Talk:Econometrics

message: This article needs a section on the history of these methods  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.202.83.46 (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please historicize

message: People from the social sciences, econometrics, experimental psychology, psychometrics and other fields of measuring humans and human activity may want to provide input on the "measurement" article in Wikipedia.  The current form of the article on measurement seems to exclude from measurement anthing other than "ratios of physical quantities" as it is used in the narrower field of metrology.  You may want to provide some input on that.Hubbardaie (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurement Definition

message: I tried to add a simple overview for younger students as so far it's pretty complex!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Far too complex

message: There are plenty of critics of econometrics and its failure to model many aspects of economies. Why is there no section on criticism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.212.101 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no ever constant belief that time series are stationary (see the many econometric tools that exist to deal with non-stationarity). Wikiant (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: You are confusing the profession for the discipline. Econometricians may apply econometric techniques that assume normality to data that are non-normal. That isn't a criticism of econometrics, but a criticism of the econometricians. Wikiant (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. II | (t - c) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism?

message: lnY=-8.4009+0.6731lnX2+1.1860lnX3
My question is that -8.4009 it is an intercept or not and why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.192.92 (talk) 
It is a log-linear model and ln0,00022466=-8,4009 so it is an intercept.Soulviver 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification of equation 

message: I'm sorry, I can't understand a word of this article. Any chance of a simpler introduction? Adam Cuerden talk 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er.... 

message: There need to be a major rewrite to the article. I've posted a link under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics for it.Leigao84 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I took out the line about difference between statistics and econometrics from the intro and the reference to Granger causality.Leigao84 22:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between applied statistics 

message: The list of econometrics packages is a bit ad-hoc -- several of the packages listed here are relatively minor in terms of importance to the field, and others (such as LIMDEP) that have well-established and strong user communities among econometricians are missing.  Some of the packages listed here are more popular for teaching than for research, or are not particularly popular among econometricians at all. I didn't edit the list, however, as I don't think my judgment of what should be listed here (and in what order) is necessarily any more objective than anyone else's.  My list would definitely include STATA, SAS, LIMDEP, SPSS, TSP, SHAZAM, eVIEWS.  I would also include mathematical programming languages that are widely used by econometricians (even if they're not quite the same as the "canned" statistical packages), such as GAUSS, R, S, and MATLAB.  Can anyone suggest criteria for this section?  68.148.229.84 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Econometrics Packages 

message: It's my belief that a log equation is not simple to a general audience.  Why not use the MPC?  
Burkander 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Example too complicated 

message: A disclaimer: I am not an econometrician.  However, I believe the use of logarithms in econometric models has little to do with standard uses of logarithms, i.e. to convert multiplication into addition, and lots to do with the shape of a logarithmic curve, i.e. convex and monotonic.  This is the shape needed to describe typical Utility functions, whereby increasing availability of a dependent variable (e.g. income) produces increasing utility to the consumer (e.g. happliness) that are reasonably described by a convex monotonic relationship.  In plainer terms (I hope!), an increase in income produce increases in happiness, but such that the rate at which happiness increases reduces for larger incomes.  Logartihmic curves look that way, so are a convenient utility function.  P.r.newman (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logarithms and Utility 

message: Would it be possible to add a list of the main learned societies for econometrics? I am looking to resolve a red link in the article on Nikolay Fedorenko. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learned societies 

message: that says econometrics is bullshit
"The term ε is a random variable representing all other factors that may have direct influence on wage. The econometric goal is to estimate the parameters, β0 and β1 under specific assumptions about the random variable ε."
Please.
VTNC (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a "Criticism" section 

message: What a strange name.
If I write "log(chance_of_cancer) = A * cigarettes smoked + B * asbestos snorted + C * days spent sunbathing", is that called "healthometrics"?
If I write "log(bogeys) = A * lightning bolts + B * gopher holes + C * funny socks", is that called "golfometrics"?
Doubledork (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All philological abominations (including “econometrics”).  The word “hygieinometrics” could stand where you propose “healthometrics”.  There's no Classical Greek word for “golf”, but “moromicrosphairometrics” might work. —SlamDiego←T 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Metrics means measurement, econo- is short for economics. Put them together and you get measurement of things relating to economics. Clear enough for anyone with a bit of common sense, Doubledork is just being difficult and attempting to be funny.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.170.189.51 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  Yes. The nick tells it all. Of course for instance Ronald Fisher, one of the celebrated scientists of the 1900s, was just a funny guy playing with funny things, identifying himself as a biometrician and all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.88.127 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Econometrics"? 

