Economics..so whats it all about?

johnty56

I know this probably should be in the economics section, but I really need a boiled down answer, not some bs, as economists son't really seem to know their arse from their elbow..

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you....

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

Where To

Supply and Demand.

Underdraft

I think if I buy your house for €1million and you buy my house for €1million then everyone is a millionarie.

Captain_Generic

johnty56 wrote: »

not some bs

You're in the right place

policarp

E' con micks. . .

Sky King

Underdraft wrote: »

I think if I buy your house for €1million and you buy my house for €1million then everyone is a millionarie.

No no.... you buy it for 1 million and sell it six months later for 3 million.

Can't wait for celtic tiger 2 tbh.

policarp

Underdraft wrote: »

I think if I buy your house for €1million and you buy my house for €1million then everyone is a millionarie.

Is that how you have an underdraft?

stephen_k

johnty56 wrote: »

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

No... we go in, we kill... we kill...

Soon my dog of war, I understand your pain, we all lose someone we love, but we do it my way, we do it my way...

Loosers wait... loosers wait

Mr Benevolent

A has a loaf of bread but no money; B has money but no bread. Extrapolate from there and you've got economics.

dxhound2005

Economies go through cycles of boom and bust.

Toothpaste89

Haven't a clue. Studied it for 3 years and still haven't a clue.:o

dxhound2005

Someone told me the other day that if I buy €10,000 in Savings Certificates or other state savings products that increases the national debt by €10,000 because the state then owes the money to me.

SafeSurfer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

johnty56

Does that make you part of the problem or part of the solution??

Chuck Stone

I don't think anyone knows.

I don't think any contested field contains experts, rather, ideologues.

Where To

Economics is simple, it's people that complicate things.

Underdraft

I believe it has something to do with selling goods to zombies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPVyieptwA

TheZohanS

johnty56 wrote: »

I know this probably should be in the economics section, but I really need a boiled down answer, not some bs, as economists son't really seem to know their arse from their elbow..

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you....

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

No.

Icepick

johnty56 wrote: »

do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite?

What do you mean?
For example, I now co-own 3 banks and their former owners were given nothing.

johnty56

you own nothing of those banks.. the only ones who were given nothing are the individuals who owned shares in them, and I stress Individuals...
The big time guys who bought 1 billion of BoI last year are already up 500million on their investment.. what are you up??

TheZohanS

johnty56 wrote: »

you own nothing of those banks.. the only ones who were given nothing are the individuals who owned shares in them, and I stress Individuals...
The big time guys who bought 1 billion of BoI last year are already up 500million on their investment.. what are you up??

Just rang my broker there, I'm only up €200million....what the fock!

It's an outrage!

lividduck

johnty56 wrote: »

I know this probably should be in the economics section, but I really need a boiled down answer, not some bs, as economists son't really seem to know their arse from their elbow..

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you....

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

The allocation of scarce resources between competing needs.

44leto

Economics greek for greek, its hardly a science more system for understanding chaos.

I do have a broad understanding of its principles, to spite what I posted I find it interesting.

ed2hands

OP is right.

Economists (most especially Austrian ones), and for that matter particle physicists are for the most part, bull****ters.


"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

There are of course many exceptions. Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind.

lividduck

ed2hands wrote: »

OP is right.

Economists (most especially Austrian ones), and for that matter particle physicists are for the most part, bull****ters.


"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

There are of course many exceptions. Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind.

So does Milton Friedman!

44leto

ed2hands wrote: »

OP is right.

Economists (most especially Austrian ones), and for that matter particle physicists are for the most part, bull****ters.


"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****."

There are of course many exceptions. Joseph Stiglitz comes to mind.

I wouldn't say particle physicists are full of bull, there results and theories have to be empirically proven, their science is predictive. Economists can only predict the future after it already happened. They can only explain how things went wrong. But sometimes their knowledge is useful in setting a policy.

As for Milton Friedman the world bank usually imposes his models on countries, kind of extreme thatcherism, so Ireland beware.

lividduck

44leto wrote: »

I wouldn't say particle physicists are full of bull, there results and theories have to be empirically proven, their science is predictive. Economists can only predict the future after it already happened. They can only explain how things went wrong. But sometimes their knowledge is useful in setting a policy.

As for Milton Friedman the world bank usually imposes his models on countries, kind of extreme thatcherism, so Ireland beware.

Study Friednan, the apologise.
Friedman never ever supported Thatchers extremism, she was actually influence more by Sir Keith Joseph and latters Sir Alan Walters.

Cicero

Economics sounds like Boll:eek:s but it's not polite to say that word online.:pac:

44leto

lividduck wrote: »

Study Friednan, the apologise.
Friedman never ever supported Thatchers extremism, she was actually influence more by Sir Keith Joseph and latters Sir Alan Walters.

