|
Nix Panicus posted:Higher level econ doesnt get any better, it just adds a lot of graphs, pseudo scientific 'formulas', and linear regressions to take twenty pages to come to equally facile conclusions. Liberal economics settles for wearing the clothing of physics, but it desperately wants to be mathematics and free itself entirely from the anchors of observation and experimentation This is one of the reasons I'm actually quite happy that I studied economics in Poland rather than my circa 2008 dream of going to the London School of Economics, Oxford or Harvard. I was taught formulas that actually make sense and show that government spending is loving awesome for the economy. We literally had a pretty simple equation called "the macroeconomic equation" that proved it - I mean it wasn't useful to actually calculate things precisely, just prove a point - and would it shock you to know that I've never been able to find anything like it in English-language sources? I was also taught about how much better planned economies were. Oh, they didn't say that outright, I think they'd be fired if they did, I was at a relatively expensive private business school... but they did say that the main difference is that a market economy is limited by capital availability, while a command economy is limited by raw resources - thus a command economy can efficiently process all the resources they can access. This was delivered in a very neutral, even-handed comparison, but even lib student me couldn't help but think that seems good to be able to do!
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:a market economy is limited by capital availability, while a command economy is limited by raw resources - thus a command economy can efficiently process all the resources they can access. !!!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:11
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:This is one of the reasons I'm actually quite happy that I studied economics in Poland rather than my circa 2008 dream of going to the London School of Economics, Oxford or Harvard. If I was to going to Poland to study economics in 2024, would I receive a similar education like you had at that business school? I had the dream of going to the LSE, Oxford, and other 'elite' colleges myself for further education back in the day.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:21
|
|
|
This was extended into a wider point that a market economy can purchase resources with money if they can afford it - but that also means they have less money to spend on actually using those resources. Conversely, a command economy finds it much harder to purchase resources because they tend to not make a lot of profit in foreign currencies, and therefore do not have a lot of those currencies to spend on international trade. (that command economies tend to be turbo sanctioned was not mentioned) That's definitely true, but, well, most countries have more basic resources than they can process with money constraints anyway! It wasn't directly connected, but it was pointed out for example that Poland imports a lot of oil despite having pretty large oil reserves and having a pretty large semi-nationalized oil company.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:21
|
|
|
AmyL posted:If I was to going to Poland to study economics in 2024, would I receive a similar education like you had at that business school? I had the dream of going to the LSE, Oxford, and other 'elite' colleges myself for further education back in the day. I have no idea, it was a long time ago. Things may have changed. Public universities might be different than the one I went to, and private ones I assume are also different. Pretty much every lecturer I had was great in some ways, though the Political Systems one was extremely enamored with the US, believing in all his heart that Americans are extremely rational, mature, and pragmatic, and make very informed choices in their well-functioning democracy. One of my economics professors was Kenyan though, and I wonder if that influenced his opinions a lot. He was really cool.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:24
|
|
|
My econ degree was at a relatively fancy west coast liberal arts college and the professors spent a great deal of time teaching that government spending always resulted in a dead weight loss to the economy and therefore could never be more efficient than markets. Its been several years and Ive mostly forgotten the exact construction but a key element was considering the government as an alien third entity divorced from producers or consumers. If you completely divorce government from the people then yeah, I guess anything government does detracts from the good of the governed by definition. I wasn't smart enough to understand the slight of hand at the time and was duly impressed by the mathematical rigor even though it felt wrong Ive mentioned it before but I managed to go through a full econ degree with an emphasis on public policy and income distribution, including a class literally titled 'labor economics' and another one called 'poverty and income' and Marx was never brought up once.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:34
|
|
|
Poland had only joined the EU in 2004 so perhaps the difference, the purge hadn't fully completed at that point.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 11:49
|
|
|
My wife went to an elite school for international trade, just FYI before anyone gets any ideas. You might marry a dumbass like me.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 12:27
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:That's the least rusty navy ship to be seen in this thread like ever Hey now there have been Chinese ships posted.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 12:53
|
|
|
dads friend steve posted:I’m glad the Canadian army guy has to melt his brain on inane Econ 101 horseshit FF came here to chew red bags and do intro econ, and the army is all out of red bags.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:FF came here to chew red bags and do intro econ, and the army is all out of red bags. red bag exposure helps the econ go down, if you catch my drift
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 13:00
|
|
|
A lot of times red bags are the delivery mechanism for the econ.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 13:02
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:FF came here to chew red bags and do intro econ, and the army is all out of red bags. I’m just excited to have this very important e-training that costs $250 per module for the one-time Macmillan code so that I’m allowed to have an opinion on spending decisions. A perfectly spherical projectile is roundshot, so maybe I can apply my knowledge here and get ahead of the course content.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Can't decide if the the moduls' wording is sincerely on the level of teaching a child or if it is actively mocking anyone dumb enough to pay for that
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
Junkozeyne posted:Can't decide if the the moduls' wording is sincerely on the level of teaching a child or if it is actively mocking anyone dumb enough to pay for that If the module is too difficult they won't pass and earn the certificate and their employer won't pay the test company for more modules.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:17
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:a thing about Econ that pushed me very left from where I was, was realizing that the perfect efficient market we’re all supposedly moving towards - economist heaven - is a nightmare. Every single person spends every day choosing between working for just enough to live, or choosing to starve to death. there’s a lot about economics that’s ridiculous, but if you take all of it as an axiom and work with its assumptions, it wants the perfectly efficient market. where everything and everyone has a price, and that price is only infinitesimally higher than the price of saying gently caress it, just kill me. liberal economics spends a lot of time talking about rising tides and all that, but you work through the blueprints and it very explicitly is trying to build the worst possible future. a frictionless economy would be as useful as a frictionless pair of shoes and nearly as safe
