Modern Economics

grip said:

I think the reason modern economics doesn't appear to work is the emo factor. Greed and avarice are part of the equation that math doesn't factor in.

Click to expand...

Nor does common sense.

I'm no master of economics or math but I like to keep things simple and I think I have common sense.

See if I am wrong in my common sense economics here are the numbers.

If Americans have more jobs, people have more paychecks.

1 paycheck at say $2.00 above minimum wage= more taxes= more purchases=money circulation= paying on the national debt.
Multiply that by 6 million some where in there you have a + adding

No paycheck= unemployment from the government or state= more food stamps=more welfare=less purchases= no taxes=no paying off the debt =less money circulation.
Multiply that by 6 million some where in there you have a - subtractingeace

presluc said:

Nor does common sense.

I'm no master of economics or math but I like to keep things simple and I think I have common sense.

See if I am wrong in my common sense economics here are the numbers.

If Americans have more jobs, people have more paychecks.

1 paycheck at say $2.00 above minimum wage= more taxes= more purchases=money circulation= paying on the national debt.
Multiply that by 6 million some where in there you have a + adding

No paycheck= unemployment from the government or state= more food stamps=more welfare=less purchases= no taxes=no paying off the debt =less money circulation.
Multiply that by 6 million some where in there you have a - subtractingeace

Click to expand...

I agree and there's no apparent source of new jobs coming anytime soon. But there is going to be an increase of unemployed adults coming into the work scene.

grip said:

I agree and there's no apparent source of new jobs coming anytime soon. But there is going to be an increase of unemployed adults coming into the work scene.

Click to expand...

Well, so far corporations have cut unskilled labor "jobs" in half maybe more.

The bad news is college grads hitting the work force in their area of labor hit an unemployment of about 40% give or take according to a Yahoo news feed..

The real bad news is the way I see it "I could be wrong and hope I am" is that as of today this is how America stands,
America depends on the following for other countries for,
Energy; at least 65 or 75%
Labor; at least 60%
Materials through imports 75%
Communication; 60 to 75%

Of course the garment ind is well ? eace

RandomVariable said:

As a math major, I find the abundant reliance on mathematical models by modern economists absurd. To me it seems that economists suffer from math/physics envy (in that a lot of the mathematical models they use are borrowed from physics with minor adjustments.)

The problem with trying to model a complex system such as the economy - which is comprised of hundreds of millions of participants, all with a mind of their own - is the enormous nonlinearities involved. The nonlinearity translates to significant sensitivity of the output of a certain model to initial inputs. In other words, a small error in the input leads to the rapid evolution towards massively erroneous results. Or in the language of differential equations & dynamical systems, there are huge bifurcations.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly- the idea that you can "forecast" future profits based on quantities demanded in the past is absurd, simply because of how attitudes of consumers are constantly changing. I feel like the only reason any of these multi-national conglomerates still exist today is because of their sheer market dominance-the fact that each market is dominated by a few, top firms-such as Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Exxon-Mobile, etc. etc...

Concurrence regarding statistical models?

Random Variable, 129 posts are too much to scan but I suspect this is one of those rare discussion threads where all (or almost all) participants concur with each other.

Does anyone believe otherwise?

Respectfully, Supposn

Re: Concurrence regarding statistical models?

I'm Supposn said:

Random Variable, 129 posts are too much to scan but I suspect this is one of those rare discussion threads where all (or almost all) participants concur with each other.

Does anyone believe otherwise?

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Well I guess you could wrap it up with one question.

Is the current modern economic system helping or hurting the American economy?eace

Re: Concurrence regarding statistical models?

presluc said:

Well I guess you could wrap it up with one question.

Is the current modern economic system helping or hurting the American economy?eace

Click to expand...

Presluc, No; that's not the question.

Random Variable’s position within the first posted message of this discussion thread was the meaningless of statistical modeling as applied to political elections.

I suspect we’re all (or almost all) in agreement with his position that such models are not valid predictors of elections or economic behaviors.

Respectfully, Supposn

presluc said:

The logic of "numbers are controlled by the people using them.

The math of Modern Economics must be applied by humans, and humans make mistakes.

For 12 years this kind of economics has been applied , and for 12 years the economy of America has gone down, in debt.

Perhaps it is time the Modern Economics of the day try something different?

Or we could "STAY THE COURSE", or wait till "JUST AROUND THE CORNER" gets here or wait for "THE BIG CHANGE" or shout "YES WE CAN " really loud , but so far none of these have worked.eace

Click to expand...

Why specify the last 12 years? Have economic theories changed drastically enough over the last decade to differentiate between the two? There's a large collection of elements and events that have contributed to our debt, some of which that are far more obvious and avoidable than perceived flaws in economic theory.

Re: Concurrence regarding statistical models?

I'm Supposn said:

Presluc, No; that's not the question.

Random Variable’s position within the first posted message of this discussion thread was the meaningless of statistical modeling as applied to political elections.

I suspect we’re all (or almost all) in agreement with his position that such models are not valid predictors of elections or economic behaviors.

Respectfully, Supposn

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is not your question, perhaps it's not "the" question.
However it is my question,
Anybody care to answer with a simple yes or no without a lecture on economics?eace

Hare said:

Why specify the last 12 years? Have economic theories changed drastically enough over the last decade to differentiate between the two? There's a large collection of elements and events that have contributed to our debt, some of which that are far more obvious and avoidable than perceived flaws in economic theory.

Click to expand...

Economics, unless I'm mistaken has something to do with numbers does it not.

Before the year 2000 America's national debt never hit 3 trillion dollars, after it hits 15 trillion.

Before the year 2000 America never trusted the Chinese after the year 2000 we owe the Chinese 93million+.

Since the year 2000 has the national debt gone down?

Now I could go into other factors like the most debt ever on the credit card ind, the most unpaid student loans ever.
Most money spent to bailout corporations, in a time of economic recession
The kicker record profit sales for oil companies, after which they got millions from the federal government for "RESERCH".

All these happened in the last 12 years.

Isn't it time somebody questioned the current economic system in America today?

Perhaps Americans should wait another 12 years then the national debt will be 30 trillion and other debts pile up?
What is America to do "DECLARE BANKRUPCY" chapter 7, OR chapter 11.?eace