Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Economics..so whats it all about?

2

Comments

  • #32
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    lividduck wrote: »
    So does Milton Friedman!


    Eh no.:)

    Chile.


  • #34
    kumate_champ07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,150 ✭✭✭kumate_champ07


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


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #36
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭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!


  • #39
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭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


  • #40
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭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).


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    dillo2k10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭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)


  • #44
    dillo2k10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    theg81der
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,644 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    dillo2k10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭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?


  • #51
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


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

    Oh, please. I'm not going to get into my background, but given the mess that trained economists have made of the whole crisis, I would venture to say that a degree in economics has little to no bearing on one's understanding of the relationship between the economy and political structures. It may be convenient to label people you disagree with, but it neither invalidates their point, nor furthers yours.


  • #53
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    dillo2k10 wrote: »
    And do you believe that would improve the quality of life for the average person in Ireland?

    I was being sarcastic and it wasn't aimed at you. Its was aimed at people who believe capitalism to be inherently evil and a system that does not work, although it is not perfect its the best system tried so far, it has lifted a lot of the planet out of poverty.


  • #54
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Oh, please. I'm not going to get into my background, but given the mess that trained economists have made of the whole crisis, I would venture to say that a degree in economics has little to no bearing on one's understanding of the relationship between the economy and political structures. It may be convenient to label people you disagree with, but it neither invalidates their point, nor furthers yours.
    Why are you blaming economists? It was bankers, politicans and greedy public servants who got us into this mees, not economists. As I remember it , it was the economists like Morgan Kelly, PJ Drudy, Jim Power et al that were warning of what was coming!


  • #55
    dillo2k10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭dillo2k10


    44leto wrote: »
    I was being sarcastic and it wasn't aimed at you. Its was aimed at people who believe capitalism to be inherently evil and a system that does not work, although it is not perfect its the best system tried so far, it has lifted a lot of the planet out of poverty.

    Sorry I didn't realise, I thought it was a bit to stupid to be believed but you just never know on boards


  • #56
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    lividduck wrote: »
    Why are you blaming economists? It was bankers, politicans and greedy public servants who got us into this mees, not economists. As I remember it , it was the economists like Morgan Kelly, PJ Drudy, Jim Power et al that were warning of what was coming!

    Morgan Kelly is an economic historian by training, not a free marketeer, and the neo-liberal stream of economics (laissez-faire, low/no regulation, low taxes) that has dominated economic policy in the US, Ireland, and the UK for the last 20+ years.


  • #57
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Oh, please. I'm not going to get into my background, but given the mess that trained economists have made of the whole crisis, I would venture to say that a degree in economics has little to no bearing on one's understanding of the relationship between the economy and political structures. It may be convenient to label people you disagree with, but it neither invalidates their point, nor furthers yours.

    So you're telling us that there are no right or wrong answers in economics as to what constitutes sound economic policy?

    You've completely lost the plot.


  • #58
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    UsernameInUse wrote: »
    So you're telling us that there are no right or wrong answers in economics as to what constitutes sound economic policy?

    You've completely lost the plot.

    There isn't agreement within economics as to what constitutes sound policy, and even a basic familiarity with the field makes that abundantly clear. Keynesians will tell you something completely different than someone who hails from the Austrian school.


  • #59
    dillo2k10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭dillo2k10


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    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.

    I'm no expert on the financial crisis so I could be completely wrong.

    Although the banks had control of too much money they could hardly have stopped them for doing so? They couldn't force new banks to open and they couldn't have forced customers to choose other banks.

    I would have thought that a lack of regulation would show a lack of political involvement in the banks and so it wasn't actually a political problem?

    I understand that you were speaking about Ireland but was the Irish crisis not caused by the US one?

    edit: I didn't notice this :"The US government approved multiple bank mergers and consolidations" so I now see what your saying.


  • #60
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,560 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    dillo2k10 wrote: »
    I'm no expert on the financial crisis so I could be completely wrong.

    Although the banks had control of too much money they could hardly have stopped them for doing so? They couldn't force new banks to open and they couldn't have forced customers to choose other banks.

    I would have thought that a lack of regulation would show a lack of political involvement in the banks and so it wasn't actually a political problem?

    I understand that you were speaking about Ireland but was the Irish crisis not caused by the US one?

    The federal government in the US can block banking mergers, but didn't. Today, an entity like Citibank is too big to fail.

    Lack of regulation is a political problem in that there was little appetite for regulating banks, and one of the key assumptions of neo-liberal economists is that the market is self-correcting, hence no government involvement is needed. Neo-liberalism provided the ideological cover for the economic and political interests of financiers, who moved in and out of investment banks into the Department of the Treasury - and this was under both Clinton and Bush.

    As for Ireland, I don't think the crisis was caused by the US one, but the recovery has been hampered by the US economic situation. The roots of the Irish crisis lie in a decade of overspending and wildly optimistic budgets from the Department of Finance (the 2007 budget projections are particularly laughable), and the 2008 bank guarantee.

    Edit: oops, missed your edit! :p


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    UsernameInUse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭UsernameInUse


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    There isn't agreement within economics as to what constitutes sound policy, and even a basic familiarity with the field makes that abundantly clear. Keynesians will tell you something completely different than someone who hails from the Austrian school.

    Keynesian economics have brought us to our knees - I'd hazard a guess and say that nobody wants to listen to them anymore. Time for a new system - time to try Austro.


Advertisement
Advertisement