His monetarism policies usually reduce the supply of money which drives down inflation but increases unemployment. Also I believe he was for reducing the size of the state and reducing taxes and allowing a free market with no government interference.

I could be wrong I am working from memory.

Mardy Bum

People seem to think that economics is limited to macroeconomics and forget about every other branch of it.

lividduck

44leto wrote: »

His monetarism policies usually reduce the supply of money which drives down inflation but increases unemployment. Also I believe he was for reducing the size of the state and reducing taxes and allowing a free market with no government interference.

I could be wrong I am working from memory.

Broadly correct but he also had Adam Smiths views on the decent treatment of the poorer sections of the community often referred to as the Linen shirt argument in favour of social welfare intervention. friedman argued that the unemployed, the poor etc should not be offered services for which the rich were paid whether or not the poor availaed of them (eg Medical Cards), instead the poor should be given the money and allowed to purchase the service , if needed, in the free market, thus the services they recieved would not be substandard and if they took steps to reduce the likelyhood of needing them they could improve their quality of life by spending the unused money on other things.

44leto

Mardy Bum wrote: »

People seem to think that economics is limited to macroeconomics and forget about every other branch of it.

The freakonomics and Gladwell branch, great reads actually.

ed2hands

lividduck wrote: »

So does Milton Friedman!

Eh no.:)

Chile.

kumate_champ07

as long as people dont understand it, things will stay the same, which suits a minority

Jay D

johnty56 wrote: »

I know this probably should be in the economics section, but I really need a boiled down answer, not some bs, as economists son't really seem to know their arse from their elbow..

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you....

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

I think you're delusional. I used to love the way my economics lecturer would say, show me a one handed economist Knowing their arse from their elbow they always have to take into account one element, then on the other hand... and so on.

Temptamperu

Capitalism dosent work, the only people who dont understand this is economists.

44leto

Temptamperu wrote: »

Capitalism dosent work, the only people who dont understand this is economists.

Why do you think that when you live is a wealthy western country who has clearly benefited from that system.

UsernameInUse

You cannot learn economics in college and if you do, you'll end up coming out a Keynesian - which has got us into this mess to begin with.

LONG LIVE AUSTRO ECONOMICS.

Ron Paul 2012!

lividduck

Temptamperu wrote: »

Capitalism dosent work, the only people who dont understand this is economists.

Professor PJ Drudy would agree with you, he is an ...wait for it...ECONOMIST!..and a founder of TASC

UsernameInUse

Temptamperu wrote: »

Capitalism dosent work, the only people who dont understand this is economists.

lol...what a totally delusional statement to make.

In your world, the means of production in agriculture would be held soley by the state as we have seen in Soviet Russia where the government incompetence seen the starvation of millions of people. Get over yourself, you Statist pig.

southsiderosie

johnty56 wrote: »

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you...

The current economic crisis is really down to a political problem: key constituencies get protected by elected officials. However, the scale of protecting failed banks is much grater than protecting public sector workers, pensioners, or (INSERT GROUP HERE).

44leto

southsiderosie wrote: »

The current economic crisis is really down to a political problem: key constituencies get protected by elected officials. However, the scale of protecting failed banks is much grater than protecting public sector workers, pensioners, or (INSERT GROUP HERE).

But we will never know what would have happened if all the banks failed of which they would have if there was no intervention.

I think that would have been a terminal blow for Ireland and one we never would have recovered from.

But I would have let Anglo go.

dillo2k10

johnty56 wrote: »

I know this probably should be in the economics section, but I really need a boiled down answer, not some bs, as economists son't really seem to know their arse from their elbow..

My question is this... do you think that the current 'crisis' is really a complete bare faced move to take wealth from the average joe soap and the poor and move it into the hands of the serious elite? Have they just given up on all pretenses of social morality and justice?
Lets face it .. look 10-20 years down the line ... 9 billion plus people.. less resources..if you were super wealthy wouldn't it make sense to consolidate what you have now before someone tries to take it from you....

Long and short of it.. I'm thinking Omega man/ Mad Max type future.. what ye all think???

I cant really understand what your saying (maybe because I'm tired) but answering the question in your title - economics is the study of choices and why people make them.

Economists try to find the best way to allocate scarce resources and maximise utility (happiness)

dillo2k10

Temptamperu wrote: »

Capitalism dosent work, the only people who dont understand this is economists.

So what would you suggest instead of capitalism?

Whats the best way to allocate resources? How do you choose who gets to work cleaning toilets or who works as a accountant?

southsiderosie wrote: »

The current economic crisis is really down to a political problem: key constituencies get protected by elected officials. However, the scale of protecting failed banks is much grater than protecting public sector workers, pensioners, or (INSERT GROUP HERE).

