#110 Tampon lecking
"c) you criticize me for operating within the framework of economics. This means that you take issue with one of the assumptions:
1. People make choices
2. Resources are limited
3. Wants are infinite
Which do you take issue with?"
No, I say that divorcing socio- from economics is divorcing economics from reality. Just as divorcing people from politics is. Politics is the organization of people. Economics is the organization of value (to people).
1. (The overwhelming majority of) People are forced to make false choices. The powerful minority makes socio-economic political decisions.
2. I agree.
3. Explain. At this point it sounds like Daddy statist "I am the adult in the room, you're all insatiable infants" nonsense.
1. People make choices
2. Resources are limited
3. Wants are infinite
Which do you take issue with?"
No, I say that divorcing socio- from economics is divorcing economics from reality. Just as divorcing people from politics is. Politics is the organization of people. Economics is the organization of value (to people).
1. (The overwhelming majority of) People are forced to make false choices. The powerful minority makes socio-economic political decisions.
2. I agree.
3. Explain. At this point it sounds like Daddy statist "I am the adult in the room, you're all insatiable infants" nonsense.
@clousems
Check out one of the shorter Chris Martenson "Crash Course" videos.
Some of what I recall:
* The economy is subject to swings and the banking system is based on the fractional reserve
* Resources are being depleted (materials, peak oil, etc)
* Understanding exponential functions and what can be modelled by them is crucial
He seems to be non-partisan and he has summarized his "meta analysis" of several fields into a practical guide for the common person to gain some understanding of socioeconomics.
Check out one of the shorter Chris Martenson "Crash Course" videos.
Some of what I recall:
* The economy is subject to swings and the banking system is based on the fractional reserve
* Resources are being depleted (materials, peak oil, etc)
* Understanding exponential functions and what can be modelled by them is crucial
He seems to be non-partisan and he has summarized his "meta analysis" of several fields into a practical guide for the common person to gain some understanding of socioeconomics.
My heart and prayers goes out to all Italians, its really heartbreaking what is going on there.
@Doodbro:
From some of your comments, it appears that you are wanting to turn this into a mainly political discussion, one in which I have no interest in participating at this time. However, I will address some of the economics based questions/points you raised.
Regarding 109:
You are talking about the economy like it is an autonomous entity, however. This is simply an inaccurate way to think about it. As I have said before, it is a term used to describe and summarize the decisions of a group of people.
Regarding 110:
By definition, an economic profit is one in which implicit and explicit benefits exceed implicit and explicit costs.
From 112:
Economics and sociology (as well as political science, philosophy, and psychology) are closely related, but not the same. Sociologists study societies, while economists study the ways people within said societies make decisions when facing scarcity. Economics is not the "organization of value to people," but rather the study of how people make decisions in light of scarce resources. It's a subtle but important difference.
-----------------------------------------
Regarding choices: Even if people don't consciously make choices, everyone still makes some decisions. Even if it is "Do I want fish or chicken?"
--------------------------------------------
Regarding infinite wants: Technically, i suppose it would be more accurate to say unlimited wants.
Regardless, I am not sure how I am supposed to explain a basic assumption. I'll try, mind you, but it will be an imperfect explanation.
Suppose you could double the purchasing power of your money instantly and at no cost (implicit or explicit). Would you do it? My guess would be "yes." No matter how many times you are offered this option, you should accept this option (assuming you are a rational human being). This is because the marginal benefit > 0, no matter how many this transaction occurs. The limit approaches zero, true, but never reaches it.
If you want to continue discussing the economic effects of the coronavirus, I would be happy to do so in another forum thread, so as to respect the wishes of those who have asked us to keep this discussion focused on the original topic.
From some of your comments, it appears that you are wanting to turn this into a mainly political discussion, one in which I have no interest in participating at this time. However, I will address some of the economics based questions/points you raised.
Regarding 109:
You are talking about the economy like it is an autonomous entity, however. This is simply an inaccurate way to think about it. As I have said before, it is a term used to describe and summarize the decisions of a group of people.
Regarding 110:
By definition, an economic profit is one in which implicit and explicit benefits exceed implicit and explicit costs.
From 112:
Economics and sociology (as well as political science, philosophy, and psychology) are closely related, but not the same. Sociologists study societies, while economists study the ways people within said societies make decisions when facing scarcity. Economics is not the "organization of value to people," but rather the study of how people make decisions in light of scarce resources. It's a subtle but important difference.
-----------------------------------------
Regarding choices: Even if people don't consciously make choices, everyone still makes some decisions. Even if it is "Do I want fish or chicken?"
--------------------------------------------
Regarding infinite wants: Technically, i suppose it would be more accurate to say unlimited wants.
Regardless, I am not sure how I am supposed to explain a basic assumption. I'll try, mind you, but it will be an imperfect explanation.
Suppose you could double the purchasing power of your money instantly and at no cost (implicit or explicit). Would you do it? My guess would be "yes." No matter how many times you are offered this option, you should accept this option (assuming you are a rational human being). This is because the marginal benefit > 0, no matter how many this transaction occurs. The limit approaches zero, true, but never reaches it.
If you want to continue discussing the economic effects of the coronavirus, I would be happy to do so in another forum thread, so as to respect the wishes of those who have asked us to keep this discussion focused on the original topic.
@Doodbro : I have been planning on visiting Denial for quite some time now. Since you are evidently a resident of that particular nation, are there any restaurants you would recommend?`
Incidently, I withdraw my prior offer to carry on the debate.
I hope everyone reading this is able to stay well in these hard times!
Incidently, I withdraw my prior offer to carry on the debate.
I hope everyone reading this is able to stay well in these hard times!
Corona virus and government has laid us off
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.