Economics (23)

1 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-06 14:34 ID:n1AAiz44

Yup, this is about economics, a fascinating field of science.
Comment on country development, interest rates, fiscal & monetary policy, the ole Greenspan and Trichet...

2 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-07 14:10 ID:Heaven

The Perfectly Rational Maximizer of Utility gets 2!

3 Name: Mad Scientist 2005-12-07 20:26 ID:n1AAiz44

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.

4 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-01 07:41 ID:OoQv1uqq

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

5 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-02 12:09 ID:sjxd8d25

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.

6 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-02 20:40 ID:Heaven

This thread is relevant to my interests.

7 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-06 07:24 ID:JzNoaToq

Being invisible wont stop people from hearing your moaning while you fap.

8 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-06 18:26 ID:Heaven

>>7 is pretty DQN!

9 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-09 00:31 ID:N2cK+8Cf

So what happens when I burn a trillion bux? Does the value of the dollar go up or something?

10 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-09 11:49 ID:S+opoo64

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?

11 Name: 3 2006-02-19 00:30 ID:Heaven


12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-08 11:05 ID:dJz5Ic5H

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

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-09 01:05 ID:810YcKk9

They could discover new patterns of growth or something like that.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-09 11:30 ID:dJz5Ic5H

and then what? it's still a big waste of time if ya ask me.

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-09 14:38 ID:Heaven

They could develop some models that actually match reality!

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-10 06:37 ID:am5UPAg4

> They could discover new patterns of money transfer that allow them to relieve the ignorant masses of their hard earned dollars.

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-11 10:24 ID:dJz5Ic5H

Unfortunately, nr 16, economists generally don't find such relationships. Otherwise they wouldnt have to remain at their faculties fighting for budget!

18 Name: lolicon : 2006-03-11 11:00 ID:vRlHbJ0t

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!

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-13 11:01 ID:a4iXx5xF

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

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-16 10:52 ID:Hd8mCw01


Contributors to the advancement of economic theory need not be professors. Many go into the private sector.

21 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-05-03 04:46 ID:vRlHbJ0t

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.

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-05-08 23:48 ID:CE2Gh/+a

I got a UG degree in econ and I don't know wtf I gonna do with it.

23 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-05-11 00:26 ID:NBlIiCz6

Do you think supply of ug economists exceeds demand?

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...