Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 year - 66 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 107 Goods vs 63 No Goods

1. Economist
   defa
   

   He is a democrat.

   It is actually still there, just check his page.

   I am an Assistant Professor at the New Economic School in Moscow (the top school in Russia for economics). I hold a Ph.D. from UC Davis, ranked 3rd in the world in International Trade among academic institutions, and ranked 9th in Economic History (or 6th).

   He took down the ranking parts, which are obviously absurd (at least the trade one is, and who cares about history anyway). Clearly, this guy is an idiot, so why give him advertising? He should be put in the Noahpublication box.
   

   Mea culpa, I didn't check that page. This guy is worse than I thought -- delusional, arrogant, and low ability. He is Trumpian.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

2. Economist
   6651
   

   econ must have driven out everyone with mathematical ability, because no one has made any comment on the actual math he's talking about.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 5 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   ea6c
   

   No one cares.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

4. Economist
   88cc
   

   Mathurbation provides prestige and employment

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 1 No Good !

5. Economist
   6722
   

   Mathurbation provides prestige and employment

   Hahhahahaha, have you spoken to theory JMC?

   1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

6. Economist
   9511
   

   I am an Assistant Professor at the New Economic School in Moscow (the top school in Russia for economics). I hold a Ph.D. from UC Davis, ranked 3rd in the world in International Trade among academic institutions, and ranked 9th in Economic History (or 6th).

   What's wrong with being proud of your alma mater?

   Anyway, content-wise he has a point. But this demasque of DA is nothing new to those who tried reading his "Why Nations Fail" or read David A.'s comment on AJR.

   DC has been involved in two other controversies that were fun to watch:

   http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/

   https://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.nl/2017/04/how-bad-is-peer-review-evidence-from.html

   Both were fun to read. He's force for good in the profession.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 9 Good 4 No Good !

7. Economist
   c245
   

   Mathurbation provides prestige and employment

   Hahhahahaha, have you spoken to theory JMC?

   ^
   Hahahaha Have you seen how many theory papers were in the latest issue of Econometrica and AER? Theory candidates have hard time in the market not because theory has no demand. Because many of these students are coming from a number of countries and they are introverts. They do not speak English too well, they are uncomfortable speaking and presenting and they do not look sociable. That signals problems in teaching and makes candidates look less interesting as a colleague. That is why there are fewer people demanding theory not because theory is useless. All top journals spend 50% of their space to theory.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   9511
   

   BTW This is what we should have more of in the profession. If only it were easier to publish comments and criticize papers once published without encountering the authors of the criticized paper as referees, then the signal to noise ratio in our profession would improve somewhat.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

9. Economist
   522d
   

   This guy really sucks. I may have mentioned that already, but it bears repeating.

   1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Good 5 No Good !

10. Economist
    1d9d
    

    I am an Assistant Professor at the New Economic School in Moscow (the top school in Russia for economics). I hold a Ph.D. from UC Davis, ranked 3rd in the world in International Trade among academic institutions, and ranked 9th in Economic History (or 6th).

    What's wrong with being proud of your alma mater?
    Anyway, content-wise he has a point. But this demasque of DA is nothing new to those who tried reading his "Why Nations Fail" or read David A.'s comment on AJR.
    DC has been involved in two other controversies that were fun to watch:
    http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/
    https://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.nl/2017/04/how-bad-is-peer-review-evidence-from.html
    Both were fun to read. He's force for good in the profession.

    If you are proud of your alma mater, you do not need to put a ranking next to it. You love it regardless. It reads more like “yes i got a PhD from a mediocre school but it really is better than you think based on some random ranking - 9th or 6th! depending on how random you want it to be”

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

11. Economist
    1d9d
    

    If you are good, you do not need to shout it out. It is usually easy for others to see.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 2 No Good !

12. Economist
    7193
    

    Hi Doug

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

13. Economist
    9511
    

    If you are proud of your alma mater, you do not need to put a ranking next to it. You love it regardless. It reads more like “yes i got a PhD from a mediocre school but it really is better than you think based on some random ranking - 9th or 6th! depending on how random you want it to be”

    It's interesting that you choose to focus on the comment about his alma mater rather than the content of his posts. It's essentially an ad hominem. Now why would you care to make an ad hominem attack? Has DC exposed you?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Good 1 No Good !

14. Economist
    6ad9
    

    Mathurbation provides prestige and employment

    Hahhahahaha, have you spoken to theory JMC?

    ^
    Hahahaha Have you seen how many theory papers were in the latest issue of Econometrica and AER? Theory candidates have hard time in the market not because theory has no demand. Because many of these students are coming from a number of countries and they are introverts. They do not speak English too well, they are uncomfortable speaking and presenting and they do not look sociable. That signals problems in teaching and makes candidates look less interesting as a colleague. That is why there are fewer people demanding theory not because theory is useless. All top journals spend 50% of their space to theory.

    From your deflection and strawman, I take it you have not spoken to any theory JMCs.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

15. Economist
    9511
    

    If you are good, you do not need to shout it out. It is usually easy for others to see.

