Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Basil Halperin
PhD student . Formerly , ,
537
Tweetovi
899
Pratim
771
Osobe koje vas prate
Tweetovi
Basil Halperin 4. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @BrianCAlbrecht @UpdatedPriors
Is it still alive?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @laurayzhang
@ me you coward
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 28. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @andreamatranga @calebwatney
Uber as universal basic (labor) income
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 21. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @MacRoweNick
Worth noting, the examples here all operate through capital accumulation — they would still predict zero effect of money on TFP (up to measurement issues?) Effect on TFP seems like a hallmark of LR non-neutrality
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 21. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @JWMason1
I have my own doubts about the methods, but if you know of any better empirical evidence on this question, I would be very curious
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 21. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AntonioFatas
If there is other evidence using an equally credible* identification strategy, I'd be very curious *though subjective; and though this has its own problems; etc
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 20. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @BasilHalperin
There are (very) important reasons to be skeptical of the identification; but IMO the paper is still using a creative method to tackle a very important question Big, _if_ true!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 20. sij
File under "big if true": new Jorda, Singh, and Taylor paper uses trilemma IV and finds that Tight monetary policy lowers productivity in the (12y) long run (!) => Expansionary monetary policy boosts long-run productivity (!) So money is not neutral?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 19. sij
=> Maybe implications for fasting research? (cc perhaps )
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 19. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @ArtirKel @BretWeinstein
Re: animal models Hear the Eric- podcast? Claims: 1. Lab mice in US come from two labs 2. Breeding mice killed after ~8 months because useless => no selection pressure from cancer => lab mice have super long telomeres => corrupted science
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @t0nyyates @MacRoweNick
Not sure I follow -- if the exogeneity condition is violated at all, you do not have identification
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @t0nyyates @MacRoweNick
This would suggest JST *underestimate* effect sizes. Problem: "supply shocks" cause the bias to go the other direction (Problem is even worse if shocks are asymmetric) (Hard to fit in a tweet; I've been tempted to blog this, not sure if appropriate with a working paper...)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @t0nyyates @MacRoweNick
Problem: 1. Negative shock ("China blows up") hits BOTH 2. Fed lowers i, so HK has to lower i 3. Lower i offsets shock in HK 4. Regressing y on i in HK => looks like monetary policy does nothing
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 17. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @t0nyyates @MacRoweNick
Concrete example: HK pegged to USD Ideal: 1. Negative shock hits US, not HK 2. Fed lowers i, so HK has to lower i 3. Exogenously lower i in HK, but no shock there, means boom in HK => 4. Can estimate impact of monetary policy shocks on HK economy (1/2)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AlecStapp @calebwatney i 3 ostali
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad @ATabarrok
To emphasize — this is exactly the conclusion of the last decade of debate over cross-sectional identification in macro. You need a model to go from PE to GE, and otherwise you’re diffing out the interesting stuff
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @paulnovosad @ATabarrok
Causal inference in general equilibrium is really hard, engrave it on my tomb stone
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @AlecStapp @calebwatney i 3 ostali
You can’t IPO if you’re bankrupt because your competitor won all the visa lotteries I agree with your larger point that it is in fact positive sum, but this study tells us *nothing* about that (without writing down a GE model to extrapolate)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @calebwatney @AlecStapp i 3 ostali
The paper has been widely misinterpreted on twitter, unfortunately (worth noting: the authors are careful not to draw inappropriate inferences)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Basil Halperin 15. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @BasilHalperin
(Obligatory PS that more immigration would be good anyway)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"