21–30 of 58 posts
Not convinced that an article which mentions religion more times than it mentions risk and doesn't mention growth expectations at all tells us very much...
You're missing the point of the essay actually. It's like complaining that an essay written by an atheist about church doesn't talk about sin and salvation.
It's sad that someone like the author would spend so much time avoiding understanding basic economics like subjective value, marginal value, voluntary exchanges etc. There are plenty of economics who never use any maths and help in understanding finance without resorting to this kind of silly critic
The thing about economics is that you can keep studying and studying and get none the wiser. All the low hanging fruit are still there to pick but nobody is interested in that research because it is the equivalent of going from geocentrism to heliocentrism.
The "obvious" conclusions you can derive from a continuous neoclassical model make no sense the moment you add multiple goods because at that point you now need to run NP hard optimization algorithms to get an equivalent answer. Yes, the proverbial corn economy works if all you care about is corn.
From my perspective neoclassical economics is just a disguised form of centrally planned communism so that capitalists can claim the supposed benefits of communism for themselves, while they do something different behind the scenes. Communism should be rejected because it is not possible to implement it and so should neoclassical economics. This leaves us with a lot of research opportunities that nobody is willing to take.
Capitalism is closer to numerology or Kabbalah than ritual. The failure of the author to distinguish between different types of spiritual practices makes the entire article fall flat, which is sad because an investigation into the relationship between numerology and capitalism is quite interesting. Especially since you quickly discover that the number Zero holds special significance in accounting since all books must…
https://books.google.de/books/about/Volkswirtschaftliche_Sal...
It's sad that someone like the author would spend so much time avoiding understanding basic economics like subjective value, marginal value, voluntary exchanges etc. There are plenty of economics who never use any maths and help in understanding finance without resorting to this kind of silly critic
I don't know how you can prove the existence of voluntary exchange in the real world. Also neoclassical economics tends to get marginal cost structures completely wrong. When you ask them, companies report constant or falling marginal cost. The text book authors that do the study then proceed to teach their students that marginal cost must rise. I am not sure I should trust people like that. If they are willing to st…
I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure that is what you are going for here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point of the essay actually. It's like complaining that an essay written by an atheist about church doesn't talk about sin and salvation.
A more apt comparison would be an easy written by monk about physics that doesn't talk about, well, anything that didn't fit into the scripture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point of the essay actually. It's like complaining that an essay written by an atheist about church doesn't talk about sin and salvation.
No, I'm entirely getting the intended point of the essay, I just think that missing the 101 stuff makes the point that the author doesn't understand the subject matter he's attempting to do a hatchet job on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point of the essay actually. It's like complaining that an essay written by an atheist about church doesn't talk about sin and salvation.
No, I'm entirely getting the intended point of the essay, I just think that missing the 101 stuff makes the point that the author doesn't understand the subject matter he's attempting to do a hatchet job on.
> So what happens in practice is that investors capitalize income by keeping one eye on capitalization itself. Is it right that this long essay is saying (roughly) that share prices are not really related to future earning expectations, but to future share price expectations? Well, blow me down with a feather. I'd never have guessed that stock markets were mainly about speculation.
The value of everything is speculation
I wish there were more books or studies on how Economics is really a form of Psychology. It seems like the economic theories that delve into why humans do what they do seem more 'real', or uncovering something about human nature that can be applied.