Tom Holden
@tholden.org
Researcher, macroeconomist, Bundesbank.
All views are my own personal opinions and do not reflect the opinion of the Bundesbank, the Eurosystem, or its staff.
www.tholden.org
@t_holden on Twitter. tom_d_holden on Threads.
All views are my own personal opinions and do not reflect the opinion of the Bundesbank, the Eurosystem, or its staff.
www.tholden.org
@t_holden on Twitter. tom_d_holden on Threads.
I presented my current main focus at the fall Midwest Macro, so I can't really justify going with it again, unfortunately. Everything else is a bit too preliminary to submit.
February 6, 2025 at 2:51 PM
I presented my current main focus at the fall Midwest Macro, so I can't really justify going with it again, unfortunately. Everything else is a bit too preliminary to submit.
I can't find the source I found when writing the posts. This one is not particularly reliable. x.com/RadarHits/st...
For the data, see milei.ufm.edu/es/monitor-m...
For the data, see milei.ufm.edu/es/monitor-m...
x.com
x.com
January 5, 2025 at 9:59 PM
I can't find the source I found when writing the posts. This one is not particularly reliable. x.com/RadarHits/st...
For the data, see milei.ufm.edu/es/monitor-m...
For the data, see milei.ufm.edu/es/monitor-m...
But (a) it's perhaps OK to reason from explicit policy statements about a desire to control debt and (b) most FTPL proponents repeatedly do the same - see the desire to explain current inflation with current high government spending.
January 5, 2025 at 8:24 PM
But (a) it's perhaps OK to reason from explicit policy statements about a desire to control debt and (b) most FTPL proponents repeatedly do the same - see the desire to explain current inflation with current high government spending.
Cochrane stresses that FTPL is observationally equivalent to anything else and I stress that active monetary RRR is observationally equivalent to anything else. So yeah, it's rather bad form to do what I'm doing here and reason from short run debt movements.
January 5, 2025 at 8:21 PM
Cochrane stresses that FTPL is observationally equivalent to anything else and I stress that active monetary RRR is observationally equivalent to anything else. So yeah, it's rather bad form to do what I'm doing here and reason from short run debt movements.
They had a explicit policy of capping money growth. Nominal rates are also an equilibrium outcome. You can't infer much from their in equilibrium dynamics.
January 5, 2025 at 8:14 PM
They had a explicit policy of capping money growth. Nominal rates are also an equilibrium outcome. You can't infer much from their in equilibrium dynamics.
Post-Milei, surpluses apparently do respond to debt = passive fiscal policy (not FTPL). Meanwhile monetary policy was certainly active as they limited money growth. And the result was stable inflation.
A win for the conventional non-FTPL way of controlling inflation. 2/2
A win for the conventional non-FTPL way of controlling inflation. 2/2
December 10, 2024 at 9:03 PM
Post-Milei, surpluses apparently do respond to debt = passive fiscal policy (not FTPL). Meanwhile monetary policy was certainly active as they limited money growth. And the result was stable inflation.
A win for the conventional non-FTPL way of controlling inflation. 2/2
A win for the conventional non-FTPL way of controlling inflation. 2/2
You have encountered more reasonable institutions than me clearly!
December 7, 2024 at 4:36 PM
You have encountered more reasonable institutions than me clearly!
Do coauthored papers get the reward divided by n, or by less (root n say). If it's not n then solo authorship is being punished. It would have to be more than n for solo authorship to be rewarded.
As for your reputation with coauthors, that's a function of others failing to divide by n.
As for your reputation with coauthors, that's a function of others failing to divide by n.
December 7, 2024 at 4:09 PM
Do coauthored papers get the reward divided by n, or by less (root n say). If it's not n then solo authorship is being punished. It would have to be more than n for solo authorship to be rewarded.
As for your reputation with coauthors, that's a function of others failing to divide by n.
As for your reputation with coauthors, that's a function of others failing to divide by n.
I make coats, you make left shoes, your coauthor makes right shoes. You want as much credit for a left shoe as I get for a coat? Hmm.
December 7, 2024 at 2:38 PM
I make coats, you make left shoes, your coauthor makes right shoes. You want as much credit for a left shoe as I get for a coat? Hmm.
Yes, sorry I've been bad. I was travelling for most of November, and before I was distracted with some other things. It has been on my mind. Just clearing my referee report backlog then it'll be at the top of my list.
December 7, 2024 at 1:49 PM
Yes, sorry I've been bad. I was travelling for most of November, and before I was distracted with some other things. It has been on my mind. Just clearing my referee report backlog then it'll be at the top of my list.
A great article on this topic brought to my attention by @gr0ssmann from the other place:
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
Our uneconomic methods of measuring economic research
Academic economists – especially in the US – are continuously evaluated, with salaries and promotions hanging on outcomes. This column argues that the methods – identified from a survey of economics department chairs – are likely to reduce the amount of research created, perpetuate inefficiently sized research teams, promote false authorship, and penalise honest researchers. They also provide departments with excessive leeway to engage in potentially capricious behaviour.
cepr.org
December 7, 2024 at 12:53 PM
A great article on this topic brought to my attention by @gr0ssmann from the other place:
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
cepr.org/voxeu/column...
Theorists particularly lose out from a convention of counting papers without dividing by n, as theory is more naturally a solo pursuit.
And yes, this thread does in part reflect my personal frustrations... 4/4
And yes, this thread does in part reflect my personal frustrations... 4/4
December 7, 2024 at 11:13 AM
Theorists particularly lose out from a convention of counting papers without dividing by n, as theory is more naturally a solo pursuit.
And yes, this thread does in part reflect my personal frustrations... 4/4
And yes, this thread does in part reflect my personal frustrations... 4/4
I've heard people justifying dividing by less that n-authors with "we want to encourage people to take advantage of increasing returns to scale". But if there are increasing returns, people have a strong incentive to coauthor even if you divide by n-authors in evaluating CVs. 3/4
December 7, 2024 at 11:13 AM
I've heard people justifying dividing by less that n-authors with "we want to encourage people to take advantage of increasing returns to scale". But if there are increasing returns, people have a strong incentive to coauthor even if you divide by n-authors in evaluating CVs. 3/4
If anything one solo paper should be more valuable than three three-author papers, as there's no uncertainty about contribution with the solo. 2/4
December 7, 2024 at 11:13 AM
If anything one solo paper should be more valuable than three three-author papers, as there's no uncertainty about contribution with the solo. 2/4
I guess the dean liked his plan to fire half the department (casually announced over lunch).
October 3, 2023 at 7:59 PM
I guess the dean liked his plan to fire half the department (casually announced over lunch).
In my last job, we had an external candidate for head of department who, in his job talk, responded to each question by walking up to the chair of the person who asked the question, till he was almost touching them, and then shouting down his answer. He did not get the job, though he came close.
October 3, 2023 at 7:02 PM
In my last job, we had an external candidate for head of department who, in his job talk, responded to each question by walking up to the chair of the person who asked the question, till he was almost touching them, and then shouting down his answer. He did not get the job, though he came close.