rohanps.bsky.social
Macroeconomist specialising in heterogeneous firms. Previously antitrust.
Retired international sportsman / D1 athlete. Englishman in the US. An actual doctor, not one of those fake medical ones.
https://sites.google.com/view/rohan-shah/home
252 posts
182 followers
118 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The hypocrisy of this article being behind a paywall 🤦🏽♂️
comment in response to
post
🙄🙄🙄
comment in response to
post
I'd call that just plain wrong! Austerity, in the form of cuts to government spending, has been systematically found to stimulate growth. This is clear. Not my fault if your ideology prevents you from seeing that!
comment in response to
post
Except those studies showed that cutting government spending helps growth while raising taxes hinders it, which was exactly his point. He has been proven right.
comment in response to
post
No works "debunk" any of his results.
comment in response to
post
You clearly haven't read any of Alesina's work then.
comment in response to
post
Austerity was necessary and good. That is a fact.
comment in response to
post
They need to sack Stearns - I keep saying he's useless and he keeps on proving me right!
comment in response to
post
We already have non-linear solution methods that allow for large shocks. That's the entire point of Krusell-Smith!
comment in response to
post
"Laurie" clearly doesn't understand endogeneity.
comment in response to
post
You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.
comment in response to
post
Stearns, on the other hand, ticks no boxes and should be sacked immediately. He is utterly useless.
comment in response to
post
11/n So, what is the problem?
Linearization methods work well bc the full Krusell-Smith (nonlinear) solution turns out to be pretty (log) flat in aggregate states. However, while this is true for small shocks — 1 to 2 sigma devs from trend — for larger shocks nonlinearities do matter. -->
comment in response to
post
You're a bit thick, really.
comment in response to
post
No.
comment in response to
post
Defence spending should be cut in half. Immediately.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Who? Never heard of him 🤷🏽♂️
comment in response to
post
*aluminium
comment in response to
post
Yes, and space much less of a premium in Texas too!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
There you go condescending to a mixed-race immigrant colleague again.
I wish you luck in life.
comment in response to
post
Then you know that I'm right.
comment in response to
post
Thank you so much for condescending to explain my own job to me 👍🏽
comment in response to
post
Define "fresh out of grad school" - I first finished it in 2008. So if 16 years is still "fresh", then I guess it applies to you too!
I still expect an apology for your "joke" that was clearly trying to dehumanise a mixed-race immigrant.
comment in response to
post
Prove your claim.
comment in response to
post
You wrote "[y]ou must be right out of grad school, a bot, or doing a bit...", which is a deliberate attempt on your part to demean and dehumanise a mixed-race immigrant academic.
I expect to receive an apology.
comment in response to
post
Easy to tell you've never even been here then.
comment in response to
post
I know how it works. You're wrong. We're done here.
comment in response to
post
False on all three counts.
It's strange you think it's appropriate to throw personal insults at a fellow academic just because I disagree with your opinion.
I thought this place was supposed to be the nice bit of the internet 🤷🏽♂️
comment in response to
post
I don't use "core labs", so why should my grant money go to fund them.
I should not have to subsidise other departments.
comment in response to
post
Overheads should not be included in the first place!
comment in response to
post
A) My office is not a laboratory.
B) Why should I care about other researchers?
comment in response to
post
Overheads are skimming a percentage off of the grants researchers win. By definition. Otherwise researchers would get 100% of the grants they obtain!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
It is completely possible to pay for staff with grant money! And I don't use any lab space, so that point is irrelevant 🤷🏽♂️
comment in response to
post
Universities often skim off more than 50% of any awarded grant! This is stated on many universities' own websites.
comment in response to
post
Indeed.
comment in response to
post
I understand perfectly well how university finances work, and it's weird that you'd assume otherwise.
Have a word with yourself.
comment in response to
post
If I win a grant, I should get all the money. The university shouldn't really get any of it.
It's that simple.
comment in response to
post
That's a good policy! Universities should not get to skim off absurdly high proportions of grants to cover "overheads".
Even 10% would be too high.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
Best university in the country 👍🏽
comment in response to
post
Not true.