#EconTwitter hivemind: what are your favorite papers combining “causal” micro estimates (say from DiD or RCT) with a general-equilibrium macro model to answer an interesting macro question?
This is for my PhD teaching so the easier to read the better. Thanks in advance!
Illustrates increasing popularity of this "micro-to-macro" approach and breadth of topics it has been applied to.
Thanks to my two predoc RAs @AYCouturier and Rui Sousa for compiling it!
If you suggested a paper and it's not on the list, it's either because it didn't fit the criteria (say no macro GE model) or we missed you in the depth of the thread, apologies for that!
Please let me know if we forgot or "misclassified" the paper you suggested.
Let me add my notes on the problem with going from x-section to aggregates. If you read til here, you likely know this. But many economists still get it wrong so I tried to spell out problem in simplest form:
The benefits of new technologies accrue not only to high-skilled labor but also to owners of capital in the form of higher capital incomes. This increases income and wealth inequality.
Coincidentally this @voxdotcom "Billionaires Explained" show has a pretty good intuitive version of our theory netflix.com/watch/81097618 (from minute 8:00), there explained by @JeffDSachs.
It's also worth adding that standard theories predict exactly the opposite, namely that (in the long-run) all benefits of automation accrue to labor in the form higher wages.
This @TheEconomist article does not reflect the views of most economists I know.
Most economists I know did not "get off on the wrong foot" with epidemiologists. Instead they highly value their work and just try to learn from it as much as possible.
1/
They do not "intensely criticize" epidemiologists' models or their use. Instead they have hugely benefited from them and been very much aware of how difficult it is to forecast an epidemic in the face of limited and fast-changing data availability and quality.
2/
As far as I can tell, your and others' economic policy advice assumes single-peaked epidemic scenario.
What if epidemic cycles? Same policies for longer? Or should the policies also cycle?
Clarification: "what should policy response be w cycles in 2nd graph" should have said "what should *economic* policy response be" eg how structure liquidity injections to firms and households?