Is Economics a good thing to study, in this current climate?

2tel1

I basically want a good solid degree. I don't necessarily want to work in a bank, or in the government as an Economist but I want a good degree to fall back on? Plus I find it interesting?

Would it be a good thing to study?

dealhunter

Like everything else if you are interested in it, it will be a whole lot easier to do well in it and therefore increase your chances of getting what you want when you graduate.
If your worried about it being to general you could consider something like Econ & Finance. By the time you will be graduating the financial mess should have sorted itself out...hopefully

Well I just did BESS and am now doing a Masters in Economics.

I enjoyed and I think there are (or will be) good career prospects. Espeically as it is one subject that straddles both the professional and academic worlds, so you have plenty of routes to go down once you graduate.

Time Magazine

The current climate will be well on its way to being finished by the time you finish. Don't base your degree choice on it.

2tel1

Thanks a lot guys.

I just have one other thing to ask. I have to write a personal statement to a college (mature student in the uk) and would like to know some pointers on what to say. I read a book on economics and found it quite good. I can't find the book now unfortunately. It was called the "Undercover Economist", not sure if you'd rate it

I liked the way it related say (rough example forget it exactly), if metal runs out and we cant build any more boats to ship goods, then the coffe prices will be effected as it will be no boats and prices may go down...

Now that sounds a bit hazy but I'm sure you know what I mean...I'm also brushing up on mathamatics (Stats etc.) with a few books, that explain it in real world terms, like like the text books in school...I'm going to mention I'm reading these

Any websites that gives good interesting information on economics would be greately apprecitated

...or...

Time Magazine

Economics is basically a form of applied maths, applied to stuff like prices. So if you enjoyed Tim Harford's book, and you like mahts, then Economics may well be perfect for you.

I read marginalrevolution.com every day. It might be a bit advanced for someone only getting into economics, but it can't hurt for you to take a peek at it.

2tel1

The Economist wrote: »

Economics is basically a form of applied maths, applied to stuff like prices. So if you enjoyed Tim Harford's book, and you like mahts, then Economics may well be perfect for you.

I read marginalrevolution.com every day. It might be a bit advanced for someone only getting into economics, but it can't hurt for you to take a peek at it.

Good stuff.

Does anyone have bite size info on how the current economy went down the pan? So I could work it in.

I know it's a lot to do with the sub-prime market in the US and banks borrowing off each other...

Also I learned something about bonds from a cool website...Correct me if I'm wrong but is the article bellow one of the main reasons?

Here's the article...found it on another forum

He’s always been a trendsetter. But could David Bowie have caused the latest fad sweeping the nation – the credit crunch?

It may sound like a ridiculous question, but it’s not as mad as it seems.

Even when it comes to finances Bowie leads the way – and back in 1997 he did something called “securitisation”.

He thought, “I have a lot of money coming in over the next 10 years from my back catalogue, but I’d rather have the cash now and not have to wait”.

He produced some bits of paper – Bowie Bonds – and said “whoever buys these gets my royalties”.

It meant he no longer had the money coming in but instead had a lot up front. His investors were guaranteed a good income. It was a good deal all round.

And the banks were catching on to the idea. They thought, “We have billions out there in mortgages which are going to pay us back very slowly. Why don’t we sell those and get the money now?”

So the banks started doing what Bowie had done – in a big way.

It was a complete rebuilding of what a bank does. Normally a bank borrows from people like you and I, then lends it out.

But now the bank was lending the money – and selling the loan on elsewhere.

For example, a bank loans out £100,000 for a mortgage, and does the same for 10,000 people. They’ve now lent £1billion and will be getting the cash back over the next 25 years.

So the bank creates a piece of paper, a security, and says whoever owns it will have the income from the mortgages.

It then sells the security – effectively the bundle of mortgages – for £1billion to perhaps a pension fund, which then has the mortgage income – and the bank has £1billion to lend out again.

Everybody is happy: the banks are able to lend more and more as mortgages, and there’s a conveyor belt where they lend a billion, receive a billion and sell the mortgages on.

Northern Rock were the market leaders in the UK for this kind of thing.

But then it started to go wrong. As the banks were selling the loans, any bad risk became someone else’s problem. So the banks didn’t have to worry so much who they were lending to. Problem number two was it wasn’t just their standards that dropped – the banks just lent far too much.

And thirdly the banks looked at these securities and said, “these are so good we want to buy some ourselves”. Having got rid of a lot of loans and risks, they ended up buying them back in.

It all went pear-shaped for American securities because the banks had lent to people who couldn’t repay them.

No one wanted securities, their value plummeted and the banks, having bought a lot, lost a lot themselves.

