Close

Complete Captcha

• 8 years - 67 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 186 Goods vs 104 No Goods

1. Economist
   efa4
   

   If you think that what McGrattan and Prescott do for location is even remotely on the same level as what Solow did for capital or what Becker did for human capital, please go read the two M-P papers (JET 2009, AER 2010.)

   When you think you are too stupid to understand what they are saying and want to give up, trust me, it isn’t you. What they are saying makes no sense. No one can understand it. The authors do not understand it.

   Here is a sample of what you can expect:

   Technology capital is distinguished from other types of capital in that a firm can use it simultaneously in multiple domestic and foreign locations. (Footnote: In the language of classical general equilibrium theory, a unit of technology capital is a set of technologies, with one technology for each location.) (JET 2009, p. 2455)
   “A unit … is a set”? This is just gibberish. Forget about whether the model connects in any meaningful way to the real world. There is no way to make sense of this statement even in the make-believe world of the model. In the model, the authors define technology capital is a cardinal measure. It is supposed to be something that you can have 2 units of, or 4, or 10. What could 2 or 4 or 10 sets of technologies possibly mean?

   We assume that the measure of a country’s production locations is proportional to its population, since locations correspond to markets and some measure of people defines a market. (JET 2009 p. 2461)
   I feel guilty pulling a quote like this one, as if I’m humiliating some miserable undergraduate by reading to the class from a term paper on a project that fell apart. But remember, this is from an article that was published in the Journal of Economic Theory.

   ....

   It was an embarrassment for me that the 2007 NBER version contained the acknowledgement “Discussions with Robert Lucas and Paul Romer were extremely helpful…”

   Here’s a good way to test whether anyone thinks that the theory in the McGrattan-Prescott papers is on a par with the theory developed by Becker or Solow. I’ll put up $10,000. They can tell me what odds they would have to get to take the other side of a bet where I win if the McGrattan-Prescott notion of location does not lead to a revision of the official US statistical system.

   Same for a bet that their concept of location not achieve wide acceptance outside of economics. Or even in economics.

   http://paulromer.net/ed-prescott-is-no-robert-solow-no-gary-becker/

   8 years ago # QUOTE 18 Volod 2 Vlad !

2. Economist
   597f
   

   rekt

   8 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

3. Economist
   ad3d
   

   Romer is c7a1?

   8 years ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 3 Vlad !

4. Economist
   15c1
   

   goddamn

   8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !

5. Economist
   9d8f
   

   Micro bro here, why is Romer so mad? Or does all macro seem this personal?

   8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 1 Vlad !

6. Economist
   efb1
   

   Seems Romer feels like Lucas is campaigning against non-rival goods and bending the math because he cannot accept a world without competition and price-taking behavior: http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2015.01.25/1685.html

   8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   28ef
   

   Romer mentioned a few times now that he has been voicing this concerns privately or as referee/discussant to the people targeted and they just failed to address his points. This seems to be the reason why he went public like this, even though it's messy and a black eye for the profession.

   Notice also that he targeted tenured seniors, with the exception of Moll who's a collateral casualty.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 13 Volod 1 Vlad !

8. Economist
   bd7b
   

   Yeah... Lucas is way way way way past his prime. Just harping craziness nowadays.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

9. Economist
   03da
   

   JPE still published the Lucas paper after his mathiness issue. It's sad for the profession.

   8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    9819
    

    ^ Very true. Lucas made some wonderful methodological and conceptual strides in dynamic macro back in the day, but some the stuff he's been talking about in the relatively recent past is just nuts.

    I distinctly remember watching the Nobel symposium on growth theory in late 2012 (the videos of talks are still online somewhere), and Lucas got made fun of pretty harshly when he presented his JPE paper with Moll. Romer and Chad Jones (if I remember correctly) both picked up on the double limit issue, and Lucas simply responded with "well, yeah, we could add a bunch of other mechanisms to the model to address your concern, but I'm not going to do it, and [enter lots of handwaving] it doesn't make a difference anyway."

    Clearly the latter part is not true (as Romer's "Mathiness" appendix shows very clearly). While Romer does come across as a bit nasty and butthurt, it's good that someone reputable is willing to strike down bullsh*t with such conviction.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 12 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    e39c
    

    Lucas is a confused old man. Only fame-loving Chinese grad students at UChicago want to work with him.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 3 Vlad !

12. Economist
    bd7b
    

    it's good that someone reputable is willing to strike down bullsh*t with such conviction.

    The world needs a lot more of this because Lucas is very nasty when he doesn't like something and can bully other people around. If there ever was a person that needed to taste his own medicine then this is one of those guys.

    Don't get me wrong, if everything Lucas did was good I'd accept him even though he could do this without being a horrible person. But lately he can't get anything straight and simply strikes out when people bring disagree with him. Aren't people supposed to get nicer and more helpful when they got older?

    I'm not a Romer fan, but the academic world needs a Paul Romer to stand up.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 1 Vlad !

13. Economist
    809d
    

    ftfy

    the academic world needs a crazy nut to throw feces around

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 5 Vlad !

14. Economist
    0d6d
    

    This is why I love econ. Senior dudes willing to call out other senior dudes for being full of it. Kudos to Romer.

