« Cross-country comparisons of inequality in market and disposable income: Policy matters | Main | Who would think that economic history and the history of economic thought are not part of economics? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm rapidly becoming a fan of yours. Shame their aren't more.

I'm sorry your last post was so misinterpreted (something to do with Labour Day I think). But no publicity is bad publicity. I bet your hit count has gone up heaps.

By the way, I couldn't agree with you more. Makes me sort of wish I was retired and had time to do some economic research again. Doing it on your own is feasible now with powerful PCs and the internet.

This is late, but why does the market fail? If the Bayesians can ask/answer better questions, shouldn't they start earning excess profits in terms of citations, etc, inducing a shift toward Bayesian econometrics?

The problem is twofold:

- Researchers who have spent their entire careers using classical methods and who have never had Bayesian methods explained to them would have to take time out to retool. The returns from such an investment are decreasing with age, so established researchers won't bother learning it, and they certainly won't teach it.

- Theoreticians will resist the move, because most of the 'problems' that they've spent so much time trying to solve turn out to be either not a problem or trivial in the Bayesian paradigm. If they adopt Bayesian methods, what would they do with their time?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad