Whilst I don't doubt that wind or solar energy could power the entire world the most fundamental problem is that in order to construct the infrastructure you mention is equivalent to all the energy we actually have available (meaning that we can't do it unless we decide to do nothing else).
This is the point where you actually need "science" not "economics".
Topic: Why does anyone pay attention to people that study "economics"? - page 9. (Read 9525 times)
January 20, 2015, 05:37:00 AM
January 20, 2015, 03:46:27 AM
They have a good social position and jobs. Therefore no need to make good predictions and produce useful stuff.
January 20, 2015, 03:43:27 AM
Yeah, in practice. But Keynesian economics is a (strongly abstact) theoretical model.
That is the very crux of the point.
January 20, 2015, 03:10:35 AM
According to everything I've read all the renewable energy sources we have combined cannot solve the problem to supply the amount of energy needed, nuclear fission very unpopular (so not likely to get greatly expanded) and nuclear fusion has yet to produce more energy than has been spent on trying to achieve it (perhaps if we get *lucky* that might change).
Yeah, in practice. But Keynesian economics is a (strongly abstact) theoretical model. January 19, 2015, 10:07:31 PM
That's implying that technology won't improve. You are ignoring renewable energy such as sun, wind, geothermal, etc. and nuclear energy (and nuclear fusion).
According to everything I've read all the renewable energy sources we have combined cannot solve the problem to supply the amount of energy needed, nuclear fission very unpopular (so not likely to get greatly expanded) and nuclear fusion has yet to produce more energy than has been spent on trying to achieve it (perhaps if we get *lucky* that might change).
January 19, 2015, 06:53:45 PM
There's nothing weird in infinite expansion
Except - double the world's energy consumption every year for the next 50 years are we are all gone (perhaps not weird - but the end of our species).
That's implying that technology won't improve. You are ignoring renewable energy such as sun, wind, geothermal, etc. and nuclear energy (and nuclear fusion).
January 19, 2015, 06:06:22 PM
Economics has always been politics, not science. From science perspective, since the value is all subjective, there is no standard in anything
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean there is no validity to it. A lot of macro is counterintuitive compared to micro. Like Quantum Mechanics compared to Newtonian Physics
Everyone who fully understand modern economics will abandon it, they are all here
January 19, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
You may be interested in this thread about Keynsian economics - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/were-the-keynesians-wrong-923471
January 19, 2015, 04:31:50 PM
It's the finance end of things that seems messed up to me, there seems to be an exponential in it. In that example, if the bank is also in the position to invest in your company and uses your loan as an asset to do so then the company is worth twice as much but that worth is made up from two sides that should cancel each other out, they do in terms of borrower and lender but they double up in terms of market capitalisation.
EDIT: Does that assume there's a limit to the need for productivity and its survival of the fittest once that limit is reached or that productivity can grow endlessly? If limited and companies are expected to go bust how does that effect the money supply?
EDIT: Does that assume there's a limit to the need for productivity and its survival of the fittest once that limit is reached or that productivity can grow endlessly? If limited and companies are expected to go bust how does that effect the money supply?
Your terminology is messed up so your questions don't make sense.
A loan is an asset because it needs to be repayed. The bank doesn't use the loan to invest or buy stocks. When they give out a loan the amount is recorded as an asset on their BALANCE SHEET. The amount of cash on their balance sheet is something else
January 19, 2015, 04:01:35 PM
Why people study economics
This
If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?
Why we need new measures of progress, why we do not have them, and how they would change the social and political landscape
It goes pretty in depth to your question of money etc.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm
Simply put As the former World Bank economist Herman Daly puts it, the current national accounting system treats the earth as a business in liquidation.
Parenting becomes child care, visits on the porch become psychiatry and VCRs, the watchful eyes of neighbors become alarm systems and police officers, the kitchen table becomes McDonald's--up and down the line, the things people used to do for and with one another turn into things they have to buy.
Day care adds more than $4 billion to the GDP; VCRs and kindred entertainment gear add almost $60 billion. Politicians generally see this decay
through a well-worn ideological lens: conservatives root for the market, liberals for the government. But in fact these two "sectors" are, in this respect
at least, merely different sides of the same coin: both government and the private market grow by cannibalizing the family and community realms that
ultimately nurture and sustain us.
This
If the GDP is Up, Why is America Down?
Why we need new measures of progress, why we do not have them, and how they would change the social and political landscape
It goes pretty in depth to your question of money etc.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm
Simply put As the former World Bank economist Herman Daly puts it, the current national accounting system treats the earth as a business in liquidation.
Parenting becomes child care, visits on the porch become psychiatry and VCRs, the watchful eyes of neighbors become alarm systems and police officers, the kitchen table becomes McDonald's--up and down the line, the things people used to do for and with one another turn into things they have to buy.
Day care adds more than $4 billion to the GDP; VCRs and kindred entertainment gear add almost $60 billion. Politicians generally see this decay
through a well-worn ideological lens: conservatives root for the market, liberals for the government. But in fact these two "sectors" are, in this respect
at least, merely different sides of the same coin: both government and the private market grow by cannibalizing the family and community realms that
ultimately nurture and sustain us.
January 19, 2015, 02:36:58 PM
...
You are correct, the money is created at that point. Its keystroked into the banks balance sheet as asset and your balance sheet as liability. But when you deposit into Citi, its then recorded as liability on Citi's balance sheet and asset on your account.
You are correct, the money is created at that point. Its keystroked into the banks balance sheet as asset and your balance sheet as liability. But when you deposit into Citi, its then recorded as liability on Citi's balance sheet and asset on your account.
Citi then covers that by investing it? ie, they invest both loans and deposits?
No, forget about the investing part. That's what is confusing you.
