Ben Golub Profile picture
12 Dec, 11 tweets, 3 min read
Let me very briefly jot down some notes as I read...

Take a basic static input/output model, and suppose we don't worry about nonlinearities in static equilibrium (as Baqaee and Farhi very productively have done).

Then it's easy to know which shocks matter for welfare...

1/
Just look at the Domar weights of the sectors, which is a fancy way of saying their (suitably defined) size.

All the network stuff boils down to one easily-measured statistic.

Shocks matter more when they hit "bigger" sectors.

2/
Liu and Tsyvinski make the point that this won't hold in an economy with adjustment dynamics.

When input demands increase after a negative shock, it takes time to build/activate capacity.

3/
Their hypothesis is that if this has to propagate along long supply chains, it will go slower and hurt welfare longer.

So now, networks that have the same Domar weights and thus the same welfare reaction to shocks in static eq'm will behave very differently dynamically

4/
Here is their introduction of this analysis...

5/
You can compute how incorporating dynamics changes the formula for the welfare impact of shocks. It does so through a simple statistic -- a version of Katz centrality
They then do a spectral analysis and show that, in contrast with a static model, the most welfare-consequential aspects of a shock can actually be summarized in a low-dimensional way.

7/
This has to do with the fact that in a dynamical system, high-frequency components decay away fast, but a few low-frequency components hang around for a long time.

8/
To me it's super exciting that these guys are bringing insights from the spectral analysis of dynamical systems to "the new input-output theory."

9/
It requires taking a particular view on adjustment dynamics but seems very fruitful and will be stimulating to the networks literature as well as to the production networks literature.

10/
It is also another occasion to miss Emmanuel Farhi. He would have loved discussing this and thinking through a beautiful new perspective on production networks.

11/11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Golub

Ben Golub Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ben_golub

13 Dec
A polite, scathing, and comprehensive reply by @jasndoc and coauthors to the "ergodicity economics" of @ole_b_peters.

@NaturePhysics erred in not finding a referee who would ask these basic questions of the authors, but glad a reply is out there.

nature.com/articles/s4156…

1/ Image
This thread gives my own gloss and expansion of some points Doctor et al. raise.

Peters and co think there is a hidden assumption of economic theory: specifically, they think expected utility theory secretly assumes a mathematical property called ergodicity.

This is false.

2/
Expected utility theory makes 4 assumptions, which are stated precisely and concisely in every graduate textbook. Ergodicity is not among them.

EU is not the kind of theory that can hide assumptions: it is like Newtonian mechanics, not like Freudian analysis.

3/
Read 15 tweets
16 Nov
Some networks words
a few more
a few more
Read 4 tweets
8 Nov
"Reductionist" (i.e., most economic) theories of collective action explain acts like voting by individual incentives, perhaps including "social" phenomena via payoff terms like social pressure or warm glow.

A short thread about an (old) complaint about such theories.

1/
A reductionist theory might say: when you vote, you're almost certainly not pivotal, but you value praise for helping, or you just like the identity of standing for X.

BUT: "praise," "blame," and "identity" are not individualistic ideas.

2/
Praise, blame, identity, etc. make sense only in a community and a culture that gives them meaning.

"Individualistic" accounts with these special payoff adjustments are incomplete without some engagement with the sources of those "non-individualistic" reasons and motives.

3/
Read 12 tweets
6 Nov
I have a game:

discuss historical events in the year corresponding to Biden's lead in the Georgia count. Your first number is 1709.
Ok, the year corresponding to TRUMP's lead, and per @DecisionDeskHQ via @kiragoldner, your next number is 1479.
Read 4 tweets
6 Nov
It was a lot about fish, some about Russia
🎏🇷🇺
Read 4 tweets
22 Oct
A thread on what we can learn about polarization of opinions from a simple behavioral network model.

Remember the DeGroot model? It says you decide what to think tomorrow by taking an average of what you and your friends think today.

Examples:

1/
Here is a condensed way of writing it using vector notation, which turns out to be very useful!

Here W has no negative entries, and each row sums to 1 (that's called "row-stochastic"). That makes sense, since each person is averaging others' views.

2/
We often want to think of the weights as coming from a social network, maybe something like this. The network tells you who are the friends that you listen to.

So we'd better establish a way of thinking of the updating weights as coming from a network.

3/
Read 26 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!