.@Noahpinion writes a great commentary on a recent defense of macro by Ricardo Reis http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.ru/2017/04/ricardo-reis-defends-macro_13.html …
-
-
Replying to @alexeyguzey
Is it the post by
@Noahpinion that you like, or the one by Reis? I’ve read the former…1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Seems to sum to: “Many of our practices each independently guaranteed that what we did had no empirical value;
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
now we are doing some of those differently.” No argument—or even suggestion!—that resulting discipline has any empirical value.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
what do you mean by empirical value? Structural models, for example, inform real policy decisions
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexeyguzey
The time series of the Fed dot plot shows their macro model can’t even approx predict a variable they have full control over.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Wait, but dot plot isn't based on any model. It's just committee members' cheap talk. We don't see the predictions of their internal models.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexeyguzey @Meaningness
But also, it doesn't make sense to predict a variable you have a control over. Dot plot is about what they *feel* the fed funds should be.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexeyguzey
I suppose these series would be the ones to evaluate? Had that been done?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
my impression is Fed has been predicting “return to normal in 1-2 years” for ~7 years, and wrong throughout.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
but I don’t follow this closely.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.