<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[longandvariable]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://longandvariable.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Tony Yates]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://longandvariable.wordpress.com/author/anthonyyates01/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Mind changes]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s fashionable now to get out there what you&#8217;ve changed your mind on.  The calculation being, perhaps, that unless you do, you will get nowhere arguing hard for your other, unalterable priors.</p>
<p>In that spirit, here are a few thing I changed my mind on.</p>
<ol>
<li> The importance of financial &#8216;plumbing&#8217;.  I, like most macro people I talked to, used to think banking in macro was cluttering up models for the sake of it.</li>
<li> The lack of any effect of minimum wages on employment.</li>
<li> The minor effects on wages of immigration.</li>
<li> How sticky price DSGE models are not, clearly, realistic enough to take seriously as devices on which to perform quantitatively relevant optimal control exercises.  For example, I used to admire what the Norges Bank and Riksbank did and thought we at the BoE were well behind the curve.</li>
<li>The usefulness of atheoretical empirical macro.  I used to think we were surely beyond just fact generation and sharpening.  But, the crisis having shaken my faith in the models, fact generation now seems attractively humble.</li>
<li>The efficacy of macro prudential, counter cyclical tools.  It&#8217;s early days.  But when I first read about these in 2009 or so, I thought [extrapolating from the &#8216;life is just a New Keynesian optimal control exercise] &#8216;here are some great taxes we can tweak about, problem solved&#8217;.  Now I am not so sure.</li>
<li>The effects of technology on the wage distribution.  The &#8216;hollowing out&#8217; stuff is fascinating and I would not have guessed at that.  I came into those papers thinking that those at the bottom always lost.</li>
<li>How far authoritarian capitalism could get before imploding.  I would not have guessed China could have increased income per head this much without imploding first.  Maybe it will, yet, proving Acemoglu and co-authors right.</li>
<li> The likelihood of a zero bound episode, and the optimal rate of inflation.  I was signed up for 2 per cent.  But look!</li>
<li> The efficacy of quantitative easing.  There are lots of question marks still over what it did, and how durably.  But the initial impacts, and the unanimity, were a big surprise to me.</li>
</ol>
<p>It&#8217;s probably not wise to get too excited about the moral grandeur of me declaring mind changes on 2 and 3, which revolve around the labour market, as I&#8217;m one of those macro people who have definitely not read enough labour economics.  A bit like me writing &#8216;I changed my mind about how quantum physics worked.&#8217;  [Incidentally, on that, I have, several times.]  Note that I ommitted a socialism-capitalism mind change, on the grounds that that occurred before the end of adolescence.</p>
]]></html></oembed>