On the one hand, my three year old son shouldn't poor water through the holes in the top of my surround sound receiver / amplifier.
On the other hand, who thought it was a good idea to have holes there, right at the front where they're most accessible. Do these people not have kids?

The Democrats needed to win the last election. There are numerous paths towards the centre they could have taken to ensure this. No amount of ideological purity is preferable to this.
I really hope the Democrats are finally prepared to do what is necessary to win the next elections.

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.

Which macro conferences are in the US this summer? All of the usual suspects seem to be on other continents this year. Am I forgetting any? (Except the NBER SI which I won't be accepted to.)

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...

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.

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.

Worth joining Bluesky for this:

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

Looks the opposite to me.
Pre-Milei, surpluses apparently did not respond to debt = active fiscal policy as required by FTPL. But debt/GDP was growing, contrary to the prediction of the FTPL that prices jump to ensure sustainable debt. (Maybe monetary policy was active even then?) 1/2

My last post was also a bit of a test of this place vs the other one, as I cross posted. There was some initial engagement here, with similar initial like counts, but the Twitter algorithm started showing it to more people once it realised people were commenting etc. then the like counts diverged.

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.

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.

A great article on this topic brought to my attention by @gr0ssmann from the other place:
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

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

Three authors seems about average for an econ paper these days. So when we see a solo paper on someone's CV, we should mentally multiply it by three. But the profession doesn't seem to do this for some reason. Why? 1/4

New call for papers. Conference on:
"Structural Changes and the Implications for Inflation"
Eltville (near Frankfurt), 7-8 May 2024.
PDF of call: matthias-rottner.github.io/Files/Confer...
Submission link: www.conftool.pro/business-cyc...
Please submit!

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.

Also posted on Twitter at the same time. There: 47 likes, 12 reposts. Here 0 of both. The great migration hasn't happened yet!

I have released a new version of my "Robust Real Rate Rules" paper here: www.tholden.org/assets/files...
Featuring: empirics (no longer pure theory!), improved structure, new results on ZLB sunspot equilibria, more on communication, more on practicalities, etc. & even longer appendices!

One disadvantage of Bluesky's custom feeds is that it makes it harder to know when you're accidentally spamming people. On Twitter, I like literally every post from the Calvin and Hobbes fan account, but I like so much other junk that I know my followers are not going to see those likes. On Bluesky?

I don't think targeting top fives is crazy, but it's not always obvious on day one that a project has top five potential.
More important is not wasting time working on things once you realise they definitely won't result in a decent pub (whatever is your definition of that).

The most surprising thing was the cost of the food. £200 for a seven course tasting menu sounds pretty cheap when most rooms are over £3000!

I have a new proof of the Banach-Tarski theorem:
Take a full washing basket. Fill the washing machine with half its contents. Note that the washing basket is still full. QED

(The pressure of a blank timeline was too much. Future posts can only improve on this initial low bar.)