Talk:Christina Romer

Job Offer

Do we really want to put every subject's job offer history on Wikipedia? Its incomplete and its not relevant. What's next, a blurb on the popularity of her hairstyle?

Harvard controversy

the discussion of the Harvard controversy should either be expanded or dropped. The reference to Alzheimer's and Faust is offensive. More importantly, this is a serious matter and requires some seriousness. Harvard's procedures mean that the only time outside faculty have input (through letters) is at the stage where Fausted vetoed the appointment. Harvard commissioned experts in Romer's field to evaluate her research. On that basis, Faust over-ruled the economics department. This happens all the time at other universities; a department tries to solve an internal political problem with an appointment to someone the profession does not respect very much.

What this means, in effect, is that Romer's peers at other institutions did not think highly of her research. To represent this as Faust being crazy is not fair to Harvard or anyone else. The people quoted in the current article are not in a position to know anything about this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkswirt (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 November 2008

The facts that Romer is former vice-president of the AEA and program director at the NBER--the most prominent professional associations of economists in the US, mean that Romer's peers think EXTREMELY highly of her research. As a general rule, NBER and AEA officers tend to be universally respected researchers. Warsh had some speculations about what happened at Harvard (he suggested that someone in the Economics Department who did not like Romer was outvoted at the department level, and went directly to Faust to seek a veto of the department's recommendation). But this is complete speculation. We have NO IDEA what happened, and it is grossly unfair to suggest that the veto of Harvard's offer has anything to do with the quality of Romer's research.--71.178.76.243 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires basing facts on reliable sources. The problem is that Faust has not spoken publicly about the controversy, so there is no way to know her side of the story. While you may have inside knowledge of what happened behind the scenes, adding that knowledge to the article without having an external reference is considered original research, and therefore prohibited. There is no doubt that the controversy should remain in the article, although the harsh criticism against Faust may be dropped. Dems on the move (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Alzheimer's reference has already been removed. Dems on the move (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

no longer with the administration?

why is she no longer working for the Obama administration? Does this not deserve even a cursory mention in her article? 24.111.211.207 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Great Depression Research

The text: "Romer showed that fiscal policy played a relatively small role in the recovery from the depression in the US, because taxes were raised in the US almost as quickly as government spending increased during the New Deal."

This is misleading. Romer's work shows that a large tax increase occurred under Hoover, exacerbating the depression. Roosevelt's "stimulus" was ground-breaking, because it had never been done before. But it was small by any other standard, and lasted less than two years. Also, Romer's paper did not include WPA and other direct-hire programs as fiscal stimulus, but today's readers probably would assume they'd count.

The text should say: "Romer showed that New Deal fiscal policy measures, though innovative, were very insufficient, and dwarfed by Hoover's tax increase two years earlier."

To quote a recent C. Romer paper: "My argument paralleled E. Cary Brown’s famous conclusion that in the Great Depression, fiscal policy failed to generate recovery “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.” (Lessons from the Great Depression for Economic Recovery in 2009, available online).

---

Brian Coyle

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christina Romer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wwwdev.nber.org/dec2008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112165400/http://www.nationalaffairs.com:80/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed to http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215043622/http://ls.berkeley.edu:80/?q=node/832 to http://ls.berkeley.edu/?q=node/832

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Christina Romer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202234611/http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cromer/draft1108.pdf to http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cromer/draft1108.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927044900/http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cromer/draft708.pdf to http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/cromer/draft708.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ls.berkeley.edu/?q=node%2F832
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020190430/https://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/romers.pdf to https://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/romers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)