tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post915074811624240060..comments2024-03-22T22:37:02.639-07:00Comments on Stephen Williamson: New Monetarist Economics: SED Newsletter: Lucas InterviewStephen Williamsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-38696832561414032732012-12-06T22:56:40.485-08:002012-12-06T22:56:40.485-08:00this interview is yet another example of willingne...this interview is yet another example of willingness of Lucas to change his mind on major issues and causes of recessions<br /><br />Jim Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-12794517141965025782012-12-06T06:36:20.504-08:002012-12-06T06:36:20.504-08:00You would learn more by reading Coase
In an essay...You would learn more by reading Coase<br /><br />In an essay published on Nov. 20 in Harvard Business Review, Coase argues that in the early 20th century, economists began to focus on relationships among statistical measures, rather than problems that firms have with production or people have with decisions. Economists began writing for each other, instead of for other disciplines or for the business community. “It is suicidal for the field to slide into a hard science of choice,” Coase writes in HBR, “ignoring the influences of society, history, culture, and politics on the working of the economy.” (By “choice,” he means ever more complex versions of price and demand curves.) Most economists, he argues, work with measures like gross domestic product and the unemployment rate that are too removed from how businesses actually work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-74095482345533549802012-11-27T15:13:43.482-08:002012-11-27T15:13:43.482-08:00Great find, always love reading Lucas.Great find, always love reading Lucas.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-67837659008223209472012-11-27T10:16:25.316-08:002012-11-27T10:16:25.316-08:00Some of Lucas's important contributions came i...Some of Lucas's important contributions came in the form of sophisticated theory, but this gives you the flavor of the practical-minded empiricist at the heart of that.Stephen Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01434465858419028592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-68262634611703873292012-11-27T08:44:39.578-08:002012-11-27T08:44:39.578-08:00Andrew, nicely said, I agree.Andrew, nicely said, I agree.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2499715909956774229.post-53960732882756073502012-11-27T01:14:40.147-08:002012-11-27T01:14:40.147-08:00The final comment is priceless - yet so true. I re...The final comment is priceless - yet so true. I really enjoy reading what Lucas has to say. I don't always agree, but he is always interesting and serious about what he is talking about. It always makes me think. This interview is especially good because he is talking about broad strokes about the profession. <br /><br />I totally agree that the Lucas critique finds its way into discussion way to easily, but I disagree in the sense that it is still a useful check in a lot of different settings. Macro sometimes really needs to think harder about endogeneity and heterogeneity in the data - sometimes I get tired of attending a seminar which tells me a particular mechanism is consistent with some moments of the data without any serious robustness. As a structural labour guy, sometimes I just feel like how did you get away with that?<br /><br />Anyways, macro is a hard subject and there are plenty of really bright people on the case. I can't wait for the next 20 years to see what comes next!Andrewnoreply@blogger.com