Do you have an economic background?

ILikeBananas

I'm just curious as to what the background of posters (especially the regular contributors) is within the Irish Economy forum. Do you work in the financial industry or did you study finance or economics in third level?

For me it's no to both questions. I'm an engineer and I had a vague notion of how the equity markets worked but had no clue about bond markets or general macro economics. I only developed a real interest in this area since the financial melt-down of 2008. I just wanted to try and understand what they were talking about in the news. I've since read a few books and this forum has been a fairly decent source of knowledge as well.

So how about you?

RichardAnd

I'm a writer / musician / code monkey with an interest in politics and economics. I've never formally studied either but one doesn't need a degree to enjoy something.

So that would be a nay from me, I'm neither an economist nor an accountant

liammur

Both, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I know more than the next guy, as the markets always have a habit of kicking you just when you think you've things mastered.

Sleepy

Leaving Cert and 2 years College as part of a Bachelor of Commerce but haven't worked in the area.

sarumite

I am a scientist myself. Other than Business Org at leaving cert I have no other experience. I have always had an interest in politics etc. I have had a pretty tough few years since the recession and as a result I have started taking more interest in the economy in general.

andrew

In my 4th year of an Economics degree in TCD. Hopefully I'll get a job. Even better if it's an economics related job

TiGeR KiNgS

I'm an Economics graduate from UCD & Postgrad in accounting

professore

Scientist by training (Physics/Maths) but a programmer by profession.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

Masters in physics and a degree in applied mathematics and physics.

Dunno if that particularly helps understand economics, but I've a fairly healthy interest in it.

msc in thphysics & maths, working & qualifying as an actuary now
i did take an economics exam this year :pac:

srsly78

Physics graduate working as Quant developer for hedgefund. No training in economics.

Dr Galen

My primary degree was in Economics back in the day. Since then I've a B.Sc and some post grad work in healthcare stuff.

Likely will be going back to college next year do some type of economicsy/financey/commercey/businessey Masters

nesf

A degree in Economics, background in Physics and Applied Maths too, some post grad experience in Economics/Applied maths. Though to be honest I was always more interested in modelling stuff than actual policy stuff.

Dr Galen

I'd actually be the opposite tbh. The applied maths/numbers part of economics never really appealed to me. Much more interested in policy and the sociological impact of economic policy etc.

nesf

Dr Galen wrote: »

I'd actually be the opposite tbh. The applied maths/numbers part of economics never really appealed to me. Much more interested in policy and the sociological impact of economic policy etc.

Not technical enough for me. I'm kinda interesting in health economics and actual DALY rates for various illnesses versus money spent on them etc but when it comes to framing budgets etc it's just too messy to be intellectually pleasing for me.

Scofflaw

MSc in environmental resource management, now programming/project managing/workflow/communications consulting. Self-taught in economics...mind you, self-taught in everything I do for a living as well!

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

I am a practising barrister at the Irish bar with an undergraduate and masters degree in law (as well as the King's Inns Barrister-at-Law degree obviously) and I am attempting to start my PhD in law as well; but in a previous life I was 2 years into an economics degree.

thebman

Software developer by day, sometimes by night...

I only really got interested in the whole thing from the economic collapse as was just in first job out of college at the stage and wanted to work out what was coming down the line so wanted to stay informed.

I'm not that hardcore into economics I don't think (I don't even know much about what types of study there is in the area), I like to read some of the stuff here and in the economics forum but not really interested in doing the Math's and actually modeling anything.

FreudianSlippers

thebman wrote: »

Software developer by day, sometimes by night...

I only really got interested in the whole thing from the economic collapse as was just in first job out of college at the stage and wanted to work out what was coming down the line so wanted to stay informed.

I'm not that hardcore into economics I don't think (I don't even know much about what types of study there is in the area), I like to read some of the stuff here and in the economics forum but not really interested in doing the Math's and actually modeling anything.

Sort of the reason I quit :P

BluntGuy

Scofflaw wrote: »

MSc in environmental resource management, now programming/project managing/workflow/communications consulting. Self-taught in economics...mind you, self-taught in everything I do for a living as well!

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm interested, did you ever work in any area of environmental management or a "green" area in general?

Good thread by the way OP, interesting to see the backgrounds of some of the contributors here.

Nice to see a lot of physics types.

later12

Needing an economics degree in order to understand the economic crisis is a bit like needing a sports science degree to understand why Ireland had such a dreadful world cup.

