Have interviewed 20 new phds and have concluded that real economics is dead. We might as well merge with sociology.
Economics was always bad. Some smart people decided to do phds during the Great Recession. Academic economics is a huge waste of time, space, and talent.
Explain in detail why you think Lucas was bad. His critique of reg monkeys' beloved 'policy-relevant' papers will continue to be a regmonkey nightmare, is this why you hate him so bad?
econ is now: weak math reg monkeys or strong math mathurbation.
great economic thinkers with great technical abilities like Lucas is rare nowadays.Thank God there won't be another Lucas.
Explain in detail why you think Lucas was bad. His critique of reg monkeys' beloved 'policy-relevant' papers will continue to be a regmonkey nightmare, is this why you hate him so bad?
econ is now: weak math reg monkeys or strong math mathurbation.
great economic thinkers with great technical abilities like Lucas is rare nowadays.Thank God there won't be another Lucas.
He was bad because he opened the door for fairytale economics parading as structural models. That's not what structuralism means anywhere else in the social sciences.
What is fairytale--suggesting a mechanism for how the world works? That is what makes economics a science. Look at a physics paper and you will see the same approach.
Explain in detail why you think Lucas was bad. His critique of reg monkeys' beloved 'policy-relevant' papers will continue to be a regmonkey nightmare, is this why you hate him so bad?econ is now: weak math reg monkeys or strong math mathurbation.
great economic thinkers with great technical abilities like Lucas is rare nowadays.Thank God there won't be another Lucas.
He was bad because he opened the door for fairytale economics parading as structural models. That's not what structuralism means anywhere else in the social sciences.
Economics won't be dead but academic economics stinks and is losing credibility.
both reg-monkey and mathurbation theories are equally bad in academic economics.
I've seen so many BS papers that tries to prove the obvious common sense every layman knows. Nothing insightful out there.
Could you explain why Zilibotti's research is bad and what his "network" is?
HRM demand side here. The corruption problem is not just unfair, it promotes bad research. Look at Zillibotti promoting himself and his network through ECMA -- these people get tenure at good places and then push more of this bad stuff.
Economics is alive and well within the Post-Keynesian school. Given the intellectual bankruptcy of the current paradigm (neoclassical), it's very possible that the rest of the profession and a lot of the top schools gradually evolve in the Post-Keynesian direction.
Economics is alive and well within the Post-Keynesian school. Given the intellectual bankruptcy of the current paradigm (neoclassical), it's very possible that the rest of the profession and a lot of the top schools gradually evolve in the Post-Keynesian direction.
Bingo! PK econ makes the greatest sense when it comes to macroeconomics.
Could you explain why Zilibotti's research is bad and what his "network" is?
HRM demand side here. The corruption problem is not just unfair, it promotes bad research. Look at Zillibotti promoting himself and his network through ECMA -- these people get tenure at good places and then push more of this bad stuff.
Just read his work, including the papers published in ECMA while he was editor. Ask yourself whether you believe anything he says. Expert on China? Rrrrrrright. For network, look at DA and all his cronies.
Look at his papers in detail and it should hit you like a sledgehammer in the face. If it doesn't you probably also still believe in Santa
Explain in detail why you think Lucas was bad. His critique of reg monkeys' beloved 'policy-relevant' papers will continue to be a regmonkey nightmare, is this why you hate him so bad?
econ is now: weak math reg monkeys or strong math mathurbation.
great economic thinkers with great technical abilities like Lucas is rare nowadays.Thank God there won't be another Lucas.
Look at his papers in detail and it should hit you like a sledgehammer in the face. If it doesn't you probably also still believe in Santa
Explain in detail why you think Lucas was bad. His critique of reg monkeys' beloved 'policy-relevant' papers will continue to be a regmonkey nightmare, is this why you hate him so bad?
econ is now: weak math reg monkeys or strong math mathurbation.
great economic thinkers with great technical abilities like Lucas is rare nowadays.Thank God there won't be another Lucas.</blockquo
te>
Bingo!
It’s not dead, but importance has been traded for “identification.” The laughable thing is that even for these inane questions, identification of causality requires untestable, stringent assumptions. So in the end we are still answering questions unconvincingly with these questions being pointless.