Yup, this is about economics, a fascinating field of science.
Comment on country development, interest rates, fiscal & monetary policy, the ole Greenspan and Trichet...
The Perfectly Rational Maximizer of Utility gets 2!
First law of money:
Money can neither be created nor destroyed.
There is a very simple mechanism behind this law which is that money is only the carrier of wealth. Other than being a carrier of wealth it has no value. Whatever the denominator on the money supply, it always transfers only the ownership of wealth as it changes hands. Of course Euro-notes can be created and destroyed. But they are not money.
lol. emperical economics = boring shit. e.g. running regressions / data analysis. all the stuff listed above = boring. econ is a lot more fun in terms of mathematical analysis - e.g. intellectual masturbation ... a recreational form of real analysis and statistical modeling ....
and yea i hate macro. i also hate kydland. he was the worst prof i ever had in ug. ... worst prof ever being my grad real analysis / lebesgue integration prof
How can you say macro sux? Come on, mathematical analysis can only follow from an understanding of the concepts you are modelling. I had a second-year macro course just now, and it gets (a lot) more intricated than first year stuff. Granted, micro-econ may allow for more playing ground, but the conclusions gained are often not (to me) very appealing.
This thread is relevant to my interests.
>>6
Being invisible wont stop people from hearing your moaning while you fap.
>>7 is pretty DQN!
So what happens when I burn a trillion bux? Does the value of the dollar go up or something?
Just to go on that assumption, and overdoing it a little (perhaps): If you regularly (with fire) burn them then the supply of dollars falls, and its price (in terms of other currencies) will rise. This is called depreciation. However, you may assume that the Fed will compensate very quickly so the effect will only last for a small moment (like one, two weeks?). I don't know how to factor in the effect on financial markets if they learn that some idiot burned a trillion dollars.
The other interpretation of 'burn' is just to waste it i.e. spend it on things that will not yield any return. This is currently happening in the US. In this case, the USA are simply borrowing money from all over the world, especially asia. Economic theory dictates that the dollar should fall, but this doesn't seem to happen.
'They,' mostly Americans, say that the dollar doesn't fall because investment opportunities are better in the US than elsewhere. Can someone follow up on this?
Is there actually anything new to economics like in physics? Sure seems like a dead topic. People only study it to get a job at a bank or something, I think
>>12
They could discover new patterns of growth or something like that.
and then what? it's still a big waste of time if ya ask me.
They could develop some models that actually match reality!
> They could discover new patterns of money transfer that allow them to relieve the ignorant masses of their hard earned dollars.
Unfortunately, nr 16, economists generally don't find such relationships. Otherwise they wouldnt have to remain at their faculties fighting for budget!
grad econ != UG econ .. and Grad macro is crazy compared to UG macro ... it's really crazy .. but i still hate macro. i took grad courses at my UG (which is known for empirical - not theory) ... but i got into a 1st tier econ Phd program that specializes in micro theory .. so w00t!
which do you like better, the macro or the micro? I'm taking a course in productivity now, which actually combines parts of both which is very very interesting
Contributors to the advancement of economic theory need not be professors. Many go into the private sector.
Industry won't fund economic theory. They might fund applied micro, but they won't fund pure theory. I mean there is no incentive to fund pure theory when it has no real return outside of academia.
I got a UG degree in econ and I don't know wtf I gonna do with it.
Do you think supply of ug economists exceeds demand?