    If you think that what McGrattan and Prescott do for location is even remotely on the same level as what Solow did for capital or what Becker did for human capital, please go read the two M-P papers (JET 2009, AER 2010.)
    When you think you are too stupid to understand what they are saying and want to give up, trust me, it isn’t you. What they are saying makes no sense. No one can understand it. The authors do not understand it.
    Here is a sample of what you can expect:
    Technology capital is distinguished from other types of capital in that a firm can use it simultaneously in multiple domestic and foreign locations. (Footnote: In the language of classical general equilibrium theory, a unit of technology capital is a set of technologies, with one technology for each location.) (JET 2009, p. 2455)
    “A unit … is a set”? This is just gibberish. Forget about whether the model connects in any meaningful way to the real world. There is no way to make sense of this statement even in the make-believe world of the model. In the model, the authors define technology capital is a cardinal measure. It is supposed to be something that you can have 2 units of, or 4, or 10. What could 2 or 4 or 10 sets of technologies possibly mean?
    We assume that the measure of a country’s production locations is proportional to its population, since locations correspond to markets and some measure of people defines a market. (JET 2009 p. 2461)
    I feel guilty pulling a quote like this one, as if I’m humiliating some miserable undergraduate by reading to the class from a term paper on a project that fell apart. But remember, this is from an article that was published in the Journal of Economic Theory.
    ....
    It was an embarrassment for me that the 2007 NBER version contained the acknowledgement “Discussions with Robert Lucas and Paul Romer were extremely helpful…”
    Here’s a good way to test whether anyone thinks that the theory in the McGrattan-Prescott papers is on a par with the theory developed by Becker or Solow. I’ll put up $10,000. They can tell me what odds they would have to get to take the other side of a bet where I win if the McGrattan-Prescott notion of location does not lead to a revision of the official US statistical system.
    Same for a bet that their concept of location not achieve wide acceptance outside of economics. Or even in economics.
    http://paulromer.net/ed-prescott-is-no-robert-solow-no-gary-becker/

    8 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 1 Vlad !

15. Economist
    7628
    

    Here's the video: http://www.ur.se/Produkter/172343-UR-Samtiden-Nobelsymposium-Tillvaxt-och-utveckling-Humankapital

    At the end probably the scene that Warsh thought could not be found on Swedish television.

    ^ Very true. Lucas made some wonderful methodological and conceptual strides in dynamic macro back in the day, but some the stuff he's been talking about in the relatively recent past is just nuts.
    I distinctly remember watching the Nobel symposium on growth theory in late 2012 (the videos of talks are still online somewhere), and Lucas got made fun of pretty harshly when he presented his JPE paper with Moll. Romer and Chad Jones (if I remember correctly) both picked up on the double limit issue, and Lucas simply responded with "well, yeah, we could add a bunch of other mechanisms to the model to address your concern, but I'm not going to do it, and [enter lots of handwaving] it doesn't make a difference anyway."
    Clearly the latter part is not true (as Romer's "Mathiness" appendix shows very clearly). While Romer does come across as a bit nasty and butthurt, it's good that someone reputable is willing to strike down bullsh*t with such conviction.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    b2a7
    

    Paul Romer just self-pwn3d himself

    http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-irony-of-paul-romers-mathiness.html

    LOL

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    7bba
    

    Honestly, I don't see Romer's point. Those assumptions he mentioned seem reasonable and he's claiming that they represent something that the authors don't say.

    I mean, there's a ton of things I'd say about Prescot, don't get me started, but not those.

    Does anybody see the pattern? Lately Romer has been critizing many works in growth that take a different approach to his and doing a lot of lobbying. He seems loke trying to desperately claim that he's better than other Nobels.

    I guess that he feels that trip to Sweden going away. I mean, how desperate you are when you quote Noah?

    8 years ago # QUOTE 8 Volod 2 Vlad !

18. Economist
    48fe
    

    Paul Romer just self-pwn3d himself
    http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-irony-of-paul-romers-mathiness.html
    LOL

    Information Transfer Economics is not such a great source of economic clarity, either:
    http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/05/mathiness-and-solow-production-function.html

    8 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

19. Economist
    9819
    

    ^Yeah, that blog post is complete garbage. Mathematically, it's an issue of pointwise vs. uniform convergence, plain and simple. Economically, Romer says that Lucas + Moll don't get endogenous growth because of diffusion. Rather, they get endogenous growth because the "knowledge frontier" is already unbounded. Any empirical observations (which necessarily occur at finite T) depend critically on the rate of knowledge arrival. This guy just does not get it.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    187a
    

    Honestly, I don't see Romer's point. Those assumptions he mentioned seem reasonable and he's claiming that they represent something that the authors don't say.
    I mean, there's a ton of things I'd say about Prescot, don't get me started, but not those.
    Does anybody see the pattern? Lately Romer has been critizing many works in growth that take a different approach to his and doing a lot of lobbying. He seems loke trying to desperately claim that he's better than other Nobels.
    I guess that he feels that trip to Sweden going away. I mean, how desperate you are when you quote Noah?

    Granted, I am only 5 minutes into the Lucas speech, but he is not saying anything obviously wrong or stupid.

    Is Romer really just butthurt? Can someone please make this clear?

    There seem to be people ITT who want to side with Romer to make themselves feel smart because they are attacking a big mind. I would like more detail as to why this is not just that.

    8 years ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 1 Vlad !

Reply »