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz8ssH7LiB0
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:23
|
|
|
they really don’t need that much more infrastructure, lmao incredible
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:44
|
|
|
 the $6 willingness never existed !! ahhhh
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
I'm willing to pay 0 dollars for coffee when I don't feel like coffee.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:49
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:you stated that you would spend no more than $60,000,000 for a fighter plane.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:I am slowly becoming the joker because of this web module I have to do this week ff is being put under microeconomic 101 hell hahahaha
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
 why is the question calling it overpriced ??? to whom? who is speaking? it may not be overpriced
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
Your vassal state is fighting a war they can't win. Not without more equipment. But you aren't spending. Why is that FF?euphronius posted:
Clearly if the Business Owner is running a Succesful Business by charging $10.50 then that is the fair price The Market has determined. Whoever made this question is a communist and should be removed forthwith.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:54
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
I believe they're saying it's overpriced based on what the user puts in for how much they would pay. Like if the person put in that they thought $12 was a normal price the overpriced example would be $16 and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your vassal state.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:58
|
|
|
People in the Economics and Social Services group of the civil service don't actually... believe this stuff.. do they? "If prices were higher, profits would fall, so business owners don't do that" is literally directly contradicted by observable reality, across every sector of the economy. Artillery shells cost $5000 dollars for chrissakes.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 14:59
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:This is one of the reasons I'm actually quite happy that I studied economics in Poland rather than my circa 2008 dream of going to the London School of Economics, Oxford or Harvard. Kalecki loving owns. In fact the Polish Marxists contributions to theory were loving awesome and yeah, there's a massive difference in learning if you go outside the temples of mainstream econ. The uni I went to in Brazil had a very broad formation base and had an entire line of disciplines of political economy, which made all the difference
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:People in the Economics and Social Services group of the civil service don't actually... believe this stuff.. do they? I am sorry to break it to you this way, but the neoclassical theory is called mainstream economics for a reason op
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:
 oh the economists say the only coffee shop open at this hour is overpriced?? applying their own science it is priced exactly how it should bemaybe the lesson is instead of studying you open a competing late night coffee shop in the student center
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:
There were several questions about the opportunity cost of studying vs working overtime for your boss, because you'd get 5% higher if you studied for the 2 extra hours instead of working, or the marginal benefit of going to school instead of the workforce. Almost every question is inane garbage or so nakedly ideological I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Justin Tyme posted:
Goes back at 10 am, coffee is priced at a very competitive 5.82. Sorry the rent seeking university issues a monopoly through selective licensing of on site services. Next bidding is in 5 years.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
the defeat of the USSR led to, among other things, the subjective value theory taking unquestionable precedence over economic orthodoxy. It used to be that labor theory was at least acknowledged, but iirc that cratered in the 80s
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Goes back at 10 am, coffee is priced at a very competitive 5.82. The amount of coffee places on campuses has exploded over the past few years too. Instead of the cheap student-run coffee place, Queens has Starbucks, Second Cup, etc. etc. all charging big bucks for coffee, and that money isn't going to the student union.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:There were several questions about the opportunity cost of studying vs working overtime for your boss, because you'd get 5% higher if you studied for the 2 extra hours instead of working, or the marginal benefit of going to school instead of the workforce. it doesnt survive an ounce of scrutiny in peoples lived experiences, like im not thinking about what my dollar to hunger ratio is when ive been working outside all day and decide to eat a bigass al pastor burrito in one sitting. in fact i dont even gfucking look at the price!!!!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
in college when i was trying to decide whether to buy overpriced coffee I said "gently caress it" and bought a thermos and brought my own coffee every day. the thermos paid for itself in a week.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
CN CREW-VESSEL posted:Almost every question is inane garbage or so nakedly ideological I don't know what to say. and it's the point op A colleague in our group firmly believes that the major reason why the west and its dependencies are eating poo poo in economic advancement is basically due to ideological failure. I disagree with him that I see it as a symptom not cause, but the general point is good: the main centers of Western economic thought have programs of learning that serve the interests of the priesthood, which then serves capital. It's a subtle difference because not every university has their department of econ bent to donors -- but when that school provides people to the IMF, WTO, World Bank, Eurobank, ministries of finance aaaand of course investment banks (and more ofc), you have an ideological filter on your program through institutional interest. And with that, there's simply no life support for an advanced formation on heterodox econ (let alone marxism)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:and it's the point op its not idealogical failure, its just the natural end state of a system which the priority for each of the people participating is "make money". public good doesnt factor into anything unless it causes you to lose money, and only if it causes you to lose money to settlements more than you lose complying with regulation like you could write (and im sure there exists) long rear end screeds justifying admin bloat at hospitals because all the beancounters "provide a valuable service" or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
by ideological failure, I should have written "ideological program that defeats itself"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
One of the incorrect answers for the multiple choice question defining marginal benefit was "creates public good"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2024 15:59
|
|