Close

Complete Captcha

• 11 years - 38 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 340 Goods vs 103 No Goods

1. Economist
   d5f0
   

   Choice quotes:

   "Why do I have to read this? The paper contributes nothing - not even an
   opinion or belief - on any of the substantive questions of macroeconomics."

   "Ball and Mankiw have nothing to offer on this question, beyond saying, trivially, that they believe the answer is a positive number and suggesting, falsely and dishonestly, that others have asserted it is zero. Yet monetary non-neutrality is the intended
   subject of their paper!"

   "One can speculate about the purposes for which
   this paper was written-a box in the Economist?-but obviously it is not an
   attempt to engage other macroeconomic researchers in debate over research
   strategies."

   Read the whole thing, it's quite short:

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/77085319/Lucas

   He's got a point, "Sticky Price Manifesto" was a pretty ridiculous paper in its tone.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 38 Volod 7 Vlad !

2. Economist
   dc1d
   

   His presentation at the conference was even better -- he looked like he was going to throw a chair at Larry Ball. Too bad he didn't.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 26 Volod 2 Vlad !

3. Economist
   9598
   

   It's the beginning of the revolution. Viva la revolucion!

   11 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

4. Economist
   7e5b
   

   Lucas good.
   Mankiw, Ball and other ass monkeys no good.

   No news here.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 23 Volod 19 Vlad !

5. Economist
   6d0c
   

   How many light years behind are you guys? It is sooo old news. Post something new and relevant.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 6 Vlad !

6. Economist
   d5f0
   

   Graduate students are just now reading this old stuff. If I had been an economist when this exchange took place I wouldn't be making this topic. This was a citation in a paper that was on the reading list.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 10 Volod 0 Vlad !

7. Economist
   a9d6
   

   Lucas owns. The man really is great. I can see why someone like krugnuts wouldn't like him. All argument and accuracy.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 19 Volod 9 Vlad !

8. Economist
   d5f0
   

   Yeah Lucas seems pretty swell. Something admirable in being harshly attacked in public forums routinely, then shrugging it off and continuing to do what you've always done: research, seminars etc.

   (And making the occasional job market candidate or young AP cry during a presentation)

   11 years ago # QUOTE 19 Volod 4 Vlad !

9. Economist
   d5f0
   

   Mankiw FTW (for the worst) Harvard economist ever.

   I actually like Mankiw as well, but that paper was... yeah.

   11 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

10. Economist
    fbac
    

    Krugman needs to read that comment to update his knowledge of how macro research is done. My favorite quote: "Why does it matter that Hicks and Modigliani showed us how to distill intelligible equation systems out of the confusions of Keynes’s General Theory?"

    11 years ago # QUOTE 9 Volod 4 Vlad !

11. Economist
    c81c
    

    op good

    11 years ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 1 Vlad !

12. Economist
    1888
    

    @bac8: Quoted out of context that way, this is very, very misleading. Let's put the quote into context:

    ------

    The cost of the ideological approach adopted by Ball and Mankiw is tha one loses contact with the progressive, cumulative science aspect of macroeconomics. In order to recognize the existence and possibility of research progress, one needs to recognize deficiencies in traditional views, to acknowledge the existence of unresolved questions on which intelligent people can differ. For the ideological traditionalist, this acknowledgement is too risky. Better to deny the possibility of real progress, to treat new ideas as useful only in refuting new heresies, in getting us back where we were before the heretics threatened to spoil everything. There is a tradition that must be defended against heresy, but within that tradition there is no development, only unchanging truth.

    Research that was in fact directed at difficult questions becomes trivialized, no matter which side it is on. Hume, Friedman, Schwartz, Keynes,Hicks, Modigliani become merely interchangeable spokesmen for a fixed set of ideas. Why does it matter that Friedman and Schwartz carefully assembled and examined data on U.S. monetary history, if the real effects of changes in money were evident to Hume, who had no systematic data on either money or production? Why does it matter that Hicks and Modigliani showed us how to distill intelligible equation systems out of the confusions of Keynes’s General Theory? Why does it matter that theorists today are developing new models of pricing? If work like this represents progress, it must be because it contributes to resolving some difficulty or deficiency with earlier theory or evidence or both.

    11 years ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 2 Vlad !

13. Economist
    1c36
    

    Hairy Ball no good

    10 years ago # QUOTE 6 Volod 1 Vlad !

14. Economist
    8923
    

    Damn. What did Ball and Mankiw say at the conference after Lucas presented this? I cannot place a single instance where an economist goes for the jugular like this in public. I go to all the sucky conferences and presentations apparently.

    10 years ago # QUOTE 5 Volod 1 Vlad !

15. Economist
    01ed
    

    Harvardites now jumping off ledges frantically! Their god has been ripped a new one. We don't feel your pain Haawaad.

    10 years ago # QUOTE 7 Volod 7 Vlad !

16. Economist
    37db
    

    Good review.

    9 years ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !

17. Economist
    400b
    

    Lucas: Mankiw no giod

    Lucas: Let's give tenure to Mulligan.

    9 years ago # QUOTE 36 Volod 3 Vlad !

18. Economist
    50cb
    

    As time passes by we all realize how dumb Bob is

    9 years ago # QUOTE 31 Volod 4 Vlad !

19. Economist
    cd0f
    

    Anyone,absolutely anyone who thinks that Lucas is great should read some of the stuff he coauthored after the 2008 recession,should keep in mind that he wholeheartedly supported the RBC agenda and gave tenure to Mulligan while going out of his way to deny it to Woodford. LOL at the Chicago retards who cry out that Mankiw's research is inconsequential while being forcefedthe crap of Mulligan,Cochrane and some of the trivial stuff of Lucas. LJL @ retards who cried everyday that Bernanke was wrong for the last 8 years;only to get s**tfaced everytime. Every f**king time. The basic reason why macro is no good is because of the C-school. Also someone mentioned Krugman- have you read his BPEA? Thats arguably one of the best papers in macro in the last 10 years-written by a trade theorist. As a matter of fact the only area of macro thats still relevant and good is international macro,where C-schoolites(specially the expectations,microfoundations crowd) have had little influence.

    9 years ago # QUOTE 41 Volod 7 Vlad !

20. Economist
    4592
    

    Robert Lucas, AEA 2003 Presidential Address:

    "My thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics in this original sense has succeeded: Its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades."

    9 years ago # QUOTE 15 Volod 3 Vlad !

Reply »