五月天婷亚洲天久久综合网,婷婷丁香五月激情亚洲综合,久久男人精品女人,麻豆91在线播放

  • <center id="8gusu"></center><rt id="8gusu"></rt>
    <menu id="8gusu"><small id="8gusu"></small></menu>
  • <dd id="8gusu"><s id="8gusu"></s></dd>

    關(guān)于RBC 和DSGE 和AGE(CGE) 的一個(gè)有趣的投票-經(jīng)管之家官網(wǎng)!

    人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇-經(jīng)管之家 收藏本站
    您當(dāng)前的位置> 期刊>>

    期刊庫(kù)

    >>

    關(guān)于RBC 和DSGE 和AGE(CGE) 的一個(gè)有趣的投票

    關(guān)于RBC 和DSGE 和AGE(CGE) 的一個(gè)有趣的投票

    發(fā)布:我是一只高壓鍋 | 分類:期刊庫(kù)

    關(guān)于本站

    人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇-經(jīng)管之家:分享大學(xué)、考研、論文、會(huì)計(jì)、留學(xué)、數(shù)據(jù)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、金融學(xué)、管理學(xué)、統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)、博弈論、統(tǒng)計(jì)年鑒、行業(yè)分析包括等相關(guān)資源。
    經(jīng)管之家是國(guó)內(nèi)活躍的在線教育咨詢平臺(tái)!

    經(jīng)管之家新媒體交易平臺(tái)

    提供"微信號(hào)、微博、抖音、快手、頭條、小紅書、百家號(hào)、企鵝號(hào)、UC號(hào)、一點(diǎn)資訊"等虛擬賬號(hào)交易,真正實(shí)現(xiàn)買賣雙方的共贏!菊(qǐng)點(diǎn)擊這里訪問(wèn)】

    提供微信號(hào)、微博、抖音、快手、頭條、小紅書、百家號(hào)、企鵝號(hào)、UC號(hào)、一點(diǎn)資訊等虛擬賬號(hào)交易,真正實(shí)現(xiàn)買賣雙方的共贏!菊(qǐng)點(diǎn)擊這里訪問(wèn)】

    TheRBCvoteIn1983,LongandPlosserintroducedtheterm"realbusinesscycles"(RBC)justafterKydlandandPrescottpublishedtheirtime-to-buildpaper.RBCstuckandhasbecometheacronymforamethodologythatisnowappliedto ...
    免費(fèi)學(xué)術(shù)公開課,掃碼加入


    The RBC voteIn 1983, Long and Plosser introduced the term "real business cycles" (RBC) just after Kydland and Prescott published their time-to-build paper. RBC stuck and has become the acronym for a methodology that is now applied to models that have nothing real and may not even be about real business cycles.

    In the first issue of the EconomicDynamics Newsletter, David Backus suggested that a vote should be taken to decide on a new and more appropriate acronym. Well, time has come to do exactly that. I have gathered some suggestions from prominent users of this theory and people that have helped shape it. Here they are, with some arguments to help you make a choice.

    The object of the voteThe acronym should represent the methodology whereby economic issues are addressed with dynamic general equilibrium models that are calibrated (or sometimes estimated) in order to obtain quantitative results and/or compute welfare measures. Feel free to differ on this definition.The choices

