No kidding
102
68
14
1,846
412,046
This is not how we should proceed. I hope the authors and MR retract this based on a wide range of folks making a good case against this type of review / assessment.
14
19
333
25,617
If you're going to use an AI judge, this needs a control badly.
5
1
315
25,339
The two economists who write academic work exclusively to please left wing politicians did some lying?
2
2
1
190
8,116
Not surprised. Their 2019 work that claimed bottom decile earners paid same/higher tax rates as billionaires calculated tax as % or income by excluding SNAP from the denominator but *including* taxes paid with SNAP in the numerator. This gave some low earners effective tax rates >100%. Saez and Zucman just excluded these people from the study to avoid raising eyebrows. They are over-credentialed frauds.
5
8
1
265
29,575
This is surprising coming from two French economists at Berkeley 🤔
Image from Ken Broad (@Metis65)
3
53
4,588
One fatal flaw is enough. 40 minor flaws don't matter.
1
23
4,923
You need to be specific about the errors and validate them if you’re going to come at those two.
1
10
2,056
r> g doesn’t replicate xitter.twitterapi.xyz/abcampbell/status/2006…
Campbell (@abcampbell) profile pictureCampbell
@abcampbell30 Dec 2025
Replying to @dwarkesh_sp @pawtrammell
Piketty doesn't replicate in the data. Not across country or time. It doesn't even make sense, when R (rates) < G (growth) asset prices RISE relative to wage income, increasing relatively inequality. So it's nonsensical. Well intentioned nonsense.
9
2,128
AI is coming for the economists
427
I am reading the report and there seems to be a clear bias in the investigation. Some of the “major” problems appear to be a matter of taste and/or driven by the prompt used to solicit a response. And the prompts are nowhere to he found. This is not good.
2
2
137
7,241
Incredibly disappointing to see such a braindead use of AI. Anyone who works with agents to write code knows that if you ask them to find problems, they *always* will find "problems", most of which are entirely inconsequential or irrelevant. They do what you ask them to.
5
2
72
5,266
Brought to you by machines that makes tons of errors themselves all the time. Perfect. 😂🤡🤦🏻‍♂️
5
1
47
5,797
Wow! Even Claude things they actively committed fraud, this says a lot! Normally it would shy away from such statements, why is there no consequences for such people?
Image from Robert Boehme (@RBoehme86)
2
1
48
4,090
50% of economics is narrative driven and based on ideology not science.
2
25
3,561
Total fuckin slop posing as “refutation of research” What a joke!
15
2,838
You mean to tell me that leftist activist researchers lied in their papers to push their cause and narrative further…I’m shocked!
6
1,209
How would Cowen’s work fare against this same analysis?
7
1,236
Wow. How can science by call science if those practicing don’t check their own work prior to publishing?
1
2
1,870
I tend to think much of economics “research” has always been pseudoscience in service of the State
2
315
Si los números de Saez y Zucman tienen errores, que lo revisen quienes los usan para justificar más impuestos. En Sumar, por ejemplo, les tienen mucha fe. 😏
1
1,188
Now do Paul Krugman. Pretty please with sugar on it.
2
155
It's time for a Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman tax on university professors. A special tax to shore up public pensions. Who could be against taxing the socialists? @elonmusk @BillAckman
1
448
Yo they’re absolutely flaming you for doing politically motivated ai slop btw
1
286
But Human Peer Review Suffices!
92
We call errors what in reality are deep ideological biases. Fundamentalists biases.
531
@RBReich be like this to his Berkeley grad students when they ask him about the marginal revolution take on Saez-Zuckman
658
Call this controlled burn to get rid of the dead wood
1,276
@grok what errors?
1
1,354
The feed is divided into two kinds of people: those who want transparency to proceed and those who resist any attempt to course correct. The latter seem to be called economists more often than not.
3
338
which of their series got revised and does the headline top share number actually move
2
945
This is embarrassing.
1
210
.@grok tldr eli5
1
3
1,141
Anything on the order of magnitude of Reinhard and Rogoff excel shenanigans?
2
1,024
cc @eigenrobot ⬆️ perhaps of interest to those who dig economics
1
2,679
Ha, true. Basic peer review should have caught it. Still, AI checking the math on influential papers before they shape policy would be a great use case.
484
Load more replies