Topic: Can someone explain dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling to me?
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #55,546
Assume I'm a retard and explain it accordingly. Thanks.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #718,482
Yes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #718,483
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,525
@previous (A)
I was just answering the question in your headline. Someone can explain it. I am not that person, and that person in fact may not browse this fora.
I was just answering the question in your headline. Someone can explain it. I am not that person, and that person in fact may not browse this fora.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,526
I imagine that it's a kind of mathematical modelling of some physical process where there is material in motion and averaged over time, things are stable or levelled, and the modelling using a probability distribution, maybe the classic normal distribution or log-normal distribution, or something else entirely.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,529
@718,525 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I could explain it however not one person here wood understand my explanation.
I could explain it however not one person here wood understand my explanation.
Alba Gal !MLHqI35Srs joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,558
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,560
@previous (Alba Gal !MLHqI35Srs)
I recently paid cold hard cash for this so you better respect this answer to OP's question
I recently paid cold hard cash for this so you better respect this answer to OP's question
Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling (abbreviated DSGE or sometimes SDGE or DGE) is a branch of applied general equilibrium theory that is influential in contemporary macroeconomics. The DSGE methodology attempts to explain aggregate economic phenomena, such as economic growth, business cycles, and the effects of monetary and fiscal policy, on the basis of macroeconomic models derived from microeconomic principles.
While traditional macroeconometric forecasting models are vulnerable to the Lucas critique—that claims that the effects of an economic policy cannot be predicted using historical data from a period when that policy was not in place—microfounded models should not be, at least in theory. Further, since the microfoundations are based on the preferences of the decision-makers in the model, DSGE models feature a natural benchmark for evaluating the welfare effects of policy changes.
While traditional macroeconometric forecasting models are vulnerable to the Lucas critique—that claims that the effects of an economic policy cannot be predicted using historical data from a period when that policy was not in place—microfounded models should not be, at least in theory. Further, since the microfoundations are based on the preferences of the decision-makers in the model, DSGE models feature a natural benchmark for evaluating the welfare effects of policy changes.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,566
ohhhh, economics. So it's a kind of voodoo tea leaf thing involving computers.
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #718,568
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Nobel prizes have been awarded to stuff like this. It does take a couple3 re-reads and other stuff on the web about this to fathom what the fuck is going on with will this modeling & does it effect my stock portfolio
Nobel prizes have been awarded to stuff like this. It does take a couple3 re-reads and other stuff on the web about this to fathom what the fuck is going on with will this modeling & does it effect my stock portfolio
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,825
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,828
@previous (F)
> You paid money to copy and paste that?
Actually I did. I pay my way and Wiki asks me to every year
> You paid money to copy and paste that?
Actually I did. I pay my way and Wiki asks me to every year
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,830
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,833
@previous (F)and by the way IF you have a job? This card has no annual fee and they will pay you $150 to use it and I am not kidding
chili dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,838
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,857
@previous (chili dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I actually spent a few minutes looking deeper in2 OP's Topic. In doing so I wood rewrite your basically as this
> So basically it is macroeconomics not using microeconomics instead of macroeconomics ( I sure someone with more better English could rite that statement more better )
Bottom line is that the theory of Macroeconomics as considered by OP Topic falls apart quickly. Its an economic model that governs huge systems - A city State Country Planet as a whole and the a small glitch comes along like perhaps the election of a Donald Trump (I am not picking on him) Or could be some other Monster who opens a mouth and sends the stock markets of the world in2 a Crash
So its the Micro that can crush the Macro of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_stochastic_general_equilibrium#Controversy
I actually spent a few minutes looking deeper in2 OP's Topic. In doing so I wood rewrite your basically as this
> So basically it is macroeconomics not using microeconomics instead of macroeconomics ( I sure someone with more better English could rite that statement more better )
Bottom line is that the theory of Macroeconomics as considered by OP Topic falls apart quickly. Its an economic model that governs huge systems - A city State Country Planet as a whole and the a small glitch comes along like perhaps the election of a Donald Trump (I am not picking on him) Or could be some other Monster who opens a mouth and sends the stock markets of the world in2 a Crash
So its the Micro that can crush the Macro of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_stochastic_general_equilibrium#Controversy
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,858
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #718,867
@previous (F)
By Co~wink~e~dink I just reviewed my Amex account and I C Wiki among my monthly flow (Tampax is holding the dew back)
So Cold HARD CASH FROM CHASE BANK Or Bank of America will flow from ----->To Amex to pay the and I will review my cash rewards back and probably for the most part STOP USING This Card and continue with my Fidelity new Visa rewards card - My Cash back wood be doubled if I had continued to use Visa - It was the Romance of a one more free $150 or $250 that got me suckered in2
By Co~wink~e~dink I just reviewed my Amex account and I C Wiki among my monthly flow (Tampax is holding the dew back)
Your Payment is Due on
September 22
Minimum Payment Due
September 22
Minimum Payment Due
So Cold HARD CASH FROM CHASE BANK Or Bank of America will flow from ----->To Amex to pay the and I will review my cash rewards back and probably for the most part STOP USING This Card and continue with my Fidelity new Visa rewards card - My Cash back wood be doubled if I had continued to use Visa - It was the Romance of a one more free $150 or $250 that got me suckered in2