正準量子化を滅ぼす会改め場の演算子を滅ぼす会代表改めマシュー・プランク・クラマース関数復権友の会代表/みんなはもうリンゼイ言語類型論とExploring Language Structureを買ったか？ zenn: https://teapawt.org/t.co/IZLi8KKx6g
anywhere but here
Joined May 2010
- Tweets14K
- Following868
- Followers1.8K
- Likes222K
פיקם retweeted
lively-cuchufli-d25b34.netli…
↑
「信頼区間」の理解度チェック問題
פיקם retweeted
Some people do not learn from mistakes: the European Commission's new fiscal rules of 2024 use 90 percent debt ratio as an additional rule for guiding debt reduction, while this number was debunked more than 10 years earlier. This is not evidence-based but error-based policy.
A 28-year-old UMass graduate student got a homework assignment to reproduce a famous economics paper, couldn't make the numbers match, and found a spreadsheet mistake in a study that politicians had used to argue for budget cuts.
His name is Thomas Herndon.
In 2010, two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, published a short paper called Growth in a Time of Debt. Its headline finding: once a country's public debt goes above 90% of its economy, growth falls off a cliff. In their numbers, average growth for that group was minus 0.1%.
It came out right after the 2008 financial crisis, and it spread fast. In the US, the Paul Ryan budget cited it as its only evidence on what high debt does to growth.
In Europe, an EU commissioner pointed to the research in a speech. In Britain, George Osborne cited the authors by name.
Herndon was a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, taking a class called Econ 753: Applied Econometrics. The big assignment was to pick a well-known paper and replicate it.
He picked this one. He couldn't get the same results.
He asked the authors for their spreadsheet, and they sent it. When he spotted the problem, he called his girlfriend over to make sure he wasn't seeing things.
He wasn't.
> One formula stopped five rows short
> That quietly left out five countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark
> Some available years of data for other countries weren't included
> The way the averages were weighted let a single bad year in one country count as much as decades in another
Herndon and his professors, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, published the critique in April 2013. Fixing the problems, average growth for the high-debt countries came out to 2.2%, not minus 0.1%.
Reinhart and Rogoff publicly admitted the spreadsheet error. They disputed the other criticisms and defended their broader view. Economists still argue about debt and growth today.
But the formula was wrong, and for about three years nobody had publicly caught it.
A student doing homework did.
Most people assume famous research has been checked many times. Often the first person to really check it is someone with nothing to lose and an assignment due.
Have you ever found a mistake in your boss's spreadsheet and kept quiet?
פיקם retweeted
私はMMT支持者ではありませんが、さすがにこれはMMTへの理解が怪しいですね。。
まずMMTの代表的論者であるレイは、金利の決定構造や金融不安定性についても研究しています。
そもそも、税は財源ではないという主張は、政府支出が必ず経済成長につながるという前提から導かれたものではありません。
自国通貨の発行主体と利用主体の違い、そして政府と中央銀行の決済構造に基づく議論です。
MMTもインフレや実物資源の制約を認めていますし、政府が常に適切な支出をするとも主張していません。
こんなの積極財政派はみんな仰ってますよ。
理論を批判するのは結構ですが、まずその理論が何を主張しているのか、正確に理解する必要があると思いますよ。
פיקם retweeted
ポスドクの頃、ボスとは折り合い悪いし何もかもうまくいかなくてラボで泣いちゃったところに、同僚がティッシュどうぞって差し出したのがキムワイプで、うっかり目拭いてクッソ痛くて痛いんじゃあああってまた大泣きした思い出。
פיקם retweeted
「デフレをインフレにしろ」と言う議論が噴飯ものだと思う。
デフレやインフレの定義が話者によって異なっていて議論をややこしくしているが、物価の話なのだとしたら「体温」のように結果として観察される値に過ぎない。
とにかく体温を上げろと述べる医者がいたら相当なヤブだ。重要なのは原因。
פיקם retweeted
A lot of research went into this.
פיקם retweeted
Printing money causes inflation in financial markets, not in goods markets, since supply adjusts to demand in goods markets, not in financial markets: Financial assets are not stored to sell later nor produced more when demand rises.
When do firms supply financial assets?