message: I'm not sure how to correct it, I've just created a login to make this comment, but this page has been vandalised - under "Notable econometricians" the 1989 Nobel Laureate Trygve Haavelmo has been erased in favour of an entry for a fictional Lloyd Jones. No such person was awarded a Nobel Prize in any year. The tip-off is the reference to the "Sun Shagger Of The Year" award. The false information was added in the anonymous edit on May 17 2010. NeilGarratt (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism, false information added 

message: I removed the criticism section. Most of the criticisms are out of context. Leamer is an econometrician himself. Coase is cited as an unpublished quotation and who knows the context(s). He is likely only taking about bad practices, which isn't a criticism of econometrics itself. Every econometrics course teaches you how to avoid spurious correlation. Lucas and Solow are criticizing specific types of models. Every econometric model has been criticized. This criticism is part of econometrics.  Only the Austrian and Robinson mentions are possibly relevant, but I don't think these are really worth saving as they were.
:If you're not saying they're definitely not relevant, them I'm putting them back in. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
:Correction--the Robinson thing ain't a criticism. I'll make the Austrian critique bit better (just putting stuff from "Austrian School" article in basically). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012
::Medicine does not contain a section on criticism by phrenologists or psychic surgeons. Statistics does not contain criticism from Hard Times.  There is not need to list criticism by "the Austrian school" or Joan Robinson, and such BS wastes the public's time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the text of the removed "criticism" section and I'll freely admit it was far from perfect (but before it was a one liner... ). Criticisms of the (mis)use of econometric methods by econometricians are hugely relevant to the scope of the article, though I've taken the hint and reworded to make the scope of their criticisms more clear. I've balanced that reinclusion by removing the WP:Undue Weight on the Austrian School's preferred deductive method and their WP:Fringe claim that observable statistical regularities in human behaviour don't exist: that's been moved in the the helpfully-created Criticisms of econometrics article. Perhaps "Limitations" would be a better section title although "criticism" seems to be a Wikipedia norm...Dtellett (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the "Lucas critique" section. It's misleading to imply that this is a general criticism of econometrics. The Lucas critique was a criticism of a specific class of econometric models used in macroeconomics. These models have been supplanted (or supplemented) by newer models since the 1970s. I don't see a reason to include an old criticism of a specific type of model in this section. Plenty of econometric models have been criticized over the years.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, there is currently no mainstream criticism of econometrics, as a whole. Sure, I too have read in the internet some people criticizing studies that employ applied econometrics which they label "pointless gymnastics"; however, none of them seem to understand econometrics.  Valid criticism can only come from a top notched econometrician or a  statistician specialized in multivariate regression. This criterion excludes Hayek and most, if not all, austrian school economists.  Having said that, let me address the Leamer critique. It is not a critique of econometrics per se, but a critique of the often undisclosed specification searches made by econometricians.  It should belong in a Wikipedia entry of Model Specification in Econometrics, not in the main "Econometrics" entry.  By including these criticisms, the editors seem to be pushing their own Point of View (POV).  Mainstream economists do not criticize the "use of mathematical and statistical methods in economic data", that is, econometrics, as an entire branch of Economics. If McCloskey thinks that most economists over the last years have misused the interpretation of statistical techniques, that will eventually made its way in journals as original research and it will lead to better practices.  Nonetheless, I doubt it will ever make anyone drop the use of econometrics, in any of its forms, from economics.  On one hand, I ask fellow editors to please revert the edits and eliminate the criticism section from this entry. On the other hand I agree that this entry should maintain a conservative tone regarding the effectiveness of econometrics for producing economic inferences, like causal relationships. A balanced entry should strip the article of any sort of "magic" qualities of econometrics. --Forich (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Please see WP:NOT and WP:EL; c.f., WP:EW. 
Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:External links]] 

message: Why does this page contain so much detail about the Gauss-Markov theorem? It seems out of place. Although Gauss-Markov is fundamental to OLS, OLS is not unique to econometrics. Beyond this, it is not fundamental to the discipline.
Blossomonte (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much detail about Gauss-Markov? 

message: I just removed this section. There is no standard defined in the article, and no widely used definition for who is a 'notable' econometrician. Perhaps a list of Nobel prize winners may be appropriate, but not the list as it stood. It was essentially fancruft. Also, consider that the articles on statistics, physics, economics, etc, does not have a list of notable people.   LK (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable econometricians 

message: Some sections have been removed. diff
Not being an econometrician not sure if they were useful or not. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several sections removed 

message: Dr. Santos Silva has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Santos Silva has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : J.M.C. Santos Silva, 2005. "A Note On Influence Assessment In Score Tests," Econometrics 0511008, EconWPA, revised 12 Nov 2005.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Santos Silva's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Cooper has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Cooper has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Cooper, Joseph C. & Langemeier, Michael R. & Schnitkey, Gary D. & Zulauf, Carl R., 2009. "Constructing Farm Level Yield Densities from Aggregated Data: Analysis and Comparison of Approaches," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49216, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Cooper's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Martinho has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Martinho has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Martinho, Vitor Joao Pereira Domingues, 2013. "Spatial analysis of the tourism supply, in Portugal, at NUTs III level," EconStor Preprints 71762, ZBW - German National Library of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Martinho's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Zeileis has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Zeileis has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Christian Kleiber & Achim Zeileis, 2014. "Visualizing Count Data Regressions Using Rootograms," Working Papers 2014-20, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Zeileis's comment on this article 

message: I suggest that, in the lead section, "founding fathers" → "founders".  There is surely no reason to specify a male context in this setting.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framing of "founding fathers"