Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

JMK's Economic Predictions, Part I

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:32:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And, an easy-to-access list of sources:

Marsh 2015 Summary of Economic Projections: http://www.federalreserve.gov...

Aaronson, Hu, Seifoddini, and Sullivan (2015) on the NAIRU: https://www.chicagofed.org...

Dodd-Frank Stress Test Results: http://www.federalreserve.gov...

Curdia (2014): http://www.frbsf.org...

Faberman and Justiniano (2015) on the quits rate vis-a-vis nominal wage growth and inflation: https://chicagofed.org...

Larry Summer's view of the "new normal" which I don't quite buy: http://larrysummers.com... and http://www.brookings.edu...

Eggertsson and Mehrota modeling secular stagnation: http://www.econ.brown.edu...

Bernanke's take: http://www.brookings.edu...

Robert Gordon's view, which I do buy: http://www.brookings.edu... and http://www.nber.org...

Fernald (2014) on productivity: http://www.frbsf.org...

Wilcox, Wascher, and Reifschneider with a slightly different view, though the same conclusion: https://www.imf.org...

Kroft et al. (2013) on negative duration dependence: http://www.oecd.org...

There's probably more where that came from - will add to this list occasionally.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:35:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.

Go do your homework nerd
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:36:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:35:57 PM, RevNge wrote:
Go do your homework nerd

This is more fun.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:36:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:35:57 PM, RevNge wrote:
Go do your homework nerd

This is more fun.

Anything that has to do with economics is fun for you though...
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:38:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:38:09 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:36:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:35:57 PM, RevNge wrote:
Go do your homework nerd

This is more fun.

Anything that has to do with economics is fun for you though...

Na, I hate microeconomics, actually. My indifference curves always slope upward.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 1:17:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.

I read the whole thing from start to end and now I'm seeing spots.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:52:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 1:17:35 AM, tejretics wrote:

I read the whole thing from start to end and now I'm seeing spots.

At least someone read it, lol. It was worth writing.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Very interesting. I am a high school senior who plans on majoring in econ. I love the subject, and I have spent hundreds of hours studying it independently.
I think that monetary policy is probably the strongest tool that the economy has, and I really prefer the government stay away from expansionary fiscal policy(on the spending side, that is).
I agree that the inflation rate will not be a big problem even though I like to say that I am more of a hawk. I say that the fed should continue to keep interest rates as low as possible and keep putting more money into the economy until we hit an interest rate of about three percent. What we are at now is virtually negligible.

Might I ask, what tools are you using to develop these predictions?
Also, when are you expecting the next recession. Given historical trends, I would say that we are safe from another sizable recession until about 2025 (though not nearly at the scale of the 2008).
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:17:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 5:22:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Very interesting. I am a high school senior who plans on majoring in econ. I love the subject, and I have spent hundreds of hours studying it independently.

That's awesome! I didn't get into it until long after I entered college, so it's great that you're starting so early - you certainly have a head start, and could probably use that to specialize in some area. I wish I found monetary policy earlier than I did, for instance, though the options are (almost) endless.

I think that monetary policy is probably the strongest tool that the economy has, and I really prefer the government stay away from expansionary fiscal policy(on the spending side, that is).

I couldn't agree more. I posted a giant rant on why fiscal stimulus is subpar, lol. I think Paul Krugman, Simon Wren-Lewis, Brad DeLong and friends are well-intentioned, but seem to live in a ceteris-paribus world where the Fed doesn't recalibrate its reaction function following exogenous changes in fiscal policy - that's a world that, honestly, even contradicts foundational material (i.e., the AD curve is derived from the MP curve, and thus from the Taylor Principle).

I agree that the inflation rate will not be a big problem even though I like to say that I am more of a hawk. I say that the fed should continue to keep interest rates as low as possible and keep putting more money into the economy until we hit an interest rate of about three percent. What we are at now is virtually negligible.

I agree with this, though the Fed to my understanding isn't really pumping money as it conventionally would. It's true that banks are holding on to almost $3 trillion in excess reserves - which could, eventually, flood financial markets if we're not careful - but the only active Fed policy at present, save for holding the current target range, is reinvesting principle payments from retiring securities into MBS to maintain the size of the balance sheet.

But yeah, we're in agreement I think on what the optimal policy trajectory ought to be - though I don't think interest rates will rise much even after the Fed starts tightening.

Might I ask, what tools are you using to develop these predictions?

Most of it is just my opinions based on what I've read and mulled over - and there are a few paper citations earlier in this thread that shaped my view. But I didn't run any sort of statistical model for my NAIRU estimate, for instance, though I'm not exactly confident that I could forecast a variable as.. well, variable as the NAIRU, lol.