No actually the current economic crisis has nothing to do with politics, its all due to debt restructuring (cant remember it that's the actual name)is US banks and lending to the sub-prime.

Of course they had to protect the banks, maybe not all of them, but some had to be saved. Otherwise we would all be dead before any recovery started.

44leto

dillo2k10 wrote: »

So what would you suggest instead of capitalism?

Whats the best way to allocate resources? How do you choose who gets to work cleaning toilets or who works as a accountant?

Well Pol Pot solved that problem, he emptied the cities and made everyone work on the land, except the children, he armed them and made them guards, because they were not corrupted by the old regime.

You see simple.

theg81der

Economics is the study of how people use their limited resources to satisfy their unlimited wants.

Yes I do think that this recession was created. Perhaps to limit or reduce the population or the drain on resources or just to make the populous more pliable. Amazing how when money was mention - "Yes to Europe, Yes to jobs" and all that crap that was feed to people to believe their finances would be affected - people will vote for anything, without using their brains!

I certainly think it`s strange that basic economics clearly showed what was going to happen and Pam Woodhall head of Economist magazine twice warned and illustrated her concerns over our economy and was met with laughs. Funny all those fella`s are still laughin its just us meer mortals that are suffering!

Anyway my Euroscepticism belongs in consiracy theories for another decade till the majority cop on.

southsiderosie

44leto wrote: »

But we will never know what would have happened if all the banks failed of which they would have if there was no intervention.

I think that would have been a terminal blow for Ireland and one we never would have recovered from.

But I would have let Anglo go.

But the crisis is not just about the banks; it's the combination of overspending on wages and benefits(as opposed to investment) and the bank bailout. Arguably Ireland would not be in as bad of shape as they are today if they were not dealign with simultaneous hits to the public finances.

The government could have made a blanket guarantee for depositors, rather than investors - this could have allowed the system to still function for consumers, while forcing a restructuring of the banks.

I would agree that Anglo should have been left to rot, however.

UsernameInUse

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the crisis is not just about the banks; it's the combination of overspending on wages and benefits(as opposed to investment) and the bank bailout. Arguably Ireland would not be in as bad of shape as they are today if they were not dealign with simultaneous hits to the public finances.

The government could have made a blanket guarantee for depositors, rather than investors - this could have allowed the system to still function for consumers, while forcing a restructuring of the banks.

I would agree that Anglo should have been left to rot, however.

Have you ever attended college to study economics? If so, the Keynesianism is killing your mind and your soul.

44leto

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the crisis is not just about the banks; it's the combination of overspending on wages and benefits(as opposed to investment) and the bank bailout. Arguably Ireland would not be in as bad of shape as they are today if they were not dealign with simultaneous hits to the public finances.

The government could have made a blanket guarantee for depositors, rather than investors - this could have allowed the system to still function for consumers, while forcing a restructuring of the banks.

I would agree that Anglo should have been left to rot, however.

Well the blanket guarantee was a mistake, but even if they didn't give that the capital injection would have being the same. Like Britain had a similar situation with Northern Rock and RBS and proportionally they have put in the same capital into each.

But with our banks that capital investments and NAMA will eventually be pissed away, we the tax payer will never get that money back.

But if the banks failed there would have been an exodus of capital and loss of saving not seen ever any where. They had to save some of them. That I agreed with.

dillo2k10

44leto wrote: »

Well Pol Pot solved that problem, he emptied the cities and made everyone work on the land, except the children, he armed them and made them guards, because they were not corrupted by the old regime.

You see simple.

And do you believe that would improve the quality of life for the average person in Ireland?

southsiderosie

dillo2k10 wrote: »

No actually the current economic crisis has nothing to do with politics, its all due to debt restructuring (cant remember it that's the actual name)is US banks and lending to the sub-prime.

Of course they had to protect the banks, maybe not all of them, but some had to be saved. Otherwise we would all be dead before any recovery started.

My comments were meant to address the crisis in Ireland, but a few things:

1. The US government approved multiple bank mergers and consolidations over the last 15 years, making them too big to fail. If they had actually used existing anti-trust legislation, this would not have happened. No bank should hold enough US deposits that its failure would drag down the entire system with it.

2. The failures of the derivatives markets were in large part due to the Clinton administration's repeal of Depression-era legislation specifically designed to prevent the kind fo systemic investment-banking led meltdown that occurred. Clinton's key economic advisors at the time had close ties to the banking industry (Robert Rubin & Citibank). Wall Street bankers have also heavily donated to the Obama campaign; is it any surprise that the regulatory response from this administration has been weak, at best?

At the end of the day, it is regulation which keeps the banking system from caving in upon itself. However, levels of regulation are not an economic issue, they are a political issue: if this were strictly about banks, then we would expect to see similar banking crises across most of the developed world. But we haven't.