    LOL try applying for a job in the future. I've tried both a modest approach and a more aggressive approach where I highlighted my achievements and background. The latter got me invited almost every time. The former not so much.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

16. Economist
    94a7
    

    Lol the guy DOES not have a point ... Malthusian model is not about cross sectional predictions on how density correlated with income ... so dumb I can’t dven believe it

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

17. Economist
    186c
    

    I am an Assistant Professor at the New Economic School in Moscow (the top school in Russia for economics). I hold a Ph.D. from UC Davis, ranked 3rd in the world in International Trade among academic institutions, and ranked 9th in Economic History (or 6th).

    What's wrong with being proud of your alma mater?
    Anyway, content-wise he has a point. But this demasque of DA is nothing new to those who tried reading his "Why Nations Fail" or read David A.'s comment on AJR.
    DC has been involved in two other controversies that were fun to watch:
    http://andrewgelman.com/2015/12/19/a-replication-in-economics-does-genetic-distance-to-the-us-predict-development/
    https://douglaslcampbell.blogspot.nl/2017/04/how-bad-is-peer-review-evidence-from.html
    Both were fun to read. He's force for good in the profession.

    Don't know about the second one, but I remember the "Diffusion of Development" debate in the Marginal Revolution comments (and on Gelman's blog). It was indeed fun to read, but I am unconvinced by DC's arguments after reading the whole thing. The authors made a sincere attempt to respond to his comments even before the blog attention. If they were really counting on the HRM cabal to protect them they would have just ignored it and let the paper languish in the realms of lesser journals. The whole thing devolved into finger-pointing over exact choices of specifications and how to interpret results, which wasn't a particularly flattering look for either party.

    Also, if you have to resort to claiming a conspiracy between editors and referees at all journals ranked higher than the Journal of International Development, then I think that says more about you than it does about the profession.

    A brief glance at DC's blog and research gives the impression that he is trying to make a career out of pointing out the (perceived) inadequacies of other researchers. That's not someone who values the truth, that's being a contrarian for the sake of it. Just read the first paragraph of the Gelman post: this is a guy who as a grad student was convinced that most published papers were wrong! My impression is that he has very strong priors about a paper's accuracy based on his own (subjective) beliefs, and if he thinks a paper is wrong he will bend over backwards in an attempt to generate any evidence that he is correct. Then he smugly pats himself on the back, reminds himself how great his PhD program and position in Moscow, Russia is, and posts it on his blog.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 6 Good 2 No Good !

18. Economist
    82ab
    

    A brief glance at DC's blog and research gives the impression that he is trying to make a career out of pointing out the (perceived) inadequacies of other researchers. That's not someone who values the truth, that's being a contrarian for the sake of it. Just read the first paragraph of the Gelman post: this is a guy who as a grad student was convinced that most published papers were wrong! My impression is that he has very strong priors about a paper's accuracy based on his own (subjective) beliefs, and if he thinks a paper is wrong he will bend over backwards in an attempt to generate any evidence that he is correct. Then he smugly pats himself on the back, reminds himself how great his PhD program and position in Moscow, Russia is, and posts it on his blog.

    This.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Good 1 No Good !

19. Economist
    e127
    

    From another of his posts

    "In any case, on my ride back to Moscow from Philadelphia, I fired up Stata, and took a second look at some of the research which found that the China shock led to a huge increase in productivity and patenting in Europe, published in a leading journal. The thesis sounded quite dubious to me from the beginning. It turned out that including sectoral fixed effects -- a very basic control -- killed the results. "

    Is he referring to Bloom Draca Van Reenen?

    1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    9511
    

    Also, if you have to resort to claiming a conspiracy between editors and referees at all journals ranked higher than the Journal of International Development, then I think that says more about you than it does about the profession.

    I don't know whether he thinks there is a conspiracy. But you don't need to think that there is a conspiracy to know that the game is rigged because of the rules that we've adopted. E.g. allowing referees who have vested interest in rejecting a paper that disputes published research. This can be editors or previous referees who allowed the disputed research to be published and this can be the authors of the disputed research. We do this for reasons of expertise but it also introduces bias and the question is whether the bias - variance trade - off is worth it.

    A brief glance at DC's blog and research gives the impression that he is trying to make a career out of pointing out the (perceived) inadequacies of other researchers. That's not someone who values the truth, that's being a contrarian for the sake of it. Just read the first paragraph of the Gelman post: this is a guy who as a grad student was convinced that most published papers were wrong! My impression is that he has very strong priors about a paper's accuracy based on his own (subjective) beliefs, and if he thinks a paper is wrong he will bend over backwards in an attempt to generate any evidence that he is correct. Then he smugly pats himself on the back, reminds himself how great his PhD program and position in Moscow, Russia is, and posts it on his blog.

    Well, most published research is false. I didn't think that there would be people objecting to this claim. The power of a test in many empirical papers are ridiculously low. And alternative plausible specifications can overturn the results. Not to mention that many papers make statistical or even coding mistakes.

    1 year ago # QUOTE 3 Good 2 No Good !

Reply »