840833802012-05-14T14:02:26.609-07:002012-05-14T14:02:26.609-07:00It seems the same could be said for you.It seems the same could be said for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-20026579193660737092012-04-16T10:05:07.729-07:002012-04-16T10:05:07.729-07:00http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/in-ec...http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/in-economics-you-are-what-you-model/<br /><br />Oh-Oh questions on economic "science" again. Come one Steve, do your thin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-23751896987982203252012-04-12T17:12:54.032-07:002012-04-12T17:12:54.032-07:00You're finally getting there. Now be quiet an...You're finally getting there. Now be quiet and leave economics to people who understand it, and all will be well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-62858479200697069172012-04-12T12:11:02.394-07:002012-04-12T12:11:02.394-07:00I think I've caught up. Your conception of &q...I think I've caught up. Your conception of "equilibrium" encompasses every *conceivable* unfolding of the future. Now that's an ambitious kind of equilibrium!<br /><br />Still, I wonder where you get the information that allows you to identify every invention, war, epidemic, political configuration, etc. that's not "viewed as impossible"? Does it matter who views these as possible? What if there's a difference of opinion about what's possible and impossible? What if some event, which was once "viewed as impossible," actually occurs. Is that included in your dynamic equilibrium too?<br /><br />I'm dizzy. I certainly can't keep up with the rate at which you add fantastic assumptions to protect your conception of equilibrium.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677815746117897839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-87316684797348847412012-04-12T09:25:10.147-07:002012-04-12T09:25:10.147-07:00You conflate "unexpected" with "vie...You conflate "unexpected" with "viewed as impossible". Again, try to keep up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-90845133953798456022012-04-11T19:29:17.562-07:002012-04-11T19:29:17.562-07:00Welcome, and apologies for the douchy comment.Welcome, and apologies for the douchy comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-37458533482177366492012-04-11T04:02:58.616-07:002012-04-11T04:02:58.616-07:00@ Anon 10:17 - thanks (from Anon 8:05 & 10:42)...@ Anon 10:17 - thanks (from Anon 8:05 & 10:42)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-33762807371342047862012-04-10T18:33:00.621-07:002012-04-10T18:33:00.621-07:00I have read a article from Larry Sechrest, about f...I have read a article from Larry Sechrest, about free banking. I read others like Gary Gorton, Calomiris, etc who works the idea the origin of the central bank is from clearing houses or a financial stabilizer (?). Some of them are pleased with the idea of free banking or something near that.<br />This kind of discussion is worthy? The Fed works like a lender of last resort during the meltdown.<br />M.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-63769663435349618922012-04-10T16:05:57.312-07:002012-04-10T16:05:57.312-07:00Anon 08:26 AM,
I wasn't discussing "equi...Anon 08:26 AM,<br /><br />I wasn't discussing "equilibrium in dynamic stochastic environments." I offered you three conceptions of equilibrium (Walras, Hayek, and Arrow/Debreu) in which it makes sense to speak of an economy out of equilibrium.<br /><br />Now, if you think it's more productive to think that economies are always in equilibrium, that changes in an economy following an unexpected war, for example, constitute "a movement to a point in the old equilibrium," well, perhaps you can tell us how this unexpected war, or any significant unexpected event, was somehow "contained" in the "old equilibrium." <br /><br />(Is it really the mark of a noble mind to conclude with, "Please try to keep up"?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677815746117897839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-29792655911142419552012-04-10T07:17:09.067-07:002012-04-10T07:17:09.067-07:00Look up Hansen's J-statistic, which is a Wald-...Look up Hansen's J-statistic, which is a Wald-type test of overidentifying restrictions. Or Mark Watson's paper on frequency domain tests of fit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-41459651839072516162012-04-10T05:05:47.363-07:002012-04-10T05:05:47.363-07:00In statistics, one can evaluate models based on ob...In statistics, one can evaluate models based on objective criteria such as AIC, BIC, R^2, etc. I am simply interested in how one objectively evaluates economic models. My previous comment was not "disingenuous" but sincere. I am not trying to 'flame' anyone or to take sides, but to learn. Feel free to post a reference/link that addresses my question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-72123961594705429042012-04-09T15:31:08.765-07:002012-04-09T15:31:08.765-07:00It actually sounds like you're stuck on line 1...It actually sounds like you're stuck on line 1.