-
Recent Posts
- Are ECB’s Greek bond purchases really irrelevant for the private sector?
- Is Greg getting bailed out by his rich uncle?
- Taylor legislation? Rules versus discretion misunderstood
- Partisanship and dismal economics blogging
- Chris Auld’s 18 signs
- The case for negative nominal interest rates and how to attain them: Revisiting the Buiter-Eisler approach
- No Negative Rates in Euroland (yet)
- Reinhart and Rogoff’s coding mistake: Much Ado About Nothing
Related
Archives
What is going on here?
American Economic Review Ben Bernanke Central bank governance Central bank independence central banks Christopher A. Sims debt crisis debt rating Economic schools economists' joke Euro European Central Bank European Union Federal funds rate Federal Open Market Commitee Federal Reserve Financial crisis Fiscal multiplier Fiscal stimulus forecasting Gavin Davies Government bonds inflation Inflation targeting interest rate Jean Claude Trichet John B. Taylor John Cochrane John Maynard Keynes Lars Svensson Mario Draghi Michael Woodford Milton Friedman N. Gregory Mankiw New-Keynesian models Nobel Prize Paul Krugman policy rules Public debt Quantitative easing Ramsey model Ricardian Equivalence Securities Markets Programme seigniorage Standard & Poor's Taylor rule Thomas J. Sargent Treaty on European Union Unconventional monetary policy United StatesOther economics/ economists' blogs:
(Needless to say, I do not necessarily agree with them or endorse them.)
Category Archives: Economic Sciences
The Krugman Multiplier is too big
Paul Krugman is a very active blogger. Almost every time he writes a post on his New York Times blog, there are several comments made around the economic blogosphere. And sometimes Krugman will respond to a few of the comments made, and then it sets off further comments, and so on. It is a Krugman Blog Multiplier. I posit that it needs no formal empirical evidence to establish that it is way above 1. Way above. In this New Year’s post I’ll show a recent example, and argue why this multiplier is too high, and why one should not always “exploit” large multipliers. Probably one of the issues on which … Continue reading
Don’t Fence Me In: Sargent rejects slogans
This is just a heads up for a recent interview with the new Nobel Laureate Thomas Sargent. In the New York Times article, “The Slogans Stop Here“, he explains the futility of trying to label economists as belonging to various theoretical or political “camps”. It is a great read, and I can’t help emphasizing the following: “If you go to seminars with guys who are actually doing the work and are trying to figure things out, it’s not ideological,” he said. “Half the people in the room may be Democrats and half may be Republicans. It just doesn’t matter.” These are simple, but great words. In my part of the … Continue reading
Sargent and Sims (2011)
Today, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (yes, this is the long and formal title for the Nobel in economics), was awarded to Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims. The following caption summarizes the motivation: “for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy” The longer motivation, and survey of the recipients’ academic contributions, can be found here (pdf 600 Kb). As a macroeconomist, I can only support this choice. These are definitely two of the profession’s “grand old men”, and it is difficult to write a modern paper without citing either of them, or both. Their influence in theoretical and … Continue reading
Posted in Economic Sciences, Economists, Macroeconomics
Tagged Christopher A. Sims, Nobel Prize, Thomas J. Sargent
Comments Off on Sargent and Sims (2011)
Krugman on “Republican Science”: Can we please make a trade barrier against that?
This is an endorsement. Paul Krugman’s recent Op-Ed in the New York Times describes in horrifying detail how some parts of America, and potential Republican Presidential candidates are turning their back against science. The piece, Republicans Against Science, is really scary. Read it and weep. The Wall Street Journal editorial by a Stephen Moore that Krugman mentions, can be found here. It is also a horrifying read. It basically says that economics is stupid, and common sense is better. Weep some more. It is scary right now for me, as my country have an election campaign where main issues are economic. And since American tendencies inevitably are imported in Europe … Continue reading
Posted in Economic Sciences, Macroeconomics
Tagged Paul Krugman, Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal
Comments Off on Krugman on “Republican Science”: Can we please make a trade barrier against that?
Economics as a Moral Science. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 2011
The annual Papers & Proceedings issue of the American Economic Review is always a good read. It is literally full of papers from leading scholars on the newest “hot” topics in the profession as well as updates on the status of more enduring topics. The format of the issue is ideal for those who want a fairly quick introduction or refresher on a subject, since each is covered by three to four short papers that made up the corresponding session at the recent winter meetings of the American Economic Association. For those who think that economics is a narrow-minded science, it is recommended to pick up the latest issue to … Continue reading
Posted in Economic Sciences, Economics, Economists
Tagged Adam Smith, American Economic Review, animal spirits, Anthony B. Atkinson, Benjamin M. Friedman, Jagdish Bhagwati, John Maynard Keynes, Moral Science, Religion, Robert J. Shiller, Virginia M. Shiller, Worldly Philosophers
Comments Off on Economics as a Moral Science. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 2011
