{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014245014245014245, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007122507122507123, 'mean_word_length': 5.113043478260869, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Translation and Critique of the LSE Approach 1 Introduction The breakdown of the 1960 s consensus regarding the theoretical foundation of macroeconomics

We characterize the LSE approach by its implications for reduced-form modeling and structural interpretations. Much of what has come to be associated with the LSE methodology involves the approach to fitting reduced forms, and can be thought of as a pragmatic solution to problems created by short samples plagued by serial correlation. The policy analysis one might be able to do with an “LSE model,” on the other hand, hinges on structural identification arguments which do not meet the classic Cowles Commission standards, and is thus suspect.