1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI do my best to provide entertainment for others. Yeah removing the dot works, but now that I've unzipped the files, pray tell me please, what's the best program to view a .dct or a .dta file?
The link works. Are you copying the dot at the end?
It's amusing to me to see your paranoia, so I'll let you do some of the work.
Originally posted by kmax87I only see two relatively simple equations. 😕
Shortening the link you gave I found A Rose's page and then found the preliminary draft of the report
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose/MIMIC2.pdf
I should have known to just to let this one slide. Reading about his MIMIC2 modelling rationale looked too much like coupled differential equations and state spa ...[text shortened]... or flight control systems, but apart from that none of it makes any more sense......help
The issue is that the effect on each country depends on two things:
a) how large is the shock to the economy i (the Xi with subscript i)
b) how each macroeconomic variable (y subscript j) in country i is hit by that shock
So equation (2) estimates how large is the shock and equation (1) estimates how each variable reacts to the shock.
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusAt the same time, we also saw during the crisis the paradox that was a "flight to quality" towards US Treasury Bills despite the fact that the crisis started in the US! WTF?
It does seem to be an interesting study.
One would think that a country with a larger share of its wealth in America and also a country having a higher percentage of its exports tied to the US would indicate some higher level of exposure to contagion.
At the same time, we also saw during the crisis the paradox that was a "flight to quality" towards ...[text shortened]... for risk of contagion?
One thing for certain, there is a lot of room for fun speculation.
I wonder if this might be a major part of the picture.
Whenever there is a widespread sense of economic or financial crisis, investors generally "flee for safety". And for a long time, the perception has been that one of the safest places an investor can be is US Treasuries. And even at the height of all the panic last year, there was never any change in this belief that the US government was an ironclad guarantee to always make its debt payments on schedule.
So even though the crisis originated in the US, if the investors responded by increasing their positions in the US, it would create the paradox that countries with strong links to the US actually fared better.
Originally posted by PalynkaNo I worked out I am totally out of my depth with this one and can either bow to these experts in the field or bury my head and try and attempt to junk their findings based on some seemingly plausible appeal to ignorance 😛
Mmm... It's probably "free" on rapidshare.
Anyway, do you think your eye-balling of the data will trump the statistical analysis?
Originally posted by kmax87I can see some issues with their methodology, but no methodology is full-proof. Regardless, it does seem to highlight the possibility that an issue which was taken for granted by many might need a more serious analysis.
No I worked out I am totally out of my depth with this one and can either bow to these experts in the field or bury my head and try and attempt to junk their findings based on some seemingly plausible appeal to ignorance 😛
I posted it here so that all could give their opinion on this. I didn't expect a technical analysis on empirical methods but I just wanted to read some subjective opinions on why gross trade and financial linkages might not be the best measure. Sure, this is tantamount of taking their word for it if you don't understand the method, but there's still an interesting "what if this is correct" discussion to be had.
I just found it curious that you decided to focus on the methods.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell its a bit like, noone could quite fully describe the extent and scale and scope of the GFC at any point during its most volatile free fall phase. Subsequent to all that it took a full 6 to 8 months before people were getting some confidence back into the marketplace and pundits were ready to call the bottom of the market. Now Rose comes along, with seemingly impeccable credentials and makes some quite definite claims about how uncoupled nations closely integrated to US trade were to the US's downturn, and his recommendations are basically to say there's no value in trying to put in a steering group( some level of oversight) because at the time that it would be needed to give guidance, there would not be enough data that could adequately inform a rational debate.
I can see some issues with their methodology, but no methodology is full-proof. Regardless, it does seem to highlight the possibility that an issue which was taken for granted by many might need a more serious analysis.
I posted it here so that all could give their opinion on this. I didn't expect a technical analysis on empirical methods but I just want ...[text shortened]... discussion to be had.
I just found it curious that you decided to focus on the methods.
If I have grossly mis-paraphrased Rose's conclusions, then I do apologise, but this seemed the gist of it for me, that a highly qualified academic, using a modelling technique only few people could challenge, let alone explain the extent to which he may have been badly overestimating or underestimating in his assumptions, has taken a view on a subject that encourages us to ignore any attempt of installing any emergency alarm system.
So he's confident he can take rubbery figures and come up with useful insights, but any other agency that might actually try and use their knowledge and step in before the bottom falls out again shouldn't bother trying? So who are his friends again? And this in no way is politically/special interest lobby motivated propaganda?
...call me cynical but.......
Originally posted by kmax87I think you're reading a bit too much from a couple of lines. I think he's saying that we don't know much yet, so we should investigate these issues more or it will be easy to have early warning systems that do not work. I don't think there's anything there against oversight.
Well its a bit like, noone could quite fully describe the extent and scale and scope of the GFC at any point during its most volatile free fall phase. Subsequent to all that it took a full 6 to 8 months before people were getting some confidence back into the marketplace and pundits were ready to call the bottom of the market. Now Rose comes along, with seemi ...[text shortened]... s politically/special interest lobby motivated propaganda?
...call me cynical but.......
He definitely isn't one of the usual suspects. He has been critical of the WTO, he has defended the soundness of currency unions, he has even made the case that joining global environmental treaties has economic benefits. Maybe all this makes me look at his critique differently.
Also, his technique is not novel and it was one of the main ones used to study contagion in Asia, during the Asian crisis. So again, it doesn't seem like someone picking the method that would give him the results he wanted.
If you want to be cynical, you could say he wants to be on these future task-forces that will try to develop the best possible early warning system, but I doubt he's being a puppet for the financial markets (although, of course, it's not impossible). I also think he would hammer that point more if it were the case.