How important is the study of Economics? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 16, 2024, 02:30:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  How important is the study of Economics? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How important is the study of Economics?  (Read 5470 times)
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


« on: June 16, 2017, 02:07:03 PM »



There are probably around 15 basic economics concept that appear regularly in life.  Since high school students should have observed them in their own life, the purpose of the education would be mainly to formalize the concepts and explain how they work on a macro level.

Off the top of my head, these are the concepts I can think of:
1.Scarcity/limited resources/limited choices and related concept that no choice is perfect.  That leads to the related concept of Pareto Optimality, which is the closest to 'perfection' that can actually be achieved.
2.Opportunity Cost
3.Utility theory (diminishing marginal utility/resources going to those who are best able to utilize them)
4.Difference between marginal analysis and aggregate analysis and why decisions should be 'made at the margins'
5.Externalities
6.Network externalities, or network effects, which I believe is a similar concept as  the 'symbiotic relationship' in nature.
7.Time lags
8.Difference between the short run and the long run.  (People have more time to adjust in the long run and, presumably, learn from their mistakes in the long run.)
9.Market failures
10.Asymmetrical information and the related concept of signalling
11.Sunk costs.
12.Normative vs. Positive Statements.  A good economics teacher will tell you the only appropriate response to a normative statement is "Why?"  (And a bad economics teacher will tell you "Leave Norm alone!")



I would add Bastiat's 'broken window' fallacy - saying that for instance Hurricane Katrina or Libya post Gaddafi was a 'business opportunity'. It is the forerunner to the actual term 'opportunity cost'.

His economic sophism on the candlemaker is a good illustration of crony capitalism.

The Austrian school's subjective theory of value is perhaps one of their most astute observations and expands on the connection of prices to the marginal utility theory of David Ricardo and other classical economists. Obviously also if one is astute enough to economically rip apart the labor theory of value which is essential to Marxism. And the subjective theory of value is a great way to look at that - for instance a diamond is valuable whether you needed to mine it from South Africa or if you found it randomly. The price you pay is when the item you want is valued more than the money you are going to hand over - not equal.

Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2017, 12:37:31 PM »

I would argue FDR had the best team.
180 degree complete opposite opinion. I view him as someone who extended and expanded the Depression for nearly a decade. Burning crops, banning gold then devaluing it, keeping emergency policies as permanent. Antithetical to prosperity. Admired by Mussolini.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2017, 04:01:44 PM »

Well gold has nothing to do with economics, so that's irrelevant.

Except gold has been long accepted as a means of exchange - dating back centuries. It still has intrinsic value beyond just being shiny and pretty for jewelry.

Thus it has a lot to do with economics. Read up on Executive Order 6102.

They outlawed possession of gold gave people 20.67 per oz. for the gold they turned in. 382.00 in today's money. This was not a fair price. Then they raised the price of gold for international exchange to $35.00 (648.00 per troy oz). Violations punishable by fines that would be worth 150,000 in today's dollars.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2017, 06:57:00 AM »

Well gold has nothing to do with economics, so that's irrelevant.

Except gold has been long accepted as a means of exchange - dating back centuries. It still has intrinsic value beyond just being shiny and pretty for jewelry.

Thus it has a lot to do with economics. Read up on Executive Order 6102.

They outlawed possession of gold gave people 20.67 per oz. for the gold they turned in. 382.00 in today's money. This was not a fair price. Then they raised the price of gold for international exchange to $35.00 (648.00 per troy oz). Violations punishable by fines that would be worth 150,000 in today's dollars.


The only reason gold is valued is because it's shiny and pretty. It doesn't have some magical value that paper money doesn't.

It is not about being shiny. People have been using barter & exchange for long including food articles as medium but needed 1 unit of exchange before fiat money came in.

There are certain basic requirements for that - Durability (It can't be perishable like food articles), divisibility - You can pile up coins or weights of gold & standardize units (How do you divide food articles & many other stuff), Low Weight (You have to pile hugs stocks of food articles or other stuff).

There are many reasons why metals were chosen - Gold for example has limited availability, stable production across time (no huge short supply in winter), has high replacement cost, is non-perishable, durable, divisible, portable (easy to carry etc) ! Pretty basic economics when studying the monetary system !

Yes, exactly.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.