Close

Complete Captcha

• 5 years - 70 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 148 Goods vs 26 No Goods

1. Economist
   3bf3
   

   Exactly. I can see he has now online some slides and the mistake that 15d3 indicated is not present anymore. This is a no issue, I wonder why 7b50 bumped old news.

   Just read this thread. Give me a break. Of course working papers will have the occasional errors in them and garbled proofs. It would only be interesting if it is affecting the substantive conclusion. I've heard nothing of that sort here, or in any case, that is the argument one should make rather than some dull monolog about this or that being "obviously wrong" ..

   5 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   4ac0
   

   .

   4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   f7a0
   

   Both Bigio and La'O are overplaced.

   4 years ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   3f10
   

   This guy is really mean.

   4 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

5. Economist
   145b
   

   Why?

   This guy is really mean.

   4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   4966
   

   So, I guess this fake referee here read the updated version of the paper (Financial Frictions in Production Networks). None of his comments were actually relevant/right. This paper indeed opened the door to several other projects (Ernest Liu MIT for example). There are many assumptions I personally do not like in the paper but it will certainly be one of those important and influential papers that never got published

   ^ The undistorted equilibrium in their model with fixed aggregate labor solves a planner's problem, optimally allocating labor between sectors to maximize real GDP.
   The fall in real GDP from any perturbation around this allocation is second order, simply because it's an interior optimum and a perturbation around any interior optimum in any problem will always have a second-order effect on the objective.
   This includes the perturbation caused by the financial friction parameters being slightly different from the ones that give you the undistorted optimum (phi_i=1).

   4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 4 No Jab !

7. Economist
   1857
   

   Of course working papers will have the occasional errors in them and garbled proofs. It would only be interesting if it is affecting the substantive conclusion.

   WTF did I just read? You simply don't make a theory paper containing an erroneous proof (other than typos) publicly available without jeopardizing all your professional credibility.

   4 years ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 1 No Jab !

8. Economist
   ba7f
   

   So why not email the author if you spot a mistake instead of insulting anonymously?

   4 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   afbc
   

   MM of Harvard had mistakes in his jmp who got him on the restud tour, and he didn't jeopardize anyone. In fact, he's highly celebrated by the profession.

   4 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

10. Economist
    3100
    

    its a forthcoming QJE!!

    What happened to the faulty paper with La'O?

    7 months ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply

Post

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.