if Shakespeare was an applied economist

confirmation of theory or unobserved heterogeneity that is the question. Is it nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous reduced form estimates or take arms against a matrix of possible unobserved variables and by making identifying assumptions, end them?

Golden Boy

when you start looking for perfection, you realize it's impossible to attain, so it takes the pressure off, and you - as Ravi Shastri would put it - go for maximum. but if you don't look for it, you will never realize it's impossible, so you perform inoptimally.

not clear?

btw, Jon Levin published his first article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. I'd request anyone to look over the editorial policy and birth of this particular Journal to see why this observation has made an impression on me.

I'm not criticizing Levin, he's a very good economist. What frustrates me is the apparent non-random inconsistency of the editorial policies of journals...*grumble grumble*

dilemma

all things are considered/

all said and done/

when the genius is laid to rest/

in the sleepy hollows of time/

will they still ask/

in expectation, is the probability/

of winning/

when sachin gets to a century/

rather small, vanishingly?

or, is there unobserved heterogeneity?

co-exist?

"Nothing spoils the taste of peanut butter like unrequited love"

(on both sides of the border)