Also, when are you expecting the next recession. Given historical trends, I would say that we are safe from another sizable recession until about 2025 (though not nearly at the scale of the 2008).

I'm really not sure. In my mind, we never quite escaped the last one - which isn't to say that it's a "recession" or that the data is rigged, because obviously that would be conspiratorial and outright silly, but I think we're still stuck with much of the aftermath of the Great Recession, manifesting itself in possibly-permanent headwinds like household deleveraging. I think it's unlikely that we'll have another systemic banking crisis - at least not right now - though I don't think Dodd-Frank is by any means case closed.

What's interesting, though, is the Q1 numbers will likely be revised downward, and projections for Q2 shot down recently to below 1 percent. Employment numbers perked up a bit, but NGDP is far below even its new normal. That could be foretelling a possible recession - perhaps not now, though we could at least expect some degree of fragility in the coming year, especially if the Fed is really intent, as I predict it is, on raising rates.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.

This to me, is like reading a foreign language.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:27:08 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.

This to me, is like reading a foreign language.

How much of it did you read? I can clarify any part of it if you're actually interested.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:28:06 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:27:08 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/12/2015 5:58:04 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
I'm going to update a lot of these when I have more time - and, for that matter, access to STATA so I can actually run a vector autoregression for a few of these variables - i.e. give you hard numbers to erode further any credibility I might have. These are less so "predictions" than they are forecasts, or adaptive expectations, based on what we've seen thus far, this year and otherwise. In other words, I expect someone to point our a month or two from now just how wrong I was. That would be great, actually, since many of these are overly somber - and, I hope, indicative of transitory, aberrant trends.

First, I predict that the FOMC is wrong about the NAIRU - the long-run "normal" level of unemployment. Currently, they project it at 5.0 to 5.2 percent [http://www.federalreserve.gov...], down from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. There's reason to think, however, that the actual NAIRU is below 5 percent, as suggested by recent research out of the Chicago Fed [https://www.chicagofed.org...] - and, of course, the failure of inflationary pressures to build upon encroaching upon its range, though much of that could be due to changing dynamics in the short-run Phillips curve coefficient such that it's less "accelerationist" than we may expect. Anyway, I don't think it's at 4.5 or so - where it was in the 90s following the IT boom - but I'd guess, with a somewhat flexible confidence band, that it's around 4.8 percent, though skewed to the downside.

Second, I think the Fed is wrong about trend growth. That link to the SEP above, showing March projections, forecasts trend RGDP growth of 2 percent; with a 2 percent inflation target, that's 4 percent trend NGDP growth relative to a historical average of 5. The implication is that as headwinds abate - as the post-crisis elevation in credit standards begins to wane, as deleveraging ceases and autonomous spending (animal spirits) begins to recover, etc. - RGDP may return to trend. However, I think it's a far deeper and more permanent problem than that, not only because there's reason to think the LRAS has shifted backward amid the crisis - due largely to hysteresis, a permanent drop-off in labor force participation, and a secular decline in productivity - but also a more enduring problem of demographics: an aging population and slow labor-force growth. I don't foresee the teabaggers in Congress passing immigration reform anytime soon, so it's hard to at present evade the Great Stagnation - though I'll make a clear demarcation between that and "secular stagnation" a la Summers. My guess is that trend NGDP is actually around 3 or 3.5 percent. We can in fact hit that - though trust me when I say that no one actually wants to sit there forever.

Third, the Fed is going to raise rates in September; it's been talking about it for quite some time, and a horrible stream of data - so bad that it' actually bleeding into Q2 forecasts, clearly suggesting that much more than "residual seasonality" is at play - has all but prevented it from moving in June when it so desired. Thus, Jim Bullard, Charles Plosser, Loretta Mester, and Rich Fisher win: we're going to freak out over nothing - no perceivable inflation risk, or "bubble risk" (though, even if there were, monetary policy is a dull instrument that can do almost nothing about it, nor should it try). But this decision, nevertheless, will be their downfall: the Wicksellian equilibrium real rate will fall further, and likely settle somewhere around 0 percent over the longer run. With a 2 percent inflation target, that means a nominal fed funds rate of around 2 percent. Of course, the Fed won't use a time-varying real rate when they throw up a Taylor Rule a la Bullard to plot the expected path of policy in it's September SEP - i.e., they'll project the nominal effective FFR somewhere near 3.5, in which case markets will have a conniption because they've long been screaming at how utterly wrong that is (look at the 30-year Treasury market, particularly the TIIS yield, if you don't believe me) - and doves like myself will roll their eyes at just how stupidly optimistic that is. But it's coming, as is a long, arduous revision process. God help us.

Fourth, I predict that the inflation and bubble doomsayers are and will continue to be totally full of crap. Inflation will stay low - far below target - until at least 2017, whether you're looking at SEP projections or even nonconventional-policy-augmented forecasting models [http://www.frbsf.org...]. Further, financial bubbles are a classic black-swan incident; they're cute to talk about, and afford an unwarranted aura of credibility to whatever fearmonger presents them as a credible risk, but it just isn't conceivable in a post-Dodd Frank world. I have my complaints with Dodd-Frank, but the stress tests are in [http://www.federalreserve.gov...]: no bubbles in site, nor will they be.

So, tl;dr, my predictions are:

1. Fed raises rates in September.
2. The long-run nominal fed funds rate will be 2 percent.
3. Trend NGDP growth is 3 to 3.5 percent.
4. The NAIRU is around 4.8 percent.
5. There are no bubbles, nor will there be.

I wasn't able to cover everything. In episode 2 - yes, this is a series - expect some semblance of the following:

(i) What will happen to the fed funds rate: will its small, illiquid and idiosyncratic nature (a la Bernanke) lead the Fed to either (a) supplant it with its new overnight bank funding right or (b) drop it as an operating target and replace it with nothing (my vote goes there)?

(ii) What is the role - or is there a role - for fiscal policy? Surprisingly, especially coming from me, I think there is.

(iii) What will happen to the Fed's balance sheet? Are Simon Potter's estimates on point, or is that a charade to prevent long-term TIPS spreads from exploding? That sounds conspiratorial, so I should clarify - though leave you with a cliffhanger - that I *don't* think the Fed is intentionally misleading the public about the future trajectory of its balance sheet, though it's nevertheless overly optimistic about the degree to which it can ever actually "normalize."

(iv) What of wage growth - secular decline, or will it rebound? What role do bargaining leverage, lackluster productivity, and low degrees of labor-market churning have in wage determination?

(v) Is there any hope for NGDP-level or price-level targeting?

Stay tuned, folks!

Cheers,

ResponsiblyIrresponsible

P.S. Yes, I do have a midterm tomorrow, and yet I took the time to type this. Stop nagging me, mom.

This to me, is like reading a foreign language.

How much of it did you read? I can clarify any part of it if you're actually interested.

Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..

Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:52:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.

Not really :(
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:52:27 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.

Not really :(

Okay, that and the identities, most of which stem from:

sin ^2 x + cos ^2 x = 1
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:53:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:52:27 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.

Not really :(

Okay, that and the identities, most of which stem from:

sin ^2 x + cos ^2 x = 1

sin(A + B)= sinAcosB + sinBcosA
sin(A - B)= sinAcosB - sinBcosA
cos(A + B)= cosAcosB - sinAsinB
cos(A - B)= cosAcosB + sinAsinB
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:57:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:56:06 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:53:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:52:27 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.

Not really :(

Okay, that and the identities, most of which stem from:

sin ^2 x + cos ^2 x = 1

sin(A + B)= sinAcosB + sinBcosA
sin(A - B)= sinAcosB - sinBcosA
cos(A + B)= cosAcosB - sinAsinB
cos(A - B)= cosAcosB + sinAsinB

Those too.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2015 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/13/2015 8:57:00 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:56:06 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:53:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:52:27 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:10:05 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:07:45 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:04:28 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:48 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 8:00:17 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:58:29 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:57:21 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:54:32 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:32:12 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:31:19 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:30:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/13/2015 7:29:01 PM, Lee001 wrote:
Well, I need to understand it because I will have to take Micro and Macro soon, i'll read through it again..


Lol, you won't cover any of this in Micro or Macro. You'll draw a few silly graphs - and, in the case of Micro, make a lot of silly assumptions that don't actually hold in the real world. That's it!

Kind of like math.

It's actually not that mathy - Micro is more mathy than Macro, usually, at least until you get to higher-level classes.

It hurts my brain...

Lol.

Join the club.

But you enjoy....this "stuff"

Not the extra mathy portions. When we start getting into Lagrange multipliers and all that jazz, I'm out.

I like all the math I can do out in Excel, lol.

Math....is just torture. Lol.

Eh. some math is.

Trig... :(

SOHCAHTOA

^ All you need to know for trig.

Not really :(

Okay, that and the identities, most of which stem from:

sin ^2 x + cos ^2 x = 1

sin(A + B)= sinAcosB + sinBcosA
sin(A - B)= sinAcosB - sinBcosA
cos(A + B)= cosAcosB - sinAsinB
cos(A - B)= cosAcosB + sinAsinB

Those too.

And the differentials and integrals.

Plus:

cot= (1/tan)
cosec= (1/sin)
sec= (1/cos)
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.