I know economists who have no real appreciation for the fleeting 'live economy', much in the same way that a mathematician specialising in optimization modeling may have little enthusiasm for, say, devising bus timetables.

We must separate economic theory (the art of trying to understand the economy and its components) from our temporary understanding of this fleeting 'live economy' we live with. Understanding the latter mainly requires an understanding of politics and an appreciation for absurd human behaviour. The requirement to know much about economic science is not a particularly gruelling one - a basic grasp will suffice. Nobody needs an economics degree to understand this - much of which is never taught at University anyway.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have to question the suggestion that economists 'lacking vision' is a bad thing.

Economics as a pure science must never lower itself to visions, nor to passing down visionary diktats to bankers, politicians or individuals. Economists ought only be concerned only with understanding the economy and its components. No objective scientist argues for any more than what is demonstrably true. His progress is slow and steady; painstaking, perhaps. He presents his conclusions and allows others to interpret them as they wish.

Suggesting that economists become philosophers is not unlike proposing that nuclear physicists ought to be pro or anti nuclear energy. It misses the point entirely. We should pursue knowledge for its own sake; not to, as Eliot says, 'squeeze the universe in a ball, to roll it toward an overwhelming question."

It is not the economist's role to predict or to preach, merely to understand.

nesf

later10 wrote: »

It is not the economist's role to predict or to preach, merely to understand.

Indeed. Though I'd preface economist with academic, many industry ones aren't really that interested in understanding as much as they're interested in backing up a certain world view. There are some excellent industry economists who aren't like this of course.

Voltex

Degree in Business Mgmt...Dip in Food manufact mgmt (UCC)...C&G qualified in Craft Bakery and C&G Bakery Technology. Hopefully starting MBS in Sept.
No stand alone economic qualificatons...although covered intro micro and macro on my degree.

Sleepy

Surely the suggestion that economist should be like philosophers is suggesting that economists should question rather than hypothesise?

nesf

Sleepy wrote: »

Surely the suggestion that economist should be like philosophers is suggesting that economists should question rather than hypothesise?

It's a problem in the social sciences in general, not just economics. It's hard to do pure science when it's people's lives and livelihoods you're talking about. You have to develop a rather extreme detachment in order to do the science properly. E.g. in some ways we shouldn't put as much a % of money into cancer research because cancer while very, very serious is only one of a number of conditions that disable people and ruin lives. So rationally we should cut some funding and redirect it into mental health or whatever. Try telling that to a cancer patient's face though.

Scofflaw

BluntGuy wrote: »

I'm interested, did you ever work in any area of environmental management or a "green" area in general?

Primarily groundwater for a few years, since my primary degree was geology (previously in the oil industry). Marine conservation, eco-tourism (again, though, geo-tourism). I was hoping to get into integrated coastal zone management here - indeed, any form of integrated environmental management, since the people/social/economic side is as important as the scientific side - but despite a brief flurry of consultant's reports, 'position papers' and 'reviews' here in the late 1990s, nothing ever happened.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Primarily groundwater for a few years, since my primary degree was geology (previously in the oil industry).

Well with Geological mapping you get to survive in hostile conditions with little or any support-rather like today's economy (BTW ditto on the geology degree)

[Jackass]

Economics student in UCD and have about 6 years experience working in the finance industry.

Dannyboy83

Degree in Computer Science.
Self taught in most things.
Knew little about politics or economics before I joined this forum.

I'm only here because I reckon we're going to have a soft landing and I want to discourage people from talking down the economy.

daithimacgroin

On what basis do you think there will be a soft-landing?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well you're into praxeology so I can see why you'd have a problem with that statement but that's a minority view in economics at best.

Valmont

nesf wrote: »

Well you're into praxeology so I can see why you'd have a problem with that statement but that's a minority view in economicsat best.

Which is hardly the most compelling argument put forward to accept that it is a pure science! Most often it's the one I see trotted out however. Maybe we should start a thread on that subject although maybe in the economics forum?

I don't have an economics background--just an interest since the troubles of 2008. I have various qualifications in psychology and statistics but I'm working for a debt recovery firm at the moment in the UK. I think there is a growing trend of people who want to understand economics so that they can get a handle on what exactly caused all of the troubles in the first place. I'm interested in what that argument says about the different schools of economics and the implications of each.

nesf

Valmont wrote: »

Which is hardly the most compelling argument put forward to accept that it is a pure science! Most often it's the one I see trotted out however. Maybe we should start a thread on that subject although maybe in the economics forum?