Securitisation was a kind of magic bullet for banks. It looked a fantastic way of making them more profitable with less risk. But they fired this magic bullet at themselves.

They became too dependent on it and then the investors decided they didn’t like securities because they didn’t know what was in them and the loans were often bad.

No one wanted to buy securities even if the securities were pretty good – which Northern Rock’s were.

It was fashionable when David Bowie did it once. Ten years later it wasn’t.

Suddenly the banks didn’t have any money coming in, so they couldn’t lend any more – that’s the credit crunch.

Now the economy is in a vicious circle. The banks loan less, so the economy has money sucked out of it. With less money there’s less spending and job losses which cause less spending, and the vicious spiral continues downwards.

So how do we get through the credit crunch? The obvious thing to do is pump more money into the banking system, from the Bank of England or the Government.

Or the Government can guarantee loans to encourage lending because the banks are so fearful about doing so.

So far in return for shares in the bank, the Government has given them more capital but probably not quite enough.

The truth is the most sensible thing for people to do is be a bit cautious with money at the moment.

But it would be nice if we all tried not to be too cautious, because if everybody saves simultaneously, it causes a tidal wave which will drown the economy.

dealhunter

In my opinion I don't think you should be considering to "work it in" on an issue as complex as the current crisis and certainly not take a "bite size" synopsis to use in a personal statement. The article you presented though largely factual seems a little sensational to be using as reference. For example securitisation in itself had been around for decades before this crisis.

I think you need to focus on sites such as the post from "The Economist" and also read the namesake publication. Given your situation I think sitting down and opening a few textbooks such as "Economics" by Begg and Fisher and "Essential Mathematics for Economics and Business" by Bradley and Patton would be of benefit. These are books from my Undergrad days and remain with me still.

Your personal statement should be exactly that...personal. So focus on answering questions the admission office will be asking - Why does econ interest you, why do you think you would be good at it, what experience or interest will you bring to the class that will be of benefit.

Sorry if I sound patronising but I am not sure of your background.

Time Magazine

dealhunter wrote: »

In my opinion I don't think you should be considering to "work it in" on an issue as complex as the current crisis and certainly not take a "bite size" synopsis to use in a personal statement.

Agree completely.

Just say you like maths and you're interested in the economy and you wish to pursue the study further, albeit in a few more words than that

2tel1

dealhunter wrote: »

In my opinion I don't think you should be considering to "work it in" on an issue as complex as the current crisis and certainly not take a "bite size" synopsis to use in a personal statement. The article you presented though largely factual seems a little sensational to be using as reference. For example securitisation in itself had been around for decades before this crisis.

I think you need to focus on sites such as the post from "The Economist" and also read the namesake publication. Given your situation I think sitting down and opening a few textbooks such as "Economics" by Begg and Fisher and "Essential Mathematics for Economics and Business" by Bradley and Patton would be of benefit. These are books from my Undergrad days and remain with me still.

Your personal statement should be exactly that...personal. So focus on answering questions the admission office will be asking - Why does econ interest you, why do you think you would be good at it, what experience or interest will you bring to the class that will be of benefit.

Sorry if I sound patronising but I am not sure of your background.

Yeah good advice, I know it's a bit sensationalist...I found the link and it came...ahem from a rubbish tabloid site

Thanks for the tips, I won't try and work it in. Keeping it personal would be best idea

Time Magazine

2tel1 wrote: »

a rubbish tabloid site

Slate.com is pretty good, actually.

Running Bing

Tbh in this country I think their is far far too much emphasis placed on vocation when it comes to college.

I mean, when I was in school, preparing for college, the question was always "what do you want to work as?" when it came to deciding on my course choice. Did I want to be a doctor? or a Lawyer? or and Engineer? or an accountant? or a banker? Having come through college I now have a completely different view of it and feel a bit cheated that I went through such a large chunk of it with this attitude.

I think the American model is better in this regard in that they are exposed to a broader range of subjects in their undergraduate education and I think they get a better education for it.

The Broad Curriculum initiative is one of the shining lights of Trinity for me. It is, or at least it could be, an incredibly valuable programme. I do think it needs to be extended and promoted more though.

Bit of a rambling rant there but what are forums for;)

Tricity Bendix

Economics is a great course to study. Just look at where it got me: a menial parttime job and a state-subsidised income.

Seriously though, economics is a tough course to evaluate in terms of employability because the job of the economist is so hard to define. There are several different routes that sorta suit economics graduates: academia, banking, funds, forcasting, policy analysis etc. The "current economic climate" will affect different area in different ways. I personally feel that the world of finance and investments has changed utterly and that even in four years time things will not have returned to normal.