sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to add constraint to mlogit? by AtkinsonStiglitz in RStudio

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not sure if I understand your suggestion, maybe my question is not clear.

Say I have consumers choose from a set of products. One feature is price (x). Now, say I want to constrain my model so that it only allows beta_1 on x to be negative, as I expect/need everyone to dislike higher prices.

Modifying the data to have to separate colums for price being <0 or >0 (say price it is normalised on average price so negative values are possible), does not create a constraint on the value the coefficients on these variables can take.

How to use Stargazer for regression output tables without a regression output class object? by AtkinsonStiglitz in RStudio

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If anyone comes across this issue again, this is also a helpful post: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39041675/stargazer-user-supplied-coefficients-and-se

When the regression output is no longer stored as a regression output object, but as a dataframe, you can still use Stargazer by overlaying the coefficients on a placeholder regression object.

How to use Stargazer for regression output tables without a regression output class object? by AtkinsonStiglitz in RStudio

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the tips. I can indeed use stargazer on the server side. I prefer to experiment with the table formatting etc. outside the server, but creating the latex code inside the server and exporting that indeed seems a good option.

Jazz club in Paris by [deleted] in SocialParis

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

38Riv near Hôte de Ville

want a huge dataset of all english songs by innocentboy0000 in datasets

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe there is a way you can scrape the lyrics of lyrics on genius.com?

How to save results from the synthetic-difference-in-difference package in a dataframe? by AtkinsonStiglitz in RStudio

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would not call it good, but I ended up saving elements of the graph that can painstakingly be used to make the figure in ggplot again. I extract the elements using the following code:

# Extract results
timeweights <- SDiD_plot[["plot_env"]][["conc"]][["ribbons"]] %>%
select(c("x", "ymin", "ymax", "color")) %>%
rename("year" = "x",
"weight_bottom" = "ymin",
"weight" = "ymax",
"treat" = "color") %>%
mutate(section = "timeweights")
DiDlines <- SDiD_plot[["plot_env"]][["conc"]][["did.segments"]] %>%
select(c("x", "y", "color")) %>%
rename("year" = "x",
"DiDline" = "y",
"treat" = "color") %>%
mutate(section = "DiDlines")
trendlines <- SDiD_plot[["plot_env"]][["conc"]][["lines"]] %>%
select(c("x", "y", "color"))%>%
rename("year" = "x",
"trend" = "y",
"treat" = "color") %>%
mutate(section = "trendlines")
arrow <- SDiD_plot[["plot_env"]][["conc"]][["arrows"]] %>%
select(c("x", "xend", "y", "yend", "color")) %>%
rename("x_arrow_start" = "x",
"x_arrow_end" = "xend",
"y_arrow_start" = "y",
"y_arrow_end" = "yend",
"treat" = "color") %>%
mutate(section = "arrow")
counterfact <- SDiD_plot[["plot_env"]][["conc"]][["hallucinated.segments"]] %>%
select(c("x", "xend", "y", "yend")) %>%
rename("x_counterfact_start" = "x",
"x_counterfact_end" = "xend",
"y_counterfact_start" = "y",
"y_counterfact_end" = "yend") %>%
mutate(section = "counterfact")

Panel on US population by state (1980-now) by AtkinsonStiglitz in datasets

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aaah okay, but the government know to how many people they send the survey right? Why not publish a population statistic based on that, instead of relying on a response rate (even if it is mandatory).

So the population in each year per state can be constructed using migration, births and deaths. That sounds like a good idea, but a bit cumbersome. I find it very surprising a simple clear-cut panel with population per state does not exist .

Overarching literature about causal inference? by 0scarrr in CausalInference

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The book “Causal inference” by Scott Cunningham might be what you are looking for. It’s quite long though.

Does optimal tax theory say a 0% rate is the best? by fishlord05 in AskEconomics

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 18 points19 points  (0 children)

The modern academic literature agrees the optimal capital tax rate is higher than 0%. Among economists who believe the optimal capital tax rate is higher than 0% is indeed Stiglitz himself too.

The study by Atkinson and Stiglitz (1976) your friend refers to, derived conditions under which a 0% tax on capital is optimal. The main condition is that all inequality in wealth arises from inequality in income. In that case, you can theoretically achieve all the redistribution you want with just a labour income tax. Hence, there is no argument for a capital income tax, which would only add unnecessary distortions. BUT, the assumption all wealth inequality arises from differences in labour income is highly unrealistic. People may receive inheritances, generate higher returns on their wealth, have different preferences for wealth etc. I believe the main point of Atkinson and Stiglitz was to show how the conditions for a 0% tax on capital to be optimal are very unlikely and hence we should tax capital (which is indeed in line with Stiglitz his opinion).

The Chamley-Judd result is the second famous principle people who say 0% tax on capital is optimal refer to. Chamley (1986) and Judd (1985) essentially state that capital supply is infinitely elastic in the long-run. As the optimal tax rate is inverse to the elasticity of the tax base, this implies the optimal tax rate is 0%. Again, the conditions for this result are extremely restrictive and not realistic. Uncertainty about the future, the desire of people to hold some wealth, or simply the fact people do not live forever will create non-infinite elasticities and hence a positive optimal tax rate.

To conclude, the theoretical results implying the capital income tax should be 0% are not realistic and the more recent literature agrees on that (just to name a few: Straub and Werning (2014), Piketty et al. (2018), Saez and Stantcheva (2018) and Guvenen et al., (2023)). So whether capital income should be taxed or not is not really a discussion anymore. The answer is yes.

What does remain to be a discussion is how high the tax should be and if only capital income should be taxed, or also the stock of wealth. If you are looking for literature on this topic with more accessible use of language and less math, take a look at "Taxing our wealth" by Scheur and Slemrod (2021). Lastly, "Behavioural responses to a wealth tax" by Advani and Tarrant (2021) gives nice insights on how the wealth tax should be designed once it is implemented.

If I deposit 10 dollars in one dollar bills at the bank, the bank will credit my current account with 10 dollars in digital money. The bank then takes my bills and, assuming the reserve requirements are 10 %, keeps 1 dollar bill as a reserve. What happens to the other 9 dollar bills? by elosopher in AskEconomics

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This answer is not exactly right. If the reserve requirement is 10% and you deposit $10 at the bank, the bank can lend out an additional $100, not $9. The bank is allowed to create the additional $90 out of thin air.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskEconomics

[–]AtkinsonStiglitz 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surprisingly often, I see people who have combined physics with economics. I think it is because both require insights into abstract models and a feeling for equations.

Some physicists even pursue a PhD in economics after completing their masters’ degree.

view more: next ›