I don't have an economics background--just an interest since the troubles of 2008. I have various qualifications in psychology and statistics but I'm working for a debt recovery firm at the moment in the UK. I think there is a growing trend of people who want to understand economics so that they can get a handle on what exactly caused all of the troubles in the first place. I'm interested in what that argument says about the different schools of economics and the implications of each.

More what I'm getting at is there is a technical disagreement about whether empiricism works with people. Permabear is on one side, I'm on the other. With all the research and evidence from psychology, neurology and similar about human behaviour I think the onus is on the praxeologist to prove that empiricism doesn't work rather than the other way around. It's a rejection of the scientific method in economics which is a pretty major position to take.

simplistic2

Valmont wrote: »

Which is hardly the most compelling argument put forward to accept that it is a pure science! Most often it's the one I see trotted out however. Maybe we should start a thread on that subject although maybe in the economics forum?

I don't have an economics background--just an interest since the troubles of 2008. I have various qualifications in psychology and statistics but I'm working for a debt recovery firm at the moment in the UK. I think there is a growing trend of people who want to understand economics so that they can get a handle on what exactly caused all of the troubles in the first place. I'm interested in what that argument says about the different schools of economics and the implications of each.

No your not, you know exactly what caused it, excatly how it can be fixed and exactly why you don't support it.

simplistic2

Economics in a small economy is the same as anywhere else. If anybody has watched The Sopranons they are adequately qualified to be a member of the Irish economic class.

Once you understand the idea that the government's first priority is to enrich those that are closest to it you can see that it is 100% as your common mafia.

It steals tax money through theft.
They are a monopoly.
Bribery is an ethic not some exception.
They claim virtue is a sacrifice. (people should give up their hard earn wealth to support the alcoholic failures of the political class.)
I won't go on but the general rule of a mafia is that they enforce a more rule ...and then live outside it themselves (don't kill, don't steal.)

Just like every government. The government is the mafia that wins.

I've learned that if my house can't (borrow) my neighbors money to pay for my debts to paddy power then the individuals that say they are your leaders can't either. Simple economics, every5 year old knows your can't buy 10 coolpops and expect the next 10 coolpops to come from the unborn - it's theft -it's immorale.

WalterMitty

Economics as a science will always be hindered by politicians politicking and seeking election/reelection. Not many complex systems have a group of politicians messing witht he system.

nesf

simplistic2 wrote: »

Economics in a small economy is the same as anywhere else. If anybody has watched The Sopranons they are adequately qualified to be a member of the Irish economic class.

Once you understand the idea that the government's first priority is to enrich those that are closest to it you can see that it is 100% as your common mafia.

It steals tax money through theft.
They are a monopoly.
Bribery is an ethic not some exception.
They claim virtue is a sacrifice. (people should give up their hard earn wealth to support the alcoholic failures of the political class.)
I won't go on but the general rule of a mafia is that they enforce a more rule ...and then live outside it themselves (don't kill, don't steal.)

Just like every government. The government is the mafia that wins.

I've learned that if my house can't (borrow) my neighbors money to pay for my debts to paddy power then the individuals that say they are your leaders can't either. Simple economics, every5 year old knows your can't buy 10 coolpops and expect the next 10 coolpops to come from the unborn - it's theft -it's immorale.

Um you're confusing economics with the politics of Budget making. They are two extremely different things.

SupaNova

Nesf you seem familiar with the debate and to deal with the only criticism you gave of the Austrian method in another thread;

nesf wrote: »

It is very easy to have slightly misjudged one of your logical starting points and this resulting in what seems perfectly logical to not follow through when tested empirically.

Praxeology's starting point is human action, that human beings act, that they choose and employ means to attain chosen ends. This is the starting point, and it is from this starting point that Mises developed a robust structure of economic theory.

Something I brought up in that thread was when you have collected empirical data, and A correlates with B, you still have to deduce and reason out causal relationships(something you can do without an empirical study), does A cause B to change, or the other way round, or is there some other causal factor C. You can deduce causal relationships based on an undeniable fact without ever needing an empirical study.

nesf

SupaNova wrote: »

Nesf you seem familiar with the debate and to deal with the only criticism you gave of the Austrian method in another thread;


Praxeology's starting point is human action, that human beings act, that they choose and employ means to attain chosen ends. This is the starting point, and it is from this starting point that Mises developed a robust structure of economic theory.

