l***n
发帖数: 606 | 1 Indeed, before cointegration and supurious regression, a lot of regressions in
empirical studies were trash. In this sense, Granger changed some fundamental
view and practices of economists.
By the way, Granger causality is still used by some top financial economists.
ARCH is an earlier form of GMM, which enable microeconometricians estimate a
lot of relationships otherwise they can not do.
Moreover, this is not a bomb, since they have been talking about it for many
years, considering Granger re | p****a
发帖数: 32 | 2 well I do not mean ARCH and cointegration is a piece of cake. I just wonder
that how much they themselves have brought to economics. And how much
contributions are solely from themselves but no other things else.
I personally do not think that these 2 are as great as other bombs. Anyway,
econometicans may love them very much and peng me to hell.
【在 l***n 的大作中提到】
: Indeed, before cointegration and supurious regression, a lot of regressions in
: empirical studies were trash. In this sense, Granger changed some fundamental
: view and practices of economists.
: By the way, Granger causality is still used by some top financial economists.
: ARCH is an earlier form of GMM, which enable microeconometricians estimate a
: lot of relationships otherwise they can not do.
: Moreover, this is not a bomb, since they have been talking about it for many
: years, considering Granger re
| l***n
发帖数: 606 | 3 Look, several days ago, there are still some people talking about that today's
economics is alchemy for chemistry in the past. Econometrics is where
economists somehow can like their theories to the real world. Without
econometric techniques, economic theories are just castle in the air.
Engle invented ARCH and Engle and Granger started cointegration. They are the
original idea providers. Their students popularized their ideas and huge
amount of papers followed up. Both of them are still leading
【在 p****a 的大作中提到】
: well I do not mean ARCH and cointegration is a piece of cake. I just wonder
: that how much they themselves have brought to economics. And how much
: contributions are solely from themselves but no other things else.
: I personally do not think that these 2 are as great as other bombs. Anyway,
: econometicans may love them very much and peng me to hell.
| p****a
发帖数: 32 | 4 again I am not saying that these 2 are simple and naive. They are all
excellent ideas. I just wondering how these 2 should be compared with
previous prizes and the other well known Nobel would-bes.
【在 l***n 的大作中提到】
: Look, several days ago, there are still some people talking about that today's
: economics is alchemy for chemistry in the past. Econometrics is where
: economists somehow can like their theories to the real world. Without
: econometric techniques, economic theories are just castle in the air.
: Engle invented ARCH and Engle and Granger started cointegration. They are the
: original idea providers. Their students popularized their ideas and huge
: amount of papers followed up. Both of them are still leading
| h*s
发帖数: 574 | 5 Since I do not know anything about econometrics, so I can not comment.
But just want to say, yesterday the professor talked about Nobel Prize.
the course is "econometrics", but he spent all time talking about RBC and
Kydland and Prescott would win this year's Nobel.
He also said the following:
If your idea changed all people's thought on economics, you get Nobel
If you changed a few people, you get tenure
If your profs do not laugh at you, you get PhD
Tomorrow I would like to hear his comment on
【在 p****a 的大作中提到】
: again I am not saying that these 2 are simple and naive. They are all
: excellent ideas. I just wondering how these 2 should be compared with
: previous prizes and the other well known Nobel would-bes.
| a*****c
发帖数: 16 | 6 Cointegration is very important for the whole economic field, especially for
the Macro field. Without cointegration, some basic ideas of rational
expectation can not develop fully. Just read Sargent, Lucas and Other's
papers, you can see how often they use the cointegration.
But I think Unit Root Idea is more important than the cointegration. Dickey
and Fuller should win the Noble earlier than Engel&Granger, I think.
important
are
research
【在 h*s 的大作中提到】
: Since I do not know anything about econometrics, so I can not comment.
: But just want to say, yesterday the professor talked about Nobel Prize.
: the course is "econometrics", but he spent all time talking about RBC and
: Kydland and Prescott would win this year's Nobel.
: He also said the following:
: If your idea changed all people's thought on economics, you get Nobel
: If you changed a few people, you get tenure
: If your profs do not laugh at you, you get PhD
: Tomorrow I would like to hear his comment on
|
|
