Arnold Kling  

Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris

PRINT
The Theory of Time and Fritter... Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assum...

That is my paper in Critical Review, which has a number of papers that I am eager to read.

This is the paper where I tear apart the macroeconometric models used to estimate the effects of fiscal stimulus. This is based on intimate knowledge of those models, which I gained very early in my career.


Comments and Sharing


CATEGORIES: Economic Methods



COMMENTS (11 to date)
Skeptic writes:

$34 to download. Seriously?

Julien Couvreur writes:

Paywall.

Nate writes:

$34 for access to the 10-page article? Sorry, but I'm not touching it.

Thucydides writes:

Arnold, when linking a piece behind a paywall, please note the fact in your text, saving readers useless clicks and page loads.

Joe writes:

Does the paper apply equally to monetary policy? If not, why the inconsistency?

JVDeLong writes:

I would have no problem paying a fee, but what about an NBER-level $5, or a Broadside $2 or $3?

I have noticed this about other academic journals, such as JSTOR, or Hein Online - they charge in this same neighborhood of $35/article.

You need to do a cut-down version for AEI or Regulation, or some other more accessible venue.

Justin R. writes:

Usually you can get a library card at a local university library, and the library will give you free online access to most journals.

Unfortunately, my local university only provides Critical Review articles up to a year ago...

Sean writes:

Incredible. By not mentioning that it was behind a paywall, I wasted one click of my mouse. That was the first time that ever happened to me when using the Internet.

You should really be more mindful. What kind of person are you?

If I hadn't wasted that click, I probably would have cured cancer.

Lance writes:

Oy vey. As a general rule, popular treatments of the EMH (I'm referring to the Collier article) should be avoided. Just because the EMH must be jointly-tested (with an asset pricing model, e,g.) does not mean it is not falsifiable.

Moreover, the random-walk hypothesis differs from EMH. Fama has said this.

There's so much confusion over EMH because it has become trapped in ideology, which is unfortunate.

Jonathon Hunt writes:

Hmmm... That abstract says something dangerously close to what a Rothbardian would say.

Stephen writes:

You all could read Theory and History by Mises. Online version is free and treats this subject (albeit from a philosophical perspective) in detail.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top