A First Lesson in Econometrics (1970) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: A First Lesson in Econometrics (1970) [pdf]

#61

Post by nevereasonfroma » Wed, Jan 05, 2022, 1:17 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #57

nevereasonfroma wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Sumner likes Mishkin's Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets. If you're in USA, looks like you can get the 7th edition for around $10. * https://www.themoneyillusion.com/the-league-of-monetary-cran... * https://www.themoneyillusion.com/mishkins-revealing-omission... His blog is great. Mainstream, orthodox macroeconomics. Well written, useful, and entertaining. Read the whole thing, in chronological…

>5. Mainstream macro says money is neutral in the long run, non neutral in the short run. This might be what you're looking for: the effect of short term non neutrality of money on relative prices across the overall economy. That's only true if you accept war and revolution to be a mechanism for reaching equilibrium over the long run.

Interesting! I don't see the connection between money neutrality, long run equilibrium, and war & revolution. What's the story here?

Re: A First Lesson in Econometrics (1970) [pdf]

#62

Post by vladimirralev » Wed, Jan 05, 2022, 2:33 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #58

vladimirralev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is the mainstream, but all of this reads like total nonsense to me. 1. Price changes carry important information too. What if demand stays the same but price still goes up? It could there is too much money, or supply is constrained or a new tax was imposed in the chain, or something was banned or the market is simply inefficient. 2. Low rates are sign that money has been tight? Maybe in a world where rate…

>2. Ask anybody on the street if they demand more money and 100% will say yes. Why doesn't the Fed increase the money supply for the random Joe on the street, but does so to cover unsustainable liquidity commitments made by banks? The unsettling answer is that you would lose your job if they didn't do that and I don't mean because the chaos a bank collapse causes. No, I just mean that the money in circulation would d…

The only reason for people to take money out of circulation is because nobody managed to convince them to spend or invest in something worthy. If the economy can't produce enough worthy money sinks, that is a structural problem with regulation, entrepreneur skills/education and general business UX.

Printing money doesn't fix any of these issues, the only thing money printing does is force the money into the overcrowded money sinks (AAPL) and scams (NFTs). And I am willing to argue this makes the problem worse, because talent is now wasted into supporting scams or the best talent is retiring on passive income from money printing instead of finding new ways to convince investors and consumers to spend productively.

Re: A First Lesson in Econometrics (1970) [pdf]

#63

Post by boppo1 » Wed, Jan 05, 2022, 8:32 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #55

boppo1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is way off topic but hopefully it will get allowed because I think you have the expertise to help: It seems to me that the widely accepted practice of market stimulation by interest rate intervention has the cost of destroying price discovery. Also, that it is a primary cause of wealth inequality. These relationships seem to me actually obvious: push down DCF denominators and valuations go up, inefficient busine…

>It seems to me that the widely accepted practice of market stimulation by interest rate intervention has the cost of destroying price discovery. The idea that low interest rates stimulate anything is a myth. If you believe in the idea that the financial markets should obey the real world, rather than the opposite (which is assumed by practically all economics), then interest rates must go down all the way to 0% as t…

Oh man I'm really glad so many people jumped on my post, I'm looking forward to reading all of it and catching up and hopefully improving my grasp. At a glance though, this stuck out:

>...you take money out of the economy by saving it, the money in circulation goes down.

How do you take money out of the economy by saving it (unless it's under the mattress)? Banks make loans out of my savings, no? I thought a pretty common/basic macro identity was that savings = investment (or at least they are about equal and the same thing).

Re: A First Lesson in Econometrics (1970) [pdf]

#64

Post by xtiansimon » Fri, Jan 07, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #10

xtiansimon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t there a thing about how mathematicians and scientists in the 19th century would carefully explain as if the intended audience we’re laypeople. Where as in the 20th century academic writing and popular science writing diverged such that an academic writer could say such and such is obvious and be speaking to a very niche audience?

I heard of a prof who in a lecture said "It's obvious that..." and a student challenged him on it. "Is that really obvious?" The professor looked at the board for a minute, then left the room. 45 minutes later , the professor came back and said, "Yes, it's obvious!" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

“…would you say I have a plethora?”