PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

It’s incorrect to assume math works in microeconomics, but not in macroeconomics, just because you don’t like the results, e.g. contradicting your biased beliefs. They both “describe well.”

****

And, they both describe better in the 20th century than the 19th century.

****

I think, regulation is a big problem ($2 trillion a year in federal regulations alone).

I’m sure, many of the benefits of individual regulations are much less than the costs, and the totality of the regulations makes it even more costly.

****

Lyle, your statements are almost as ridiculous as Ron’s. You’re making an assumption people want less than more. For example, do you believe people prefer a higher standard of living for their labor/leisure or a lower standard of living?

And, economists aren’t “physicist wannbes.” In econ grad school (most people need a econ grad degree to be considered an economist), half are math majors, 40% are econ majors, and the remaining 10% are majors in other fields. I suspect, math majors go into econ, because there’s not much for math Ph.Ds.

****

In undergrad econ, you learn a little about a lot. In grad econ, you learn a lot about a little.

Most math majors in grad econ don’t know the models, theories, terminology, etc., and often become technocrats or statisticians.

Of course, many of the econ majors don’t understand the math well enough. However, it’s taught in a crude, rather than precise, way, because you’re learning econ and math simultaneously.

And, you’re learning pieces of the puzzle and a methodology to help you tie enough together for a crude understanding, because no one has the capacity to precisely understand how thousands of invisible forces, in thousands of dimensions, interrelate and interact in a large dynamic economy, simultaneously.

****

No economist knows the exact answer. However, in the context of economic variables, top economists can figure out with a high level of confidence if the answer is a net positive or a net negative for the economy.

---

PeakTrader:

There’ve been few monopolists, like Bill Gates, who may now be worth about $75 billion. However, there are many oligopolies in the U.S., and the U.S. may have more firms with substantial market power than the rest of the world combined.

J.D. Rockefeller’s wealth compared to GDP was higher:

“By the time of his death in 1937, Rockefeller’s remaining fortune, largely tied up in permanent family trusts, was estimated at $1.4 billion, while the total national GDP was $92 billion.”

In a $15 trillion economy, that would equal $225 billion today.

Also: “From his very first paycheck, Rockefeller tithed ten percent of his earnings to his church…And… donated about $550 million to philanthropic causes.”

---

PeakTrader:

As a producer, you’d rather have more consumers, through free trade, and sell walnuts for $2 than $0.60. So, you can raise output, to raise income, and increase employment.

As a consumer, you’d rather have more competition, through free trade, and buy, for example, microwaves for $60 than $200. So, you have more income to buy other goods, e.g. walnuts.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/friday-afternoon-links-11/#comments

---