|
Econ 101 is crazy simple. Just treat it like a physics 101 class and recognize that the models are oversimplified to express general concepts without overloading freshmen who haven't taken 200-level math classes yet. If you can handle this thread then you can handle any of the dumb stuff students will ask or professors will say. It's when you get into an Econ 300+ intermediate macro course taught by a guy with horrible English and you're on the second hour of a lecture about the laffer curve and the management major behind you asks why taxes should be progressive in the first place that you realize that you've completely lost the will to live. (I graduated with an Accounting degree and almost minored in Econ before deciding I didn't hate myself enough to take another course in that series)
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
You guys might find this poll of various prominent academic economists relevant. Opinions were split on whether "Raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment" and opinions were mainly uncertain or in agreement with the statement that "The distortionary costs of raising the federal minimum wage to $9 per hour and indexing it to inflation are sufficiently small compared with the benefits to low-skilled workers who can find employment that this would be a desirable policy." http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_br0IEq5a9E77NMV
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
I wonder if anyone just agreed because they had no loving idea what the second prompt meant.
OH NO MY DICK fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Economics is such a nebulous and complex subject that standardizing a means of teaching it at the basic level shows one does not really understand economics. (Or at least the nature of the subject rather. It also explains why there are so many right wing cranks pouring their bullshit political agenda into economics 101 class. Unless the instructor outright says that economics is far too complicated and irrational for anyone to pretend to have a handle on it, chances are the class will just be a vehicle for the instructor's lovely politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
The problem with economics is that there are WAY too many variables to be able to predict things well. The econ class I took had a professor that even said as much. You can get a good idea of how things will work theoretically in a vacuum and you can study statistics to predict how people are LIKELY to act but, in the end, there are just too many variables in the real world to always predict with perfect accuracy how things will react. Nothing is really a hard and fast rule that applies to everything, all the time. Compare that to physics where the math is basically always the same. Physics acts predictably and mathematically. The gravitational constant is, well, a constant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
My econ 101 textbook was that shitbird Mankiw. Our prof kept turning from the blackboard and saying things to the effect of "well, that's not really true, but for the purposes of the class..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
It's like the truther physicists who are convinced that 9-11 was an inside job because they think that they can understand complicated structural mechanics or thermodynamics problems based on some calculation that they worked out from first principals and some measurements from a youtube video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:My econ 101 textbook was that shitbird Mankiw. Our prof kept turning from the blackboard and saying things to the effect of "well, that's not really true, but for the purposes of the class..." We had Mankiw as well and I think that (plus the teacher being terrible and my TA being both unable to contact on a regular basis and unintelligible) was why I barely managed to get a B in that course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The problem with economics is that there are WAY too many variables to be able to predict things well. The econ class I took had a professor that even said as much. You can get a good idea of how things will work theoretically in a vacuum and you can study statistics to predict how people are LIKELY to act but, in the end, there are just too many variables in the real world to always predict with perfect accuracy how things will react. Nothing is really a hard and fast rule that applies to everything, all the time. Also economics is fundamentally tied up in human emotion. In reality things like utility are based on quick, emotion based judgement calls by people who are lucky to have 1% of the available information on the product they're judging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:It also explains why there are so many right wing cranks pouring their bullshit political agenda into economics 101 class. Unless the instructor outright says that economics is far too complicated and irrational for anyone to pretend to have a handle on it, chances are the class will just be a vehicle for the instructor's lovely politics. That has more to do with Birchers, Austrian schoolers, followers of Milton Friedman, and other associated right wing loons intentionally taking over the field decades ago when they were mostly laughed out of university econ departments, which is why there was a whole rash of right wing economic think tanks established within a few years of each other in the 70s/early 80s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
NO LISTEN TO ME posted:I start my freshman year of college next week and now I'm kind of concerned that I took an econ 101 class, I just picked it because it fit in with the rest of my schedule. It won't be that bad, just learn whatever the prof teaches, even if he's a randian shitlord you'll still learn some basic concepts from them. Just don't make the mistake of assuming all of the principals you learn are actually applicable to reality. E: though you may want to find a different teacher if yours refuses to answer any questions about command economies by saying communism never works. Randoids really need to be barred from teaching jobs  .
Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:It won't be that bad, just learn whatever the prof teaches, even if he's a randian shitlord you'll still learn some basic concepts from them. Just don't make the mistake of assuming all of the principals you learn are actually applicable to reality. Yeah the idea that you can simplify things until you can break them up and make theories isn't necessarily a bad idea. The problem is people take the oversimplified, not very predictive theories and try and act like they're the word of god himself. You'll definitely learn to think of things in ways you hadn't thought of them before. You simply have to think to yourself (or out loud depending on the school/class/professor) about all the ways and the reasons why the simple models break down. There's much more enlightenment to be found in failure modes, and you should seek them out. Raskolnikov38 posted:E: though you may want to find a different teacher if yours refuses to answer any questions about command economies by saying communism never works. Randoids really need to be barred from teaching jobs When someone says something like that it really depends on what they mean by it. If someone tells you communism fails for the same reason capitalism does - human emotion fucks it all up - that's very different from someone saying communism fails because capitalism is the natural state of humanity. A GIANT PARSNIP fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:When someone says something like that it really depends on what they mean by it. If someone tells you communism fails for the same reason capitalism does - human emotion fucks it all up - that's very different from someone saying communism fails because capitalism is the natural state of humanity. He announced he was skipping over the section on command economies, someone asked him why, and his response was literally "because communism doesn't work." Also the mantra he would say at least 3 times a class was "the free market is perfect/always works." God gently caress that guy so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Yeah the idea that you can simplify things until you can break them up and make theories isn't necessarily a bad idea. The problem is people take the oversimplified, not very predictive theories and try and act like they're the word of god himself. This is the issue. There's a disconnect where a Physics 101 professor can tell his class "we're going to completely disregard air resistance for the purposes of this class" and have the class understand that air resistance still exists, or a Chem 101 professor can tell her class that bonds are lines of paired electrons between protons to make drawing and understanding bonds a lot easier, while an Econ 101 professor's models aren't understood to be equally simplified for the purposes of teaching the basics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
At least you're not taking Texas Government in college where the teacher used the Drudge Report as a legitimate news source.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
My Face When posted:At least you're not taking Texas Government in college where the teacher used the Drudge Report as a legitimate news source. Oh please go into detail on this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
My Face When posted:At least you're not taking Texas Government in college where the teacher used the Drudge Report as a legitimate news source. Does that mean you get to use The Blaze as a legitimate source when writing papers in that class then? Because I would find the most outlandish poo poo I could on that site (not hard) and use it to support the most bat poo poo conclusions with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:52
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Does that mean you get to use The Blaze as a legitimate source when writing papers in that class then? Because I would find the most outlandish poo poo I could on that site (not hard) and use it to support the most bat poo poo conclusions with them. If you find yourself falling into madness, dive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Does that mean you get to use The Blaze as a legitimate source when writing papers in that class then? Because I would find the most outlandish poo poo I could on that site (not hard) and use it to support the most bat poo poo conclusions with them. I'd be forced to write a paper proposing corporal punishment of the poor en masse, like, say, public whippings for anyone below the poverty line, anytime stock prices for fortune 500 companies fell. Maybe even executions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Does that mean you get to use The Blaze as a legitimate source when writing papers in that class then? Because I would find the most outlandish poo poo I could on that site (not hard) and use it to support the most bat poo poo conclusions with them. It was back before I got into politics (I actually really got started when Gabby Giffords was shot so that spring semester before that). I didn't understand how stupid it was, or cared because I was naively smart. The teacher would actually pull it up every time before class and talk about the issues on the front page. It wasn't until I lurked here long enough to realize how racist the site was and hated my college experiences forever. I got a C in the class and haven't looked back. This was the college in the town that voted for Louie Gohmert. I hate East Texas. I really do. It's like the Tea Party swells here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:44
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Also economics is fundamentally tied up in human emotion. In reality things like utility are based on quick, emotion based judgement calls by people who are lucky to have 1% of the available information on the product they're judging. Economics is where misanthropic autists flee to get a second chance at advancing their terrible opinions, by attempting to mathematically justify their abhorrent worldviews and gently caress as many people as possible. If not for economics departments and Congress, there would be no such thing as a mainstream conservative. Not counting think tanks because they're fake economics departments.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
My Face When posted:It was back before I got into politics (I actually really got started when Gabby Giffords was shot so that spring semester before that). I didn't understand how stupid it was, or cared because I was naively smart. The teacher would actually pull it up every time before class and talk about the issues on the front page. It wasn't until I lurked here long enough to realize how racist the site was and hated my college experiences forever. I got a C in the class and haven't looked back. Oh poo poo, you're a Lumberjack: You're a lumberjack and you're okay You sleep all night and work all day You cut down trees, you eat your lunch You go to the lavatory On Wednesdays you go shopping And have buttered scones for tea You cut down trees, you skip and jump You like to press wildflowers You put on women's clothing And hang around in bars You cut down trees, you wear high heels Suspenders and a bra You wish you'd been a girlie Just like your dear papa You're a lumberjack and you're okay Nothing wrong with SFA, its a great school. gently caress Gohmert. radical meme fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:He announced he was skipping over the section on command economies, someone asked him why, and his response was literally "because communism doesn't work." Shoulda asked him how he felt the USA was working during WW2, when it was... a command economy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Economics is where misanthropic autists flee to get a second chance at advancing their terrible opinions, by attempting to mathematically justify their abhorrent worldviews and gently caress as many people as possible. If not for economics departments and Congress, there would be no such thing as a mainstream conservative. Not counting think tanks because they're fake economics departments. And then they go to Wall Street and whinge about how much taxes they have to pay and how the rest of us will turn Republican when we have to start paying  taxes? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