Something I brought up in that thread was when you have collected empirical data, and A correlates with B, you still have to deduce and reason out causal relationships(something you can do without an empirical study), does A cause B to change, or the other way round, or is there some other causal factor C. You can deduce causal relationships based on an undeniable fact without ever needing an empirical study.

My main issue with praxeology is some of its adherents rejecting the role of empirical evidence since empirical evidence in and of itself proves nothing. It's taken by some to allow them to develop logical systems within economics, which is fine, but then reject contradicting empirical evidence as being a problem for their theory, which I have a serious problem with.

i.e. I can sum up my position as "It's true you can postulate a casual relationship but until there is empirical evidence supporting your position it shouldn't be taken that seriously."

It is extremely important that we have theorists in economics and all social sciences but it is equally important that said theorists and their followers bow to the evidence and modelling of the empirical branch of the social science in question. An example from Anthropology is the problem of the theory of the noble, gentle savage that was thoroughly disproved empirically yet is still trotted out by people who like the theory. This is a core, core issue in the social sciences in general (and psychology and medicine too).


Edit: All of this comes from me coming from a hard science background initially and being an almost fanatical believer in the necessity of the scientific method (when properly applied).

SupaNova

nesf wrote: »

My main issue with praxeology is some of its adherents rejecting the role of empirical evidence since empirical evidence in and of itself proves nothing.

The Austrian's are not rejecting the use of data in economics, only the use of data to produce economic theory. The approach is to deduce solid theory, and use theory to interpret empirical data.

It's taken by some to allow them to develop logical systems within economics, which is fine, but then reject contradicting empirical evidence as being a problem for their theory, which I have a serious problem with.

i.e. I can sum up my position as "It's true you can postulate a casual relationship but until there is empirical evidence supporting your position it shouldn't be taken that seriously."

In economics you can come up with statements or laws as robust as "nothing can be both A and not A at the same time". You cannot prove such a statement to be false with empirical evidence, likewise with the fact that human beings act and choose, there is no contradicting evidence to be rejected with regard to these statements. If you can rigorously deduce a body of economic thought from such statements, there is no reason it should not be taken seriously.

Is the only reason we know increasing the money supply will cause prices to rice because of empirical data, if an empirical study shows us an instance where an increase in the money supply did not cause a rise in prices, does increasing the money supply then, not cause prices to rise? Or have we not been able to control or isolate variables in our empirical study? With the scientific method applied to economics we can choose either answer to suit what ever pre-conceived notion we want.

Rather than being subject to imperfect empirical studies where variables cannot be controlled or isolated, in economics, if you can deduce facts about supply and demand and their relationship with prices, you can know that a rise in the supply of money, all other things equal, will cause prices to rise.

nesf

SupaNova wrote: »

The Austrian's are not rejecting the use of data in economics, only the use of data to produce economic theory. The approach is to deduce solid theory, and use theory to interpret empirical data.

It's more than that amongst some of them. Mises argued that because empirical data on its own cannot prove anything it cannot be used to disprove a theory either. Or at least I've seen it referenced to him. Data can guide theory in the same way that theory can guide data gathering. It works both ways not just in one direction.

SupaNova wrote: »

Rather than being subject to imperfect empirical studies where variables cannot be controlled or isolated, in economics, if you can deduce facts about supply and demand and their relationship with prices, you can know that a rise in the supply of money, all other things equal, will cause prices to rise.

It's not a fact about reality until you produce data that conclusively supports it. A logical inference is never on its own such a fact. It is merely logic. We need to test it against real world situations with all that imperfect data out there if we're to separate the truths, the half truths and the utter falsities. What you're arguing for here is dogma not truth. We don't live in a theoretical construct, we live in a messy and imperfect world and it is this world not some theoretical imaginary one that economics is supposed to be studying. Though with microeconomists you wouldn't know it.

Take your supply and demand example, it doesn't work. It requires stupidly restrictive and unrealistic conditions such as uniformity of product, supply and demand, not-sticky prices, perfect competition and rational memory-less not future predicting individuals for it to work. It presupposes that demand answers supply and supply answers demand yet in reality both can behave very independently of each other under certain conditions.

