Trevor Chow (Taylor’s Version)

@tmychow

jardine scholar ‘23 • emergent ventures grantee • econ blog ⬇️

  /   /   bi he/him
tmychow.com
Joined July 2017
137 Photos and videos Photos and videos

Tweets

You blocked @tmychow

Are you sure you want to view these Tweets? Viewing Tweets won't unblock @tmychow

  1. Pinned Tweet
    Mar 8

    🥃 on 🧊, 🌇 and 🍇 Here's a list of potentially useful tweets I've made (which I think are worth keeping) - I've mostly ignored the ones which just link to my blogposts:

    1 reply 6 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  2. Apr 24

    Everyone loves him:

    9 likes
    Undo
  3. Apr 23

    The longest standing 3-man core is now over, so we could see interesting changes: maybe xyp out for es3tag and bubzkji replacing dev1ce? Gla1ve is having a kid, so he could leave too?

    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  4. Apr 23

    WTF? Nooooo

    3:27
    Thank you for everything.
    Show this thread
    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  5. Apr 22

    Badtrousers

    Replying to @Joshua_Z_Miller @gabriel_mathy
    Joshua, there isn't going to be another once in a century depression in your life time. Join us in micro while there is still time.
    2 likes
    Undo
  6. Apr 22

    Of course, if the best response we get is that of “wahh I’m going to call this pedantic because I have no understanding of how econ works”, that’s fair enough. But one’s unfamiliarity with formal economic models shouldn’t be a reason to assume that conflations don’t matter.

    Replying to @besttrousers @soft_fox_lad and 3 others
    1) Ah yes, the 18 second out of context clip is a ''misleading claim'' , wow much honesty! 2) Yup, medlock and destiny agree, medlock just wanted to be pedantic and predent destiny was wrong. Thanks for properly summarizing the argument
    1 reply
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  7. Apr 22

    This is even more obvious if we think of the second reason for monopsonistic phenomena i.e. DMP-esque search models. In that case, it is abundantly clear that the demand for labour hasn't changed at all - it is literally just about the search and match process creating frictions.

    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  8. Apr 22

    (i.e. average cost curve) goes from being flat to being sloped up in the (employment,wage) space. Consequently, the marginal cost curve slopes up too. So in a very important sense, the demand for labour (think MPL) hasn't changed - rather, it is the firm's ability to price-set.

    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  9. Apr 22

    Destiny gets confused and says that "demand for your labour falls" with monopsony, which is categorically not the case. This is evident in the way we model monopsonies i.e. what changes isn't the labour demand curve. Rather, it is the fact that the labour supply curve

    2 replies 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  10. Apr 22

    Not a huge amount of value in engaging, but to be clear for everyone else's sake: Destiny's claim was that "you get compensated based on demand". Medlock notes that this isn't "alone" the deciding factor due to monopsonistic markets (via bargaining and search frictions).

    2 replies
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  11. Apr 22

    In that vein, see below.

    Replying to @tmychow
    - Say something wrong - Get called out for being wrong - Double down on being wrong - Insult you - Haha! You have lost the argument. Good job guys, keep it up!
    2 replies 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  12. Apr 22

    I find it admirable (if slightly confusing) how Matt is always able to be relentlessly polite in the face of people like this who aren’t just wrong, but rude about it too...

    Replying to @besttrousers @jdcmedlock and 2 others
    His original tweet. ''It's important to recognize that labor compensation in practice is generally not set by competitive markets based on supply and demand alone, but rather by monopsonistic markets'' Thats literally his whole argument dumbfuck
    3 replies 6 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  13. Apr 22

    Some of reticence against letting economy run hot/allowing human challenge trials/permitting people to take J&J is cus errors of action (inflation spiral, medical issues) are more salient than errors of omission (marginalised ppl screwed, opp cost) - how can we fix incentives?

    1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes
    Undo
  14. Apr 22

    AIT recognises that we’ve taken the bowl away too early in past and so underprivileged ppl have never gotten the punch. Hence we can wait longer this time, just as ppl get tipsy and have fun. Flatter NKPC means waiting still lets us take it away before ppl end up throw-up-drunk.

    The famous doctrine of has always been William McChesney Martin’s remark: Fed’s job is to “take away the punch bowl” before the party gets out of hand. What we are now saying is we are not going to do anything until we see a bunch of drunk people staggering around
    Show this thread
    1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  15. Apr 22

    And do I know how to fix this? No.

    Is it the cleanest code I’ve ever written? No. But does it get the job done? Also no
    2 retweets 4 likes
    Undo
  16. Apr 22

    Broke: GDP Woke: HDI Bespoke: Jones-Klenow welfare measure

    HDI vs GDP Twitter discourse is insanely stupid.
    1 reply 9 likes
    Undo
  17. Apr 21

    Except ppl never acc got drunk (full emp) cus we underestimated their tolerance (output gap). And cus there’s a gap btw being drunk (full emp) and being too drunk you end up hungover (overheating), we now let the party go on longer knowing we can take away the punch bowl later!

    Larry Summers earlier today: Fed doctrine had been "to take away the punch bowl before the party gets out of hand. What we've now said is — we're not going to do anything until we see a bunch of drunk people staggering around." (12:58 ish)
    1 reply 4 likes
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  18. Apr 21

    cc because I'm curious whether you have an issue in principle with the idea that religion is a big part of someone's electoral decisions or whether you have an issue in practice with the specific way in which Lucy is doing so?

    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  19. Apr 21

    important but not absolute factor i.e. would be willing to vote for atheists in some cases (which did), I'm inclined to believe that it's being taken as consideration re morals/world outlook, not identity. So who are we to say that this isn't an acceptable heuristic?

    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  20. Apr 21

    you can vote based on moral frameworks/sb's outlook about the world. The reason this atheism thing is contentious is because religion is both part of ppl's identity and part of ppl's moral frameworks. So it's in a grey area between the two ends. BUT if sb says that religion is an

    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo
  21. Apr 21

    Don't want to wade into this much more, but: If sb said "wouldn't vote for an Asian person", we'd be mad cus we think it's illegitimate to discriminate on identity. If sb said "wouldn't vote for sb who supported SALT cap repeal", we'd be fine with that as a choice, cus we think

    1 reply 1 like
    Show this thread
    Show this thread
    Undo

@tmychow hasn't Tweeted yet.

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.

    You may also like

    ·