I've been wondering for some time whether or not the concepts behind economics are just made-up or actually represent real things? After-all do we know that economies are helpful, are they important, is it corporations or the people that matter? I can't believe that economies are important as everyone is saying, and honestly this is just way out there for me but ehh... they try making it seem like the economy is all that matters, and that we must have more money.. in my opinion they're the ones causing all these problems by making us work for slave wages and doing menial jobs. They should make people happy and satisfied then maybe we'll work because we want to not cuz we're paid, what a stupid BS economics is... and when the dust settles and America is burning in ashes then what'll happen to that great economic theory?
What do you suppose is a better solution than an economy built on free trade? Should we all be responsible for our own food, clothes, and shelter? Do you have any idea how horribly inefficient this would be? And how many sacrifices would be made in standards of living? Hardly any of us would have electricity, air conditioning, refrigeration, medical care. Your diet would consist of the very few things that each region can produce, rather than the luxury of going to the market and getting things from around the world for very cheap. A world without trade would be horrible. Even very small tribes had concepts of private ownership and trade. They are necessary. Many animals have these concepts, like vampire bats, dogs, cats, primates, ant colonies, etc... And that is all an economic system is, the rules regarding trade. Money is just a place-holder for our time spent producing one good or service. It makes trade easier. It allows the stabilization of prices. It helps the consumer in all ways possible. It seems to me that you have absolutely no idea about any of this. Would that be a fair assumption?
I think I understand, oops, wait no I don't.... the economy is evil, corporations are evil, we're all doomed!
microeconomcis is mostly real, macro not so much microeconomics is based on truth, macroeconomics is not so much. macro models are typically based on aggregate information from which credible statistical inferences seem invalid (at least to me) for two reasons: (1) too many omitted variables (i.e. how can you possibly funnel everything that affects the macroeconomy into a single function??); and (2) aggregate macroeconomic data has been available only for the past 70 years or so, so its difficult to find some kind of "trend" in the economy based on so little information. Micro is straightup truth though. its just based on optimizing utility functions of various actors (from n = 2 to n = infinity), and finding all the nash equilibria. theoretically, there is nothing wrong with micro.
I somewhat agree, but c'mon... you have to admit that macro economics has uses and often reveals truths. Just because it is macro doesn't mean that it is complex, just that there is an interplay between various economies or trades. If the price of a VHS movie is constant for 10 years, and then DVD becomes a new standard, which results in the reduction of prices for VHS, it is easy to use macroeconomic concepts to explain this trend. Likewise can we explain the rising cost of coffee when Britain decides it enjoys it more than tea, and creates new demands. Or when a civil war in Columbia disturbs production, or both of these happen at once.
swivel: well, the examples you give arise because two goods (like DVDs and VHS or tea and coffee) are substitutes. or a civil war is a supply shock to production. these are basic economic theories, i wouldn't really call them macroeconomic models. by models i was thinking of the solow model or the endogenous growth model ( i guess these are specific to development macro). in general though, my argument is simply that there are too many extraneous factors influencing something like real GDP growth, or interest rates, or foreign direct investment, that creating a function of exogenous variables to explain these endogenous variables seems like a waste of time. For example, the Fed had to change the models it was using in the 1980s. It used to target the money supply, but then, with the advent ATMs and in general electronic banking the money supply ceased to be a strong indicator of money demand and so the Fed has since switched to interest rate adjustments. there are just too many variables and the world is changing too quickly for these models to be of any use.
Oh, I agree. GDP is impossible to pin down on a single factor. But I think you are just picking the most complex examples of macroeconomics, and tossing the baby out with the bathwater. FDI, interest rates, GDP, money supply, these are the 'biggies' which have the most contributing factors. Modeling them is like perfectly modeling the weather. Surely you don't think all of macroeconomics is void because of the worst cases? This seems like a misuse of ad absurdium.
Both responses are correct. The economy is real but economics is bullsh!t. You need to mix a little Sun Tzu into the equation. "All warfare is based on deception." For a more European interpretation you need to check out John von Neumann and Game Theory. The economics profession doesn't talk about how much lying and information hiding is going on in the economic power games. The best book I know of on the subject is: The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood Apparently someone else was impressed by him. http://members.aol.com/rottencat1/screwmid.html http://booksliterature.com/showthread.php?t=236 psik
its all bullshit.... but it works. and if you understand how it works... you can use it. if you dont.... then you become a poor working slave to this debt system. this system... debt currency... helps those who understand it. and enslaves those who dont. and those who understand it... dont seem to be sharing this knowledge. -MT
Exactly, you presented the exact rationale for my writing and distributing this on the internet. http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html Some people seem to find it interesting and pass it on. http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/showthread.php?t=103583 I thought Lester Thurow should know about it since I mention has book but he didn't respond to the email. :bawl: :shrug: psik
So that is the reason to use the internet to educate about economics. The first point being the economics profession is full of crap. http://booksliterature.com/showthread.php?t=236 psik