What am I saying here? Well, it's a lovely axiom that gleans a bit of the truth within a very specific and limiting set of assumptions about the nature of the thing studied but the reality (like the data) is so imperfect and complex that it's not a particularly useful model of the world around us. It's a perfect beginner model to get 1st year economics students on their feet but if you want to actually go out there and look at real markets you need to tackle far more complex beasts than one whether supply and demand are so simply interlinked.

SupaNova

nesf wrote: »

It's more than that amongst some of them. Mises argued that because empirical data on its own cannot prove anything it cannot be used to disprove a theory either. Or at least I've seen it referenced to him.

I did clarify exactly what kind of economic statements and facts cannot be disproved by data.

Data can guide theory in the same way that theory can guide data gathering. It works both ways not just in one direction.

I can agree that data can be a guide as to what to theorize, but only after developing a strong framework of economics, you need some framework first, otherwise you wouldn't know where to begin and what among the infinite available data to select and relationships to theorize. All schools of economics have a framework they begin with, whether they realize the importance of it or not. The Austrian's give this initial framework a lot more importance.

It's not a fact about reality until you produce data that conclusively supports it. A logical inference is never on its own such a fact. It is merely logic. We need to test it against real world situations with all that imperfect data out there if we're to separate the truths, the half truths and the utter falsities. What you're arguing for here is dogma not truth. We don't live in a theoretical construct, we live in a messy and imperfect world and it is this world not some theoretical imaginary one that economics is supposed to be studying. Though with microeconomists you wouldn't know it.

Human action is a fact about reality that doesn't need data to support it. Hans Herman Hoppe and Rothbard have some good stuff on exactly this point as far as i remember. I will try dig up a relevant Hoppe lecture later.

EDIT: Hoppe lecture - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n4IYhSk9oQ

Take your supply and demand example, it doesn't work. It requires stupidly restrictive and unrealistic conditions such as uniformity of product, supply and demand, not-sticky prices, perfect competition and rational memory-less not future predicting individuals for it to work. It presupposes that demand answers supply and supply answers demand yet in reality both can behave very independently of each other under certain conditions.

The caveat i stated, "all other things being equal", covers all the points you raise.

What am I saying here? Well, it's a lovely axiom that gleans a bit of the truth within a very specific and limiting set of assumptions about the nature of the thing studied but the reality (like the data) is so imperfect and complex that it's not a particularly useful model of the world around us. It's a perfect beginner model to get 1st year economics students on their feet but if you want to actually go out there and look at real markets you need to tackle far more complex beasts than one whether supply and demand are so simply interlinked.

I would be shocked if you or anyone dismissed Austrian economics as simplistic, if they actually read the work of Austrian's and compared it with others. With regard to the theory of prices and money, I can only compare Friedman with Mises and Hayek, and Hayek whose work is an extension of the insights of Mises is awsome.

Valmont

nesf wrote: »

...but the reality (like the data) is so imperfect and complex that it's not a particularly useful model of the world around us.

That's why I'm a bit suspicious of econometrics and modelling. I see long term predictions and and forecasts for something that is essentially just as or even more complex than predicting the weather. And while you won't find a weather forecast for next year the government's economists are more than happy to say "Why, don't worry, we predict a .8% rise in GDP by next year!".

I'm used to designing psychological experiments in very tightly controlled "laboratory" conditions and no matter what I do there is always the error variance bubbling away in the background. When I think of that compared to the error variance or uncontrolled variables that would impact upon economic predictions about, say, unemployment statistics for the next few years, I'm not so sure.

Edit: Very informative debate!

zootroid

I have a degree and a masters in economics, but have never worked in the field. I'm an accountant by profession, but not yet qualifed; I've one exam to pass before I finally qualify

nesf

SupaNova wrote: »

The caveat i stated, "all other things being equal", covers all the points you raise.

It doesn't. What I raised is what the ceteris parabis proposition hides from view and renders the model nearly useless if you actually want to go out and predict market behaviour accurately. That, and what makes you think you can hold everything else constant? Ever done much econometric work on real world data? Sometimes when you move one thing several other things move two making ceteris parabis useless as a technique.

SupaNova wrote: »

I would be shocked if you or anyone dismissed Austrian economics as simplistic, if they actually read the work of Austrian's and compared it with others. With regard to the theory of prices and money, I can only compare Friedman with Mises and Hayek, and Hayek whose work is an extension of the insights of Mises is awsome.