What was that old quote? "A liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged?" Or is it the other way around? "A conservative is a liberal who has never been hungry?" I forget which is which.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
I think it's "a conservative is a mugger who's never been arrested".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Economics is where misanthropic autists flee to get a second chance at advancing their terrible opinions, by attempting to mathematically justify their abhorrent worldviews and gently caress as many people as possible. If not for economics departments and Congress, there would be no such thing as a mainstream conservative. Not counting think tanks because they're fake economics departments. We're not all misanthropic autists.  (Just the entirety of the Austria and Chicago schools.)Economics is mostly notable for A) having dreadful macro models and B) being much more directly related to political agendas than most soft sciences. There's plenty of interesting and decent analytical work that goes on, but the closer you get to either the halls of power or the macro-er topics, the more the guys reading chicken entrails are going to get coopted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Re: Phil Mickelson I understand he's just answering the question and it might be true for him but the point is that, through some miracle of science I assume, there is still an incentive to play golf enough that people want to pay you millions of dollars to keep doing it and apparently the disincentive only kicks in somewhere around the point where you are planning your great grandchildrens retirements. Sounds like the system works, Phil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
My parents' church friends parrot the "woe is the rear end in a top hat who has to pay taxes on his golf tournament winnings" poo poo, then turn around and start complaining about how the Hispanics take more than they contribute to the church.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Phil "My Taxes Are Too High So I Usually Aim For Second Or Third Place" Mickelson
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Phil "My Taxes Are Too High So I Usually Aim For Second Or Third Place" Mickelson And yet, Old White Dudes love him because he isn't "uppity" like Tiger Woods. He's represents Golf as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
He probably believes that if you make one cent over your tax bracket your entire earnings are taxed at the new rate. It really is stunning how many people don't understand how a progressive tax system functions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Golf, historically, is a thinking man's sport... Primarily where you think that minorities and poor people are subhuman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:This is how conservatives feel about all debt of any kind, especially student debt. The best part is how Rush will go on and on about how irresponsible it is to be in debt and how students know what they're getting themselves into, and then you immediately hear a commercial that says "are you 30,000 dollars in debt? LET US HELP!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:I used to listen to Stephanie Miller just for a morning-zoo style liberal morning show, but I can't take her bullshit anymore. She's a constant apologist for Obama, and she has absolutely no reason to be one. I suspect that her constant cheerleading for the NSA has something to do with her giant Carbonite endorsement contract. God knows what they do with your data when they get it, but I doubt they want you to find out. My wife listens to her so I get to listen to her, and while I don't really agree or disagree with her on the NSA stuff my take on her position is: -This has been happening pretty much since the CIA/NSA came into being, why are people suddenly acting surprised over something that's been happening for decades. -The data they are collecting is in no way private. Once you post on the internet or make a phone call there is no longer an expectation of privacy and every email/FB/Twitter/whatever service and phone company keeps the same data people are freaking out over the NSA collecting. Her example was sending a postcard and acting outraged that the USPS guy read it. -They are not listening to/reading all this data, the sheer amount of manpower would be insane. They are collecting it so should the day come they can retrieve what they need to investigate and so long as its obtained legally she doesn't see what the fuss is. Again, not taking a position on this or arguing for her but its not as simple as "OBAMA GOOD SO THIS GOOD". As for advertisers I doubt she has any say whatsoever who they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
I wouldn't be happy about a USPS guy reading my postcards. Outraged? Maybe not. The more pertinent example would be someone on the bus or in another public place leaning over and looking at what you're doing on your phone. Do you want to murder them? No Would you want to forcefully tell them to get the gently caress out and escalate when they keep doing it? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Do you enjoy seeing James O'Keefe getting yelled at? (of course you do) TPM put a link up and it's worth a look. It's one of his own videos, too, so is already edited to make him look as sympathetic as possible. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ex-us-attorney-calls-james-okeefe-nasty-little?ref=fpa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujx4_phsf4I My Face When posted:At least you're not taking Texas Government in college where the teacher used the Drudge Report as a legitimate news source. Eh, Drudge is just a link aggregator. I guess it counts as a legitimate way to find a source, if you're looking for articles about trending right-wing narratives. I read his site every day, as it's the quickest way to see what the right is trying to push. It's like using wikipedia to find links that're relevant to your topic. You don't cite drudge, or wikipedia, but it can help point in the right direction. Although I doubt that's what your instructor meant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
I don't know how former US Attorney Letten resisted the urge to punch O'Keefe in the throat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
mints posted:I don't know how former US Attorney Letten resisted the urge to punch O'Keefe in the throat. Honestly though, most of that clip was about him being all  about not being granted interviews by people. Maybe if his entire career hadn't been about editing people he'd interviewed in the past to fit his narrative or even breaking into a senators office and wiretapping them they might be reluctant to grant him an interview... but nope, it's because he's the one "trying to speak truth to power" and they are afraid of that "truth".
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Eh, Drudge is just a link aggregator. I guess it counts as a legitimate way to find a source, if you're looking for articles about trending right-wing narratives. I read his site every day, as it's the quickest way to see what the right is trying to push. Well, in the teacher's defense, the Drudge Report is, in fact, a website that has news on it. That makes it a legitimate source of news, in the sense that it tells you what is going on in the world right now. It's biased as gently caress, of course, but it is, in fact, still news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:54
|
|