Just STFU. You have no idea what you're talking about.

WTF do you mean by "monetary policy doesn't matter"? Where did you get that from?

business fluctuations have almost no effect. Where the F*UCK did you get this s**t from?

-price stickiness cannot have any effect in theory. Dude do you even---Islands?

And in general to your obtuse interpretation of Lucas... the steady state is not the dynamics.

What bothers me the most here is not your idiocy of ''ranking'' economists as if their contribution was a representable scalar number but your the compounding effect that your ignorance has on your arrogance.

Now that I have a precise idea about the fact that you are either an advanced undergrad or a 1st year grad who only saw the Islands model, I do not want to attack you too much. But, for your own knowledge, you should try to compute the model implied volatility of output growth (hint: is less than 1/5 of what we observe), the IRFs and the autocorrelation (Hint: white noise -> no autocorrelation. Is that true also in the data?). Also, what does the model say about forward guidance?

Regarding price stickiness, please refer to Golosov&Lucas (2007). If I am not wrong there is a whole discussion also on the forum when it used to be populated by grad students and professors.

Here it is where I realized you must be a 1st-year student. When I was talking about business cycles, I was referring to a whole literature started by Lucas on estimating the cost of business cycles. His conclusion was that the cost is very low, but he didn't mention that is the result of what his friend Prescott showed 20 years before, i.e. that you need astronomically high RRA to match the equity risk premium.

PS: a treat for you. The equity premium puzzle has not been discovered by Mehra and Prescott, but by Shiller...