Close

Complete Captcha

• 1 month - 94 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 153 Goods vs 41 No Goods

1. Economist
   b6ff
   

   Suprised that no one mentioned the results in Decision theory - Schmeidler, Gilboa-Schmeidler, Bewley, Variational Preferences, GGMS 10, etc.
   These are all strong, influential, papers.

   Decision theorists do not use expected utility to make their own decisions.
   Case closed.

   Yes, but not the case you think

   Ok. You quote GGMS 10. It is a trivial composition of GS and Bewley.
   It is influential because it is GGMS. Not because there is any substance in it.

   Have you read the paper? If it were trivial, it wouldn't have 20+ years for someone to do it.

   Simplicity is a feature, not a bug.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

2. Economist
   b6ff
   

   And try to observe "objective rationality". It is laughable at best.

   My god. You cannot be anything above an undergrad. Let me guess: you also think utility maximization is bs because nobody derives things in their heads when shopping?

   1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

3. Economist
   859f
   

   Tyler Cowen, Zero Marginal Product workers aka ZoMPies

   1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

4. Economist
   dd4e
   

   Have you read the paper? If it were trivial, it wouldn't have 20+ years for someone to do it.
   Simplicity is a feature, not a bug.

   What you say is that the representation is valuable not the solution. Because anybody with half brain can see the solution in five minutes once the representation is given and GS and Bewley results are available.

   Now please enlighten us, what is so valuable about the representation?

   1 month ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !

5. Economist
   dd4e
   

   And I do not even mention the horrible Anscombe-Aumann framework.
   Just horrible for empirical work.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

6. Economist
   7f82
   

   I like some of the stuff the famous development guys did in the 90s and 2000s before they turned to all RCTs. O Ring Theory, herding behavior, etc.

   So literally Banerjee and Kremer before the randomista Marie Curie came along?

   1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

7. Economist
   1af9
   

   definitely not bayesian persuasion

   1 month ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 1 Vlad !

8. Economist
   4f6c
   

   OK if you really mean 50 years, here are a few that jumps to mind: Crawford and Sobel strategic communication, Gul and Pesendorfer temptation and self control, Kamenica and Gentzkow Bayesian Persuasion.

   I thought the proof in Crawford and Sobel turned out to be wrong, though. I could be miseremembering, though.

   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA17617
   which just goes to show that we will be talking about errors in theory papers even 40 years later, even though correct results might have fallen out of fashion.

   Should this be as big a scandal as empirical results that don't replicate?

   1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 2 Vlad !

9. Economist
   dd4e
   

   OK if you really mean 50 years, here are a few that jumps to mind: Crawford and Sobel strategic communication, Gul and Pesendorfer temptation and self control, Kamenica and Gentzkow Bayesian Persuasion.

   I thought the proof in Crawford and Sobel turned out to be wrong, though. I could be miseremembering, though.

   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA17617
   which just goes to show that we will be talking about errors in theory papers even 40 years later, even though correct results might have fallen out of fashion.

   Should this be as big a scandal as empirical results that don't replicate?

   the result is correct. Proofs are optional when results are correct. Ramanujan got his proofs from Shiva or some other deity.

   1 month ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

10. Economist
    e8f9
    

    OK if you really mean 50 years, here are a few that jumps to mind: Crawford and Sobel strategic communication, Gul and Pesendorfer temptation and self control, Kamenica and Gentzkow Bayesian Persuasion.

    I thought the proof in Crawford and Sobel turned out to be wrong, though. I could be miseremembering, though.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/ECTA17617
    which just goes to show that we will be talking about errors in theory papers even 40 years later, even though correct results might have fallen out of fashion.

    Should this be as big a scandal as empirical results that don't replicate?

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

11. Economist
    1af9
    

    what can bayesian persuasion tell us about the real world?
    - nothing.
    what impact does bp have on the real world?
    - nothing.
    will it stand the test of time?
    - maybe yes, if kamenica continues to allow these papers into jpe.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 0 Vlad !

12. Economist
    dd4e
    

    And try to observe "objective rationality". It is laughable at best.

    My god. You cannot be anything above an undergrad. Let me guess: you also think utility maximization is bs because nobody derives things in their heads when shopping?

    nope. What i mean is that shopping decisions are observable, while objective rationality is not. GS is about ambiguity aversion, Bewley is about incompleteness. The point in GMMS is that you can model both together, and that is the only reason why it is influential. But they did not make any effort to make either the representation or the story interesting. Just take any half baked approach and get Econometrica. Decision theory is in the abyss in part because of such approach to publishing.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

13. Economist
    4f6c
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !

14. Economist
    dd4e
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    Nope. The guy (Stephen Cook) who came up with the conjecture already got the credit.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 0 Vlad !

15. Economist
    dd4e
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    Fermat's great Theorem is called after the conjecture guy.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 3 Volod 0 Vlad !

16. Economist
    dd4e
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    Fermat's great Theorem is called after the conjecture guy.

    When the proof was published, it was not a scandal, was it?

    1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

17. Economist
    2aaa
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    Who will people remember Fermat or Wiles?

    1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

18. Economist
    f5b5
    

    All of decision theory will be relevant. Either to rationalize all garbage produced by empirical knuckleheads or to rebuild econ after we understand that the credibility revolution did more harm than good.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

19. Economist
    dd4e
    

    no. It's how things are meant to work. Someone found a counterexample and provided a modified proof,, but the theorem remained true, the result was not overturned. We have simply learned more about why the claim is true. There is no scandal here.

    So if I write up an incorrect proof of p=np or some other open conjecture, then I should get credit when the conjecture is actually, correctly, proven? Got it.

    Who will people remember Fermat or Wiles?

    Actually both, but this an extreme case of cultural significance.
    In the economics literature, the proofs are much less important than finding a true result. Sometimes the proof can be totally trivial and people still claim it is important (see GGMS 10 for example). They say "simplicity is a feature not a bug." But 99% of the time they are saving their precious effort to improve the result to something non-trivial.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

20. Economist
    dd4e
    

    All of decision theory will be relevant. Either to rationalize all garbage produced by empirical knuckleheads or to rebuild econ after we understand that the credibility revolution did more harm than good.

    If you have not noticed, 90% of decision theory is written about unobservable primitives. At least 10% of published papers have wrong results. It is bad out there.

    1 month ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

Reply »