פיקם retweeted
Küresel parasal hiyararşi altında çevre ülkeler sermaye kontrolü olmaksızın bağımsız para ve maliye politikası uygulayamaz dediğime çok iyi bir örnek;
Brezilya (Türkiye de böyle) ekonomisinde uygulanan yüksek faiz nedeniyle kamu bütçesi adeta faize çalışıyor. Yüksek faiz hem üretimin düşmesi hem de maliyet etkisiyle enflasyonu da besliyor ama Brezilya Merkez Bankası bunu enflasyonu düşürmek için uyguladığını söylüyor.
Gerçekte ise yüksek faiz, sermaye hesabı açık bir çevre ülkenin ödemeler dengesi krizini önlemek için ödemek zorunda bırakıldığı bir diyet
...
Brasil muestra lo ridículo de la macroeconomía moderna.
El Banco Central no baja la tasa porque cree que podría generar inflación y, a la vez, están preocupados por el deficit fiscal, que es casi todo intereses.
😅😂🤣
andrelararesende.substack.co…
פיקם retweeted
Para insanlar arasında ticaretin başladığı andan itibaren var olan bir varlıktır. Bu bağlamda para, borç ilişkisine konu olan bir senettir. Ancak bu durum paranın sadece bir mübadele aracı olduğu anlamına gelmez. Para bir değer saklama ve servet biriktirme aracıdır aynı zamanda.
Bunun da ötesinde para, arzı kıt bir varlık da değildir. Para arzını belirleyen durum kişilerin ve kurumların harcama isteği yani para talepleridir. Dolayısıyla para arzının artması için talep edilmesi gerekir.
Diğer yandan mevcut küresel parasal ekonomide yaratılan toplam paranın, para arzının büyük bir bölümü bankalar tarafından yaratılmıştır.
Devlet ise sanal veya hayali bir para yaratmaz. Bu monetarist aptal bir iddiadır. Devlet yarattığı parayı harcar ve/veya harcarken para yaratabilir. Vergilerle de yaratılan parayı emer. Daha açık olarak devletin açıkları yani bütçe açıkları zaten finanse edilmiş harcamalardır. Bu kamu açıkları aynı zamanda özel kesim için bir bilanço fazlalığı veya cebe giren paradır.
Bunun enflasyonist olduğu iddiası özel tekellerin fiyat çarpıklıkları ile yarattıkları enflasyonun üzerini örtmek için satılık iktisatçılar eliyle uydurdulan bir Monetarist yalandır
...
What gobbledygook! This is just cloaking monetary miscomprehension in obtuse terminology.
Genuine money can only be created a purchase where value is exchanged.
All exchange is barter.
Money, by definition, allows whole barter to be split giving the issuer (the buyer) value and giving the seller time and space to receive comparable value at his convenience.
This is the fact inescapable : genuine money is intimate with product/service exchanges. It arises only out of private purchases.
Issue by governments separately from purchase, which is certainly most often the case, is entirely counterfeit - the source of inflation. This counterfeit gains its substance by robbing the genuine with which it blends.
Fed and bank ‘expansion of the money supply’ is pure deceit for, as already described, it’s impossible to create money outside of purchase.
Their ‘loans’ , though marked as assets on their books, do not provide the ‘borrower’ anything but permission to spend yet, it’s only when he makes a purchase with this ‘credit’, that actual money is created.
The counterfeiting power of the state robs productive effort and rewards parasitism.
The great, deleterious myth, lingering since Adam Smith, is that money issuance is a function of government.
פיקם retweeted
これすごい定理だな、だから1σ嬉しいのか。2σが98%の信頼区域くらいしか知らんかった
「平均値と中央値の差の絶対値は標準偏差以下」
を証明せよ、という問題です。
note.com/hirokazuohsawa/n/nf…
פיקם retweeted
「平均値と中央値の差の絶対値は標準偏差以下」
を証明せよ、という問題です。
note.com/hirokazuohsawa/n/nf…
פיקם retweeted
The funny thing is that Reinhart & Rogoff's American Economic Review paper has not been retracted following the Excel error scandal. It indeed continues to receive a significant number of citations (6,575 to date), and its citation rate did not fall after the scandal; in fact, it has started to rise again.
aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.12…
A 28-year-old UMass graduate student got a homework assignment to reproduce a famous economics paper, couldn't make the numbers match, and found a spreadsheet mistake in a study that politicians had used to argue for budget cuts.