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38209551732068502612012-04-09T10:05:45.340-07:002012-04-09T10:05:45.340-07:00John D, you're not fooling anyone with your re...John D, you're not fooling anyone with your reams of bs. Go back to the law, it is apparently all you're capable of understanding.The Hooka Catnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-48878223565521839382012-04-09T08:26:43.527-07:002012-04-09T08:26:43.527-07:00You still don't understand equilibrium in dyna...You still don't understand equilibrium in dynamic stochastic environments. Your jump to a new equilibrium is not in fact a change in equilibrium, it is a movement to a new point in the old equilibrium. Equilibria are stochastic processes in such an economy, and we're just moving along it.<br /><br />Please try to keep up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-39390890565755037372012-04-09T08:23:54.264-07:002012-04-09T08:23:54.264-07:00What a disingenuous and douchy comment. If you wa...What a disingenuous and douchy comment. If you want to know how economics works, go take some classes. Otherwise, quit polluting the air.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-4729307056725823522012-04-09T07:42:52.189-07:002012-04-09T07:42:52.189-07:00"To try to understand how the world works. Pr..."To try to understand how the world works. Pretty simple."<br /><br />So, as long as one thinks the model helps them better understand "how the world works", then the model is successful, i.e. there is no way to objectively evaluate models. Is that interpretation of your answer correct?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-68936411064253341352012-04-08T08:57:28.520-07:002012-04-08T08:57:28.520-07:00On economics vs. physics. Is economics a science? ...On economics vs. physics. Is economics a science? Some discussions here from the world of physicists:<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/02/testing-your-theories-is-not-a-matter-of-envy/Metenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-41243152041689545722012-04-08T08:18:06.004-07:002012-04-08T08:18:06.004-07:00Good post. Keep up the good fight and kudos for de...Good post. Keep up the good fight and kudos for dealing with the cult of Krugmanite commenters who need the kindergarten worldviews of good guys vs. bad guys reassured by Krugman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-48072424627760462532012-04-05T16:58:44.819-07:002012-04-05T16:58:44.819-07:00Barry, you're going to be really sorry when Zi...Barry, you're going to be really sorry when Zimbabwe-like hyperinflation, which as Stephen has pointed out since 2008 is lurking just right around the corner, engulfs us all.<br /><br />Just because we can't see or hear this potential inflation (particularly in the bond market, where there is no sign), doesn't mean that it's not there, lurking, waiting for us to let our guard down for one second so it can pounce. <br /><br />It's the vigilance of scholars like Stephen that protects us from Weimar Germany/Zimbabwe, nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-25816046801269405812012-04-05T14:50:14.536-07:002012-04-05T14:50:14.536-07:00Stephen, why aren't you posting?
EJMR sucks ...Stephen, why aren't you posting? <br /><br />EJMR sucks these days. The Econoblogosphere looks only to Stephen Williamson for entertainment.<br /><br />Didn't you see Krugman's post on sticky prices? Are you going to let him get away with these lies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-57046243136057438222012-04-04T05:39:52.314-07:002012-04-04T05:39:52.314-07:00Macroeconomics variables & functions
Macroecon...Macroeconomics variables & functions<br />Macroeconomics variables & functions,<br />http://www.infoaw.com/article.php?articleId=859khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15818792887468335750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-75252062301468983042012-04-03T05:59:44.749-07:002012-04-03T05:59:44.749-07:00"It's useful for the purpose for which it..."It's useful for the purpose for which it was designed."<br /><br />What were IS-LM, RBC and DSGE models designed for? (I asked already but the comment seems t have disappeared).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-9010212154562579172012-04-02T17:32:30.534-07:002012-04-02T17:32:30.534-07:00Steve, I wonder what you think of Krugman's fo...Steve, I wonder what you think of Krugman's forthcoming QJE piece (the one he coauthored with Eggertsson and you criticized a few months ago). Unless you say that QJE picked the wrong paper, the argument that he has no influence in macro gets a little weaker after all. His paper seems to be getting quite a lot of citations already...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-60103384403968587372012-04-02T11:06:15.500-07:002012-04-02T11:06:15.500-07:00so, what gives
eblogger says you jumped to 225 co...so, what gives<br /><br />eblogger says you jumped to 225 comments this am, but the new comments don't appear above<br /><br />I put up a link on inflation to a Project Syndicate essay by Feldstein and that is censored?<br /><br />http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fed-policy-and-inflation-riskJLDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02186957841091998126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-39747259470208969682012-04-02T10:24:20.138-07:002012-04-02T10:24:20.138-07:00No, you said you didn't know anything about ec...No, you said you didn't know anything about economics, and then asserted that you also knew that Paul Krugman was right. So either you're stupid in that you don't realize the two positions are logically incompatible, or you're crazy and therefore do not need to hold logically compatible positions. Your choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com