Think of money as a giant ledger (score keeping system). When money moves from one entity to another it gets recorded as an asset on one balance sheet and a liability on another.
What is money score keeping? Its score keeping the actual production on the "real economy". Because your example is all contained in finance its a bit confusing.
You borrow money from Chase to start a business. At that moment the money is created (comes into existence). 10 years later your business is booming and you pay back the loan with interest. At this moment the original money is taken out of existence. But your productivity remains. So the economy expanded compared to 10 years ago.
Now replace start a business with start an investment portfolio. Its still the same structure
January 19, 2015, 02:12:46 PM
...
EDIT: Kind of on topic and maybe someone can justify it to me:
Someone borrows, say, a million dollars from a bank, the bank considers that loan an asset and invests it in stocks, borrower also invests the borrowed funds in the same stocks. Where is the stocks value?
EDIT: Kind of on topic and maybe someone can justify it to me:
Someone borrows, say, a million dollars from a bank, the bank considers that loan an asset and invests it in stocks, borrower also invests the borrowed funds in the same stocks. Where is the stocks value?
You mean they invest your interest payment? The loan is an asset because its your liability
What if you borrowed $1M from Chase and bought a $1M worth of JPM stock?
No, I mean how money is created. That money doesn't exist before the loan, it's created at that point and the bank buys assets to its value, the stocks (not sure on that, I think its 100% but could be fractional) and the loan could also be used to buy the same stocks. For the bank example, what if both Chase and the borrower bought JPM stocks and on account of the rising price of the stocks both Chase and the borrower used their increased worth to justify further borrowing to buy JPM stocks?
Off topic so don't want to discuss it too much but it confuses the heck out of me.
You are correct, the money is created at that point. Its keystroked into the banks balance sheet as asset and your balance sheet as liability. But when you deposit into Citi, its then recorded as liability on Citi's balance sheet and asset on your account.
January 19, 2015, 02:11:23 PM
At least in the Keynsian variety.
The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).
I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.
(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)
The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).
I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.
(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)
Existing power structure (goverment/institution) in place operates in a top down manner, of course they will favor and promote any scholars that view the same way.
"I know what I'm talking about despite experts devoting their lives to study subjects that I know nothing about, therefore I am smart and everyone else is dumb" hmm, I wonder
Any experience working adult can tell the difference between the truth from bs from someone who spent their entire life in academy setting.
January 19, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
It's easy:
- Humans will always innovate, this will never stop. So there will always be increased efficiency allowing infinite expansion.
...
Infinite efficiency, ie. perpetual motion.- Humans will always innovate, this will never stop. So there will always be increased efficiency allowing infinite expansion.
...
EDIT: Kind of on topic and maybe someone can justify it to me:
Someone borrows, say, a million dollars from a bank, the bank considers that loan an asset and invests it in stocks, borrower also invests the borrowed funds in the same stocks. Where is the stocks value?
You mean they invest your interest payment? The loan is an asset because its your liability
What if you borrowed $1M from Chase and bought a $1M worth of JPM stock?
January 19, 2015, 01:30:12 PM
Economics has always been politics, not science. From science perspective, since the value is all subjective, there is no standard in anything
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean there is no validity to it. A lot of macro is counterintuitive compared to micro. Like Quantum Mechanics compared to Newtonian Physics
January 19, 2015, 01:14:08 PM
"Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The object is to recognize the trend whose premise is false, ride that trend and step off before it is discredited." ~ George Soros
January 19, 2015, 12:48:50 PM
Economics has always been politics, not science. From science perspective, since the value is all subjective, there is no standard in anything
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
This is especially true regarding money and banking, a 10 year old can understand better than economy professors: He would just copy his own money instead of singing IRR, NPV, CPI, GDP, M3, etc... And you see, FED is doing exactly the same thing
January 19, 2015, 12:42:10 PM
where did you read this? I never heard of it before. Can you post a link so I can read?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
What kind do expansion are you referring to? Credit expansion or population growth?
Economic growth fundamentally.
I read that link and I'm not sure what you asking about Keynes. He views economics with aggregate demand as the driver. Because of this, he prioritize employment. Employment drives GDP rather than GDP driving employment. His whole thing was that external shocks can send economies spiraling out of control and in those situation only the govt have the to do something.
January 19, 2015, 10:28:43 AM
At least in the Keynsian variety.
The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).
I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.
(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)
The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).
I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.
(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)
Usually people who get the Economics nobel prizes did very good research in their are of research but they can be very incoherent or keynesian in other areas.
The problem is the correct economic laws are not taught in school.
January 19, 2015, 05:39:44 AM
I guess if their is a reason to study economics its so people will make logical judgments about what they buy
Assuming they are rational beings of course
If not then we can just throw out all human rationale into it and say we live in chaos.
As to why their popular, its because some areas of economics are valid so it can't be completely ignored such as in transportation economics with the hotelling model people do operate in a geographical range to get stuff (Like Pizza) even with internet technology.
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/game-theory-the-hotelling-model-of-spatial-location
That said I have more irks with econ and super simple models than agreement myself, and the excuse that very complex models are impossible while we can observe simple models that are probably true is a fundamental basis to making mistakes.
Assuming they are rational beings of course
If not then we can just throw out all human rationale into it and say we live in chaos.
As to why their popular, its because some areas of economics are valid so it can't be completely ignored such as in transportation economics with the hotelling model people do operate in a geographical range to get stuff (Like Pizza) even with internet technology.
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/game-theory-the-hotelling-model-of-spatial-location
That said I have more irks with econ and super simple models than agreement myself, and the excuse that very complex models are impossible while we can observe simple models that are probably true is a fundamental basis to making mistakes.
Jump to: