Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add python/julia codes for solving NK Model in CLMM #53

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 11, 2017
Merged

Conversation

sglyon
Copy link
Member

@sglyon sglyon commented Jun 3, 2017

In this PR I included two notebooks that serve as part of the appendix for a working paper I'm working on with @cc7768 and @maliars.

The notebooks provide code for solving a New Keynesian model with an option to impose or not impose a zero lower bound on interest rates.

Once the paper has a home somewhere online I will update these notebooks to include a link to the paper.

@cc7768 might have a couple more notebooks coming that are the other part of our Python/Julia appendix demonstrating 7 different algorithms for solving a standard growth model.

@sglyon sglyon requested a review from cc7768 June 3, 2017 04:02
@thomassargent30
Copy link

thomassargent30 commented Jun 3, 2017 via email

@cc7768
Copy link
Member

cc7768 commented Jun 3, 2017

These notebooks are excellent. There is lots of useful code, but seem a little sparse in terms of words. If these will be "stand alone" notebooks on the QE notebooks site, it might be helpful to provide a little more description of the model and solution. (I guess you could counter this suggestion by saying that the details are in the paper and can be found there).

@sglyon
Copy link
Member Author

sglyon commented Jun 3, 2017

I was also a little torn about having np description of the model, but after having thought about it I see it as more of an advantage. This is an online appendix and the paper contains the model.

If you think it would be better I would be happy to include the list of equilibrium conditions and variables (similar to what we do in the main body of the paper right now). Thoughts?

@jstac
Copy link
Contributor

jstac commented Jun 3, 2017

@sglyon Many thanks. Very interesting.

In my view we could do without all the equations as long as we have a link to the paper embedded in the notebook. Do you have a permanent URL?

Also, at the end of the computations I was looking forward to seeing interpretation. I suppose that's in the paper and if so that's fine --- there's no need to repeat. But perhaps at the end of each notebook a line that says interpretation can be found in the paper would be good.

@sglyon
Copy link
Member Author

sglyon commented Jun 3, 2017

Hey @jstac that's a good idea. I'll at least add a line directing people to the paper if they want to learn more and see some interpretation.

Once we hear @cc7768's vote about the equations, we can make final decision about that.

We don't yet have a permanent URL, but when we do I'll revise these notebooks and put it in.

@cc7768
Copy link
Member

cc7768 commented Jun 3, 2017

I could live without the equations if we eventually can point to a place where people could investigate if they were interested in them.

I guess my opinion that it is sparse on words depends on whether this is meant solely as a computational appendix (i.e. a place for people to read and explore the code after having viewed the paper) or whether this is meant to be a standalone notebook people may stumble across on QE. My interpretation was that we would hope for interest generated in both directions, if that is true, I think the notebook could use a few more words. For example, in the "Solution Routine" section there are no words that describe what is happening. A couple words in the solution routine section and a "conclusion" paragraph would add some value (even though a lot of it would already be said in the paper).

@sglyon sglyon merged commit 6d649a6 into master Jul 11, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants