nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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???

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.