His name is Thomas Herndon.
In 2010, two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, published a short paper called Growth in a Time of Debt. Its headline finding: once a country's public debt goes above 90% of its economy, growth falls off a cliff. In their numbers, average growth for that group was minus 0.1%.
It came out right after the 2008 financial crisis, and it spread fast. In the US, the Paul Ryan budget cited it as its only evidence on what high debt does to growth.
In Europe, an EU commissioner pointed to the research in a speech. In Britain, George Osborne cited the authors by name.
Herndon was a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, taking a class called Econ 753: Applied Econometrics. The big assignment was to pick a well-known paper and replicate it.
He picked this one. He couldn't get the same results.
He asked the authors for their spreadsheet, and they sent it. When he spotted the problem, he called his girlfriend over to make sure he wasn't seeing things.
He wasn't.
> One formula stopped five rows short
> That quietly left out five countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada and Denmark
> Some available years of data for other countries weren't included
> The way the averages were weighted let a single bad year in one country count as much as decades in another
Herndon and his professors, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, published the critique in April 2013. Fixing the problems, average growth for the high-debt countries came out to 2.2%, not minus 0.1%.
Reinhart and Rogoff publicly admitted the spreadsheet error. They disputed the other criticisms and defended their broader view. Economists still argue about debt and growth today.
But the formula was wrong, and for about three years nobody had publicly caught it.
A student doing homework did.
Most people assume famous research has been checked many times. Often the first person to really check it is someone with nothing to lose and an assignment due.
Have you ever found a mistake in your boss's spreadsheet and kept quiet?
פיקם retweeted
Miktar kuramının totolojiden ibaret olduğu su götürmez bir gerçek. Başka bir konu daha var. Cochrane de belirtmiş. Korelasyon nedenselliği göstermez. Enflasyonla para arzı arasındaki ilişkinin yönü ahmak monetaristlerin söylediği gibi para arzından enflasyona göre değil daha güçlü biçimde enflasyondan para arzına doğrudur.
Çünkü enflasyon para talebini o da para arzını artırır
M= PY/V or PY = MV? You'd think after decades of extremely sophisticated causal econometrics, the most basic correlation isn't causation of all would not keep resurfacing. Money tracks nominal income in every theory, including FTPL, because central banks supply money passively, and demand is proportional to nominal income. Rich guys drive Porsches. Drive a Porsche and you'll get rich!
פיקם retweeted
Money Demand: Neoclassical vs. Post-Keynesian
In traditional neoclassical theory, the demand for money is the desired stock of real money balances (M/P). In classical money market models, the money supply is exogenous, and its quantity is determined by the central bank (monetary base × money multiplier).
For Post-Keynesians, however, money is a system of credit-debt relationships denominated in a monetary unit of account. Money is a stock in the accounting sense, but this stock is created endogenously through economic activity.
Several fundamental principles can be distinguished within this approach:
1. Endogeneity. Loans create deposits.
2. Reflux. There is no such thing as “excess” money. Loan repayments destroy previously created deposits. The money supply adjusts to the economy’s financing needs. Causality runs from income and prices to money (PY → M).
3. There is no such thing as a non-monetary economy. Production follows the M–C–M′ circuit and begins with credit (Graziani’s monetary circuit theory).
4. Uncertainty. Money is a refuge from fundamental, irreducible uncertainty. Liquidity preference affects investment, interest rates, and economic activity, which is why money is non-neutral even in the long run.
5. Hierarchy. As Minsky put it, anyone can create money; the problem is getting it accepted. At the top of the monetary hierarchy are government liabilities. Taxes create demand for the state’s monetary unit and support its value (chartalism, MMT).
For Post-Keynesians, the demand for money can be divided into two distinct concepts:
1. Demand for credit (a flow) determines the creation of new deposits through its interaction with bank lending conditions.
2. Liquidity preference (a stock decision) influences the composition of financial portfolios, asset prices, interest rates, and credit spreads.
Thus, the question is not simply how much money economic agents wish to hold, but also how money is created, circulated, and destroyed in the process of financing economic activity.