so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
Dear Applied Micro -- please die painfully.
-
so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
name one theory paper in the past 10 years which is (1) true, (2) non-obvious/non-trivial & (3) on a reasonably important topic.
You won't be able too, theory bro.
Another question: if econ theory is so valuable, then why doesn't the private sector value it?
-
Ever since people started caring so much about identification (lol just lol), Economics died as a discipline. Now people ask any kind of question (mostly irrelevant with econ, or at least they try to call it econ) that can be addressed with data. "Economists" add identification as their main contribution (we know it ain't true).
- Applied Economist
-
so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
name one theory paper in the past 10 years which is (1) true, (2) non-obvious/non-trivial & (3) on a reasonably important topic.
You won't be able too, theory bro.
Another question: if econ theory is so valuable, then why doesn't the private sector value it?Maybe not. We can all name a long list of theory papers from the last 50 years or 100 years that mattered immensely.
Can anyone do the same for appled micro papers? (The correct answer is no)
-
so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
name one theory paper in the past 10 years which is (1) true, (2) non-obvious/non-trivial & (3) on a reasonably important topic.
You won't be able too, theory bro.
Another question: if econ theory is so valuable, then why doesn't the private sector value it?Maybe not. We can all name a long list of theory papers from the last 50 years or 100 years that mattered immensely.
Can anyone do the same for appled micro papers? (The correct answer is no)In the last 10'ish years, we have Saez et al.'s work showing the rise of the 1%, and that it seemed to be due to cuts in top marginal tax rates. At the same, you have lots of theory which says it was due to skill-biased technological change -- which turned out not to be true. There is empirical work showing the rise of China hurt US manufacturing. Dozens of papers on in education showing the effects of random room assignments, teacher assignments, etc. Empirical work showing the rise in "deaths of despair" of working-class whites. You go back 150 years, and John Snow used applied micro to prove cholera came from tainted water. It was a pretty big deal, theory bro.
-
so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
name one theory paper in the past 10 years which is (1) true, (2) non-obvious/non-trivial & (3) on a reasonably important topic.
You won't be able too, theory bro.
Another question: if econ theory is so valuable, then why doesn't the private sector value it?Maybe not. We can all name a long list of theory papers from the last 50 years or 100 years that mattered immensely.
Can anyone do the same for appled micro papers? (The correct answer is no)In the last 10'ish years, we have Saez et al.'s work showing the rise of the 1%, and that it seemed to be due to cuts in top marginal tax rates. At the same, you have lots of theory which says it was due to skill-biased technological change -- which turned out not to be true. There is empirical work showing the rise of China hurt US manufacturing. Dozens of papers on in education showing the effects of random room assignments, teacher assignments, etc. Empirical work showing the rise in "deaths of despair" of working-class whites. You go back 150 years, and John Snow used applied micro to prove cholera came from tainted water. It was a pretty big deal, theory bro.
Snow didnt use applied micro. Snow used a scientific approach and applied micro tries to model itself on an approach like Show's. Also ... A qualifying condition of the original post was "not obvious". So, you fail.
-
Snow didnt use applied micro. Snow used a scientific approach and applied micro tries to model itself on an approach like Show's. Also ... A qualifying condition of the original post was "not obvious". So, you fail.
Sorry, theory bro, but many theorists in Snow's time believed the "bad odors" theory. Obviously, applied micro didn't exist back then, but you asked for an old applied micro paper that mattered, and so I cited an old paper that uses applied micro techniques, and you say it doesn't count, because. Whatever, the guy used logic, a difference-in-difference, several natural experiments, and various evidence to make a fairly airtight case for a causal effect of dirty water on the spread of cholera. It shows we can indeed learn something from these methods.
Even you, theory bro, couldn't name any recent papers that really teach us something.
-
^Theory bro. I noticed you never answered why the market doesn't reward theorists if it is so useful? Empirical researchers are richly rewarded in the market, why not theorists? Why don't McKinsey, Microsoft, Ebay, etc. employ a bunch of theorists if your insights are so trenchant? You believe there is a huge market failure?
-
so many butthurt applied micro tаrds in this thread
name one theory paper in the past 10 years which is (1) true, (2) non-obvious/non-trivial & (3) on a reasonably important topic.
You won't be able too, theory bro.
Another question: if econ theory is so valuable, then why doesn't the private sector value it?Maybe not. We can all name a long list of theory papers from the last 50 years or 100 years that mattered immensely.
Can anyone do the same for appled micro papers? (The correct answer is no)In the last 10'ish years, we have Saez et al.'s work showing the rise of the 1%, and that it seemed to be due to cuts in top marginal tax rates. At the same, you have lots of theory which says it was due to skill-biased technological change -- which turned out not to be true. There is empirical work showing the rise of China hurt US manufacturing. Dozens of papers on in education showing the effects of random room assignments, teacher assignments, etc. Empirical work showing the rise in "deaths of despair" of working-class whites. You go back 150 years, and John Snow used applied micro to prove cholera came from tainted water. It was a pretty big deal, theory bro.
Are you seriously describing epidemiology as applied macro? What is it with economists and claiming everything as their own?
-
As applied micro guy, I feel horrified. Glorified mean comparisons all over the place with zero applicability but everyone looks down at inferior correlational work. This plus the incentive structure, which favors "originality", in publishing will lead to huge replication crisis.
-
I think you will be disappointed to find that only the reg monkeys' results will survive the replication crisis and the DSGE model macro s**te is tossed in the bin. Causal identification is key.How will it end though? The power and influence in the profession rests with applied microeconomists.
Well said OP, when this dominated equilibrium of producing this cute, yet totally unscientific, garbage ends....we may dream of a day in which the profession can contribute to answer big questions again.
It's a good question. I think it ends if it turns out that their results weren't credible after all.
Economics needs a replication crisis like that in social psychology. The fact that there's not one is disturbing on its own right, but the discipline is getting there I think. -
How will it end though? The power and influence in the profession rests with applied microeconomists.
Well said OP, when this dominated equilibrium of producing this cute, yet totally unscientific, garbage ends....we may dream of a day in which the profession can contribute to answer big questions again.
It's a good question. I think it ends if it turns out that their results weren't credible after all.
Economics needs a replication crisis like that in social psychology. The fact that there's not one is disturbing on its own right, but the discipline is getting there I think.I think you will be disappointed to find that only the reg monkeys' results will survive the replication crisis and the DSGE model macro s**te is tossed in the bin. Causal identification is key.
I'm betting that neither will. A small example:
Hint: Identification is just one part of causal inference
-
Snow didnt use applied micro. Snow used a scientific approach and applied micro tries to model itself on an approach like Show's. Also ... A qualifying condition of the original post was "not obvious". So, you fail.
Sorry, theory bro, but many theorists in Snow's time believed the "bad odors" theory. Obviously, applied micro didn't exist back then, but you asked for an old applied micro paper that mattered, and so I cited an old paper that uses applied micro techniques, and you say it doesn't count, because. Whatever, the guy used logic, a difference-in-difference, several natural experiments, and various evidence to make a fairly airtight case for a causal effect of dirty water on the spread of cholera. It shows we can indeed learn something from these methods.
Even you, theory bro, couldn't name any recent papers that really teach us something.This is a complete distortion of history and what actually happened.