Do you fully understand and know Economics?

[michaelskis]

We often hear people say, it’s basic economics, we have economic development, we comment on the economy, heck we even partake in Home Economics... but what is Economics and how well do you understand it?

Many of us have also taken Micro & Macro Economics as part of our planning degrees were they got into supply and demand, balanced matrix, and cost to expense ratios, but can we really use any of this stuff in planning? What about other choices that you make such as whom to vote for, to buy a house in a particular neighborhood, and such.

[Big Owl]

One of the most helpful classes i have taken was "Urban Economics". we covered market economic and talked about how zoning was an externality. It gave me a unique prospective. I think alot to the theory is really realvant and can be applied in some form.

[mgk920]

Whenever someone describes a grandiose idea to me, I will often reply with "well, that looks very nice and fine and dandy, but are the numbers there?". One can dream all he/she wants to, but if the basic economic 'numbers' are not there and don't 'add up', the proposal won't happen.

OTOH, the failures of many zoning controls on development, especially those severely limiting unit density and/or over-segregating complimentary uses, are that the controls fly right in the face of basic economics (I often call this a 'law of nature') - there is a market-based demand for a certain number of commercial and/or residential units in an area and if they are not legally allowed, will result in a combination of much higher prices for the units that are built than there otherwise would be, a loss in overall economic activity/local tax revenue to other more welcoming places and/or a black market for providing the needed units (ie, two or more families illegally sharing residential units designed for one).

I see it all the time.

Mike

[dobopoq]

Economics could be considered an anthropocentric sub-discipline of ecology. Mankind depends upon the resources of the Earth for his survival, just like any other living organism. Anytime a species exhausts a resource base beyond recovery, its population must face a dieoff.

[Wannaplan?]

Economics could be considered an anthropocentric sub-discipline of ecology.

Or vice-versa.

Anytime a species exhausts a resource base beyond recovery, its population must face a dieoff.

Except when that species is able to use technology and/or behavior change to overcome the deficiency caused by the exhausted resource (e.g. recycling) or when a suitable replacement resource can take the place of said exhausted resource.

Mankind depends upon the resources of the Earth for his survival, just like any other living organism. The words I emphasized makes your post quite ironic, even having an air of nonchalance, considering the threads you start on gender equity. Even your profile says, "Gender Egalitarianist."

[jordanb]

Economics is a very contentious field where not much is "known" indisputably.

[dobopoq]

off-topic:

Off-topic:

Mankind depends upon the resources of the Earth for his survival, just like any other living organism.

The words I emphasized makes your post quite ironic, even having an air of nonchalance, considering the threads you start on gender equity. Even your profile says, "Gender Egalitarianist."

The word "mankind" is understood to be a non-gender specific word. You'll notice the word "man" is also in the word "human". But the singular pronoun "his" has to be used in this case if it follows the word "mankind". It would have been gramatically incorrect for me to say "Mankind depends upon the resources of the Earth for 'their' or 'her' survival...".

I see your post as a rather shallow attempt to discredit the sincerity of my beliefs via the inadequacies of the English language Wanigas?

[zman]

Hopefully, over the next 15 weeks, I will understand Economics a little better. That is if the local community college would get the damned book in...

[greginboise]

All you really need to know about economics:

TANSTAAFL

[Wannaplan?]

I see your post as a rather shallow attempt to discredit the sincerity of my beliefs via the inadequacies of the English language Wanigas? Take it how you would like, I don't care, but I wouldn't call it shallow. Wouldn't the sincerity of your beliefs permeate most aspects of your being, as you have strongly indicated in the past? Regardless, with the inadequacies of the English language comes its ability to be fluid and adaptive. Wouldn't "Humanity depends upon the resources of the Earth for its survival" convey they same idea without projecting traditional gender biases into the language?

[jaws]

I did an honours undergrad in economics and I can honestly say that I learned absolutely nothing about economics in my classes. What I did learn was from reading books, and it never really started to make sense as a system until I read Ludwig von Mises. Even Milton Friedman is unconvincing.

Mainstream economics today is just an excuse to make work for professors. There's absolutely no way to determine whether anything they say is true or not if you follow their epistemology.

[dobopoq]

off-topic

Take it how you would like, I don't care, but I wouldn't call it shallow. Wouldn't the sincerity of your beliefs permeate most aspects of your being, as you have strongly indicated in the past? Regardless, with the inadequacies of the English language comes its ability to be fluid and adaptive. Wouldn't "Humanity depends upon the resources of the Earth for its survival" convey they same idea without projecting traditional gender biases into the language?

You're blowing this way out of proportion. Obviously, there are numerous other ways I could have voiced the same thought without getting near gender pronouns. I know you don't care. Which is why you are making this attempt to belittle me in public. The word "petty" comes to mind.

[BKM]

off-topic

You're blowing this way out of proportion.

Neckties, anyone?

[Budgie]

Yes, I understand economics in a wide variety of it's applications.

Please don't make me reply to this thread.... I won't know when to stop.

[Zoning Goddess]

I took one post-graduate economics class (required) and it was the most booooooring class ever. The professor was an idiot. I've never had any interest and know absolutely nothing.

[H]

Do you fully understand and know Economics?

Yes.

[BKM]

Yes.

H For President!

[Wannaplan?]

Neckties, anyone?

I love the irony!

[SkeLeton]

Well I did an introductory course of Economics... did quite well, but beyond that nothing... Good enough for me though... I can learn the rest in Economical Geography...

[Cardinal]

I have no idea what economics is. I just try to figure out what the average guy... er, persyn on the street thinks or does, and then draw conclusions from that.

[chukky]

Am trying to remember where I heard it but:

Economists were put on this earth to make astrologers look good.

[H]

H For President!

LOL. No thanks.

[donk]

The only thing in economics I truely understand is the law of diminishing return.

The third helping of steak does not taste as good as the first, the 15th beer does not go down as easy as the 6th......

[Budgie]

Anyone know what a util is?

How about MR - MC = 0 = MP?

[bud]

We often hear people say, it’s basic economics, we have economic development, we comment on the economy, heck we even partake in Home Economics... but what is Economics and how well do you understand it?

Many of us have also taken Micro & Macro Economics as part of our planning degrees were they got into supply and demand, balanced matrix, and cost to expense ratios, but can we really use any of this stuff in planning? What about other choices that you make such as whom to vote for, to buy a house in a particular neighborhood, and such.

Start by defining the three factors needed to produce wealth.

What is so confusing is that money is called capital; but money is a measure of wealth. The true definition of capital would be intelligence.