tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post1734267303646261955..comments2024-03-29T06:05:04.162+01:00Comments on Robert's Stochastic thoughts: A quote from Samuelson and Solow 1960Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-68426499461495745592021-04-27T10:39:30.714+02:002021-04-27T10:39:30.714+02:00Robert, you changed my life. Thank you.
Answering...Robert, you changed my life. Thank you.<br /><br /><a href="http://econcrit.blogspot.com/2021/04/answering-old-question.html" rel="nofollow">Answering an old question</a><br />Arthurianhttp://econcrit.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-90567541361537355562013-07-16T01:23:31.396+02:002013-07-16T01:23:31.396+02:00Young Robert, I salute you. This is important stuf...Young Robert, I salute you. This is important stuff. <br />I spent quite a lot of time with this older post:<br /><a href="http://angrybearblog.com/2012/05/did-samuelson-and-solow-claim-that.html" rel="nofollow">Did Samuelson and Solow claim that the Phillips Curve was a structural relationship?</a><br /><br />Art<br />The Arthurianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16501331051089400601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-65572908753764999392013-07-15T02:42:51.021+02:002013-07-15T02:42:51.021+02:00Oops I tried to quote Lucas from memory. In fact ...Oops I tried to quote Lucas from memory. In fact he asserted that there was "little" not zero originality in the paper. I now quote Lucas by cutting and pasting<br /><br /> "There is little <br />in this essay which is not implicit (and perlmps to more discerning readers, expli- <br />cit) in Friedman [ I 1 ], Muth [291 and, still earlier, in Knight [211. For that matter, the criticisms I shall raise against currently popular applications of econome- <br />tric theory have, for the most part, been anticipated by the major original contributors to that theory. 3"<br /><br /><br />Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-35388223019415715972013-07-15T02:37:04.952+02:002013-07-15T02:37:04.952+02:00@Andy Harless I don's see how a precise and fa...@Andy Harless I don's see how a precise and false statment is an advance. I think that our current knowledge on the topic is very well summarized in the three paragraphs which I quoted.<br /><br />Friedman definitely suggested that if expectations adapt, then there is a natural rate of unemployment. This means that he snuck in the assumption of suggesting that there is no hysteresis convincing the profession that anyone who agreed with the second quoted paragraph must agree. That is he argued that the third paragraph was inconceivable when, in fact, it was published in the AEA papers and proceedings.<br /><br />I think you presume incorrectly. In general, I see no point in typing your presumptions on the web. This is not an obscure topic in intellectual history. I assert that the absolutely and demonstrably false claim about Samuelson and Solow 1960 is central to the current consensus in mainstream macroeconomics. It may be that in 1968 it was still recognised that Samuelson and Solow did not make the error which they very specifically criticize in the quoted paragraphs. However, by 1982 that claim was absolutely central to the macroeconomic debate.<br /><br />You are, I think, familiar with the suggestion that the Lucas critique had a role in the development of macroeconomics. It certainly did. The field was transformed by the idea that "What we do in a policy way during the next few years might cause it to shift in a definite way.". Now Lucas was honest enough to explicitly disclaim any originality in "Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique" but this plain statement has been forgotten too.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-69063656114052927932013-07-14T22:05:32.006+02:002013-07-14T22:05:32.006+02:00I love Samuelson and Solow. Solow is the most care...I love Samuelson and Solow. Solow is the most careful writer I know. (Samuelson is not nearly as witty as he thinks, but I love him all the same)<br /><br />You may want to take a look at "Fifty Years of the Phillips Curve" where Solow explains what was special about Friedman's presidential address.<br /><br />Personally I have never spent enough time thinking about the differences between Samuelson-Solow, Friedman, Phelps, Lucas, etc., so it's nice to have the work cut out for me: thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-61103776995450091072013-07-14T16:35:37.826+02:002013-07-14T16:35:37.826+02:00In principle, there are two separate questions, an...In principle, there are two separate questions, and one is logically prior to the other: first, is there an expectations term that shifts the Phillps curve? second, is the coefficient on that term equal to 1? I'm not familiar with the detailed intellectual history here, but I'm pretty sure that the critical question for Friedman and Phelps was the second rather than the first. So I presume the answer to the first was already fairly well established by the time the "accelerationist" debate came to prominence.<br /><br />Now it happens that Phelps and Friedman were wrong. At least at very low inflation rates, we can now say with reasonable confidence that the long-run Phillips curve is downward-sloping. Nonetheless, there's something to be said for the idea that the vertical approximation was an advance over the vagueness that previously prevailed with respect to the long-run Philips curve.Andy Harlesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17582263872850949568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-5839787046074972042013-07-14T10:40:56.584+02:002013-07-14T10:40:56.584+02:00lol oopslol oopsStudentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-1949246799697835542013-07-14T10:07:05.621+02:002013-07-14T10:07:05.621+02:00Dear Student
I am puzzled to note that you are ab...Dear Student<br /><br />I am puzzled to note that you are able to write correct English but are not able to read. I quote again from Samuelson and Solow 1960 "expectations". There are only two ways you could fail to see anything about expectations in the quoted passage. Either you chose not to read it or you are blind.<br /><br />I did not at all claim that Solow and Samuelson 1960 was the same as Friedman's presidential address. As I clearly explained, the third paragraph is not at all like the presidential address. Yes indeed Friedman differed from Samuelson and Solow as he asserted that unemployment would be the same for any monetary policy once expectations adapted. He clearly disagreed with them, He was clearly wrong. Later data show not that the presidential address was the same as Samuelson and Solow 1960 but that it was a regression from an accurate cautious (and necessarily weak) claim about the economy to the confident assertion that something which had happened and would happen again couldn't happen.<br /><br />I did not claim that macro theory regained the level of Samuelson and Solow 1960 when Friedman delivered his presidential address. I claimed that it returned to the level of 1960 in 1985 when Summers and Blanchard wrote "Hysteresis and the European Unemployment Problem." <br /><br />I ask for information. Did you read the post ? Why do you write "I don't see anything about expectations in what you quoted. " when I the passage I quoted includes the word "expecations" ?<br /><br />It is clear you are functionally literate. What happened ? What explains your astonishing error ? <br /><br />This is much more interesting than your merely gross error of claiming that I said a passage which anticipates something written 25 yeears later is identical to a passage written fewer than 10 years later.<br /><br />To be clear, I think that on the day he died, Friedman's thought had not reached the level of scientific validity of Samuelson and Solow 1960. I clearly said that their work then and his work later were different. The fact that the data contradict his claims was pounded in to me by uh the data (please note the footnote to Blanchard and Summers 1985 thanking Robert Waldmann among another for reseearch assistance).Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-2781325898121043892013-07-14T09:30:09.272+02:002013-07-14T09:30:09.272+02:00Friedman and Phelps said a bit more than "the...Friedman and Phelps said a bit more than "the relationship might change over time". <br /><br />They argued that people's **expectations would adapt** so that "menu" totally disappeared in the long-run.<br /><br />I don't see anything about expectations in what you quoted. So how can you say that Friedman and Phelps added nothing?Studentnoreply@blogger.com