    • Applied Equilibrium Dynamics - AED
    • Dynamic General Equilibrium Model - DGE
    • Kydland Prescott Model - KPM
    • Quantitative Equilibrium Dynamics - QED
    • Real Business Cycle Theory - RBC
    • Stochastic CAlibrated Dynamic General Equilibrium - SCADGE
    • Serious Equilibrium Models - SE
    Some endorsements
    Edward Prescott, University of Minnesota
    Long and Plosser introduced the term real business cycles to distinguish cycles induced by real factors from cycles induced by nominal factors and by financial crises. This I think is good language for this distinction. The term real business cycles has come to have a much broader meaning and I agree with David Backus that a an acronym is needed for the development you describe in your email. The key concepts are quantitative or applied, dynamic, and general equilibrium. This suggests Quantitative Equilibrium Dynamics (QED) or Applied Economic Dynamics (AED).
    Julio Rotemberg, Harvard UniversitySCADGE (pronounced as a one syllable word) stands for Stochastic CAlibrated Dynamic General Equilibrium and these are, to me, the key five words that describe these models. There are many varieties of dynamic general equilibrium models out there (including growth models, of course) and it seems important to distinguish these from the others. Calibration is not the only distinguishing feature, however, as this is done also in the fairly vast literature that calls itslef CGE (or Computational General Equilibrium). What separates this from that is the explicit analysis of second moments, and that is why I put in the S.
    Randall Wright, University of PennsylvaniaI sort of like "the DGE model". Although "the Kydland-Prescott Model" (KPM) is even better -- it's accurate and fair.
    David Backus, New York UniversityI agree with Randy: DGE.Timothy Kehoe, University of MinnesotaI vote for dynamic general equilibrium (although I like "applied").
    Patrick Kehoe, Federal Reserve Bank of MinneapolisI like DGE but you have to admit that it sounds a little nerdy. If we could get away with it, I would prefer SE for Serious Equilibrium models, but it is not clear this this term will fly. The problem with AED or ADE is that it brings to mind the work on Applied General Equilibrium models by the old group at the World Bank that was not so good.
    Michael Woodford, Princeton UniversityDGE models. QED is fine (even better than DGE models) as a way of referring to the literature as a whole. For example, there could be a web page for 'QED', a review article might discuss developments in 'QED', and so on. But it isn't a good term for an individual model: iit would be very awkward to write a paper that begins "I construct an open-economy QED model..." So instead one needs the term 'DGE model' to refer to an individual example. This makes it the better term.Vote results
    DGE75.9%
    SCADGE9.3%
    QED5.6%
    RBC3.7%
    KPM1.9%
    SE1.9%
    other1.9%
    A couple of interesting suggestions:

    • Rather Be Calibrating - RBC (Peter Summers)
    • Intertemporal Stochastic Laboratory Models (Franck Portier)

    這個(gè)是我在逛網(wǎng)站時(shí)看到的一些有趣的東西,和大家分享。具體內(nèi)容是許多著名學(xué)者對(duì)DGE 和CGE 還有RBC的一些看法和選擇,最后發(fā)現(xiàn)DGE wins
    「經(jīng)管之家」APP:經(jīng)管人學(xué)習(xí)、答疑、交友,就上經(jīng)管之家!
    免流量費(fèi)下載資料----在經(jīng)管之家app可以下載論壇上的所有資源,并且不額外收取下載高峰期的論壇幣。
    涵蓋所有經(jīng)管領(lǐng)域的優(yōu)秀內(nèi)容----覆蓋經(jīng)濟(jì)、管理、金融投資、計(jì)量統(tǒng)計(jì)、數(shù)據(jù)分析、國(guó)貿(mào)、財(cái)會(huì)等專業(yè)的學(xué)習(xí)寶庫(kù),各類資料應(yīng)有盡有。
    來(lái)自五湖四海的經(jīng)管達(dá)人----已經(jīng)有上千萬(wàn)的經(jīng)管人來(lái)到這里,你可以找到任何學(xué)科方向、有共同話題的朋友。
    經(jīng)管之家(原人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇),跨越高校的圍墻,帶你走進(jìn)經(jīng)管知識(shí)的新世界。
    掃描下方二維碼下載并注冊(cè)APP
    本文關(guān)鍵詞:

    本文論壇網(wǎng)址:http://xalimeijing.com/thread-2450761-1-1.html

    人氣文章

    1.凡人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇-經(jīng)管之家轉(zhuǎn)載的文章,均出自其它媒體或其他官網(wǎng)介紹,目的在于傳遞更多的信息,并不代表本站贊同其觀點(diǎn)和其真實(shí)性負(fù)責(zé);
    2.轉(zhuǎn)載的文章僅代表原創(chuàng)作者觀點(diǎn),與本站無(wú)關(guān)。其原創(chuàng)性以及文中陳述文字和內(nèi)容未經(jīng)本站證實(shí),本站對(duì)該文以及其中全部或者部分內(nèi)容、文字的真實(shí)性、完整性、及時(shí)性,不作出任何保證或承若;
    3.如本站轉(zhuǎn)載稿涉及版權(quán)等問(wèn)題,請(qǐng)作者及時(shí)聯(lián)系本站,我們會(huì)及時(shí)處理。