I'm not calling Austrian economics simplistic, I'm calling the example you gave of a simple economic truth simplistic. It's like Newtonian gravity, easy to explain, easy to understand, sometimes right, intuitively pleasing but wrong when you get down to it as a general principle.


I'm selectively quoting your posts for two reasons, one I want to reply to specific things and argue a specific point here and two, it's Christmas day and I'm not up for a full-on multi-quote battle.

nesf

Valmont wrote: »

That's why I'm a bit suspicious of econometrics and modelling. I see long term predictions and and forecasts for something that is essentially just as or even more complex than predicting the weather. And while you won't find a weather forecast for next year the government's economists are more than happy to say "Why, don't worry, we predict a .8% rise in GDP by next year!".

I'm used to designing psychological experiments in very tightly controlled "laboratory" conditions and no matter what I do there is always the error variance bubbling away in the background. When I think of that compared to the error variance or uncontrolled variables that would impact upon economic predictions about, say, unemployment statistics for the next few years, I'm not so sure.

Edit: Very informative debate!

Long term forecasting is extremely inaccurate. Everyone agrees on this. The problem is with Governments and the like treating the figures like gospel and working off one headline number instead of a probability spread of numbers which is what the models will give you.

The thing is, like weather forecasting, it has to be done and well, mathematics has come on a very long way from the kind of stuff you see in the lab. Stochastic sampling instead of taking fixed predictable inputs and similar to introduce error deliberately into your models* (there are other techniques) and so on is happening both in economic and weather forecasting (and especially climate modelling which makes economic modelling look simple) rather than the older models of fixed inputs that gave quite predictable results relatively speaking. This is real post-doc level stuff though crossed with applied maths modelling and some extremely complex mathematics so it's not what you'll find talked about a lot. We're 10 years from this stuff going mainstream.



The further point is, if we're going to model reality we need to come to terms with how complex and rich its behaviour is rather than hiding behind simplifying assumptions that strip all the non-linearity out of it.


*As a simple example, take measurement error. You can account for it in your model by introducing some random (stochastic) process that feeds into the number that's being measured changing its value in unpredictable ways (but realistic ones). Then you take many runs of the model and look at the changes that happen because of the error introduced and what areas of the model are more volatile than others and you get a better feel for where your model will be wrong if the measurements are slightly off and so on. It gets way more complicated than this though.

SupaNova

nesf wrote: »

It doesn't. What I raised is what the ceteris parabis proposition hides from view and renders the model nearly useless if you actually want to go out and predict market behaviour accurately.

The point of economics from the Austrian view is not to make a predictive model, but to find out truths of human action and an understanding of the resultant market phenomena. In the area of predictive modelling, realism is often sacrificed for accuracy, predictive accuracy of models has nothing to do with explaining economic truth.

That, and what makes you think you can hold everything else constant?

Holding variables constant is a method employed by Austrian's to isolate relationships, and it is perfectly ok to do it to demonstrate the relationship between supply and demand, and the supply of money on prices. I can elaborate later, but i have beer to drink now.:)

nesf

SupaNova wrote: »

Economics from the Austrian view is not to make a predictive model, but to find out truths of human action and an understanding of the resultant market phenomena. In the area of predictive modelling, realism is often sacrificed for accuracy, predictive accuracy of models has nothing to do with explaining economic truth.

Which is side stepping the scientific test of any theory, i.e. that it must produce testable predictions so it can be validated. I'm a serious issue with this kind of position being called science or social science.

SupaNova wrote: »

Holding variables constant is a method employed by Austrian's to isolate relationships, and it is perfectly ok to do it to demonstrate the relationship between supply and demand, and the supply of money on prices. I can elaborate later, but i have beer to drink now.:)

And my point is you can't hold the variables constant in the real world so what makes you think it's ok to do it in your theoretical models?


Anyway, yes, another day might be better for this. :P

jbkenn

I don't have a degree in anything, hell, I don't even have a Leaving Cert, but, I do have a brain in my head, newsflash guy's, and I include Brian Lucey, Stephen Kinsella, Constantin Gurdgiev, even David McWilliams etc, people may be listening to you, myself included, but, and it's a very important but, the people that count, are not taking a blind bit of notice of you.