Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's simple in economics?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

The less the state does, the better
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:25:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Not really. Economics is, "the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth." Wealth is "an abundance of valuable possessions or money." or in this case, the value of goods. However, "value" itself is subjective, and so cannot hold true in everywhere at all times.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:26:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maybe marginal returns for labor (an animal that is full has no use for meat, and so will not hunt).

I'm trying to think of theories in economics that can be applied to animals.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 4:53:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Two most important concepts in Economics, and the concepts that everyone agree on:
-Supply and Demand
-Opportunity Costs
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Two most important concepts in Economics, and the concepts that everyone agree on:
-Supply and Demand
-Opportunity Costs

Supply and demand is still not fully agreed on.

There are keysnian (demand side economics) and supply side economics.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 5:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Two most important concepts in Economics, and the concepts that everyone agree on:
-Supply and Demand
-Opportunity Costs

S&D also requires assigning value, and as such can not be universal. Opportunity costs are similar, however, it can be measured in other terms, such as energy, in which case, it only applies to living creatures, and even then, it is not much of a universal law as things can violate it frequently.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:00:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

The less the state does, the better

--See: Somalia
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:03:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The less the state does, the better

State deregulates banking industry. Banks fail and nearly cause economic havoc.

Not that I'm a big fan of the State.
President of DDO
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 10:29:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Scarcity is a universal constant. There is always some resource for which demand exceeds supply. Entropy can be thought of as an universal example of scarcity, energy being a limited resource.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 11:01:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:03:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The less the state does, the better

State deregulates banking industry. Banks fail and nearly cause economic havoc.

Not that I'm a big fan of the State.

The bank failures are caused by the fact that the government essentially subsidizes bank lending, such as by being willing to bail out large banks that fail.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 11:42:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:03:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The less the state does, the better

State deregulates banking industry. Banks fail and nearly cause economic havoc.

Not that I'm a big fan of the State.

This good old discredited idea that deregulation causes financial crisis just won't go away.
President of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 11:01:38 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 12/7/2011 10:03:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The less the state does, the better

State deregulates banking industry. Banks fail and nearly cause economic havoc.

Not that I'm a big fan of the State.

The bank failures are caused by the fact that the government essentially subsidizes bank lending, such as by being willing to bail out large banks that fail.

Yes, and I don't think the government should do that. However, had they done that and the banks been regulated, it would have been much better than them doing that and the banks NOT been regulated. I was saying that it was an example where state intervention would have been better than no intervention.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 8:55:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.

Yes, but it doesn't represent real profits, just nominal.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:19:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 8:55:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.

Yes, but it doesn't represent real profits, just nominal.

Gross profit is gross profit. Net profit is nominal anything and everything can affect this. You either took in x amount of dollars and paid out x amount of dollars or you didn't. If being a liar and a crook is what you mean by nominal then yes. But one does not base economics principals on lies and deception. That is not economics, that is net loss on someones part and can be accounted for. Some one will write it off their books as cash out.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:44:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 10:03:32 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 4:18:13 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The less the state does, the better

State deregulates banking industry. Banks fail and nearly cause economic havoc.

Not that I'm a big fan of the State.

Bad Banks should fail; deregulation works.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 10:48:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/7/2011 5:04:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/7/2011 4:53:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Two most important concepts in Economics, and the concepts that everyone agree on:
-Supply and Demand
-Opportunity Costs

Supply and demand is still not fully agreed on.

There are keysnian (demand side economics) and supply side economics.

They both agree on supply and demand. The disagreement concerns aggregation and fiscal policy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 12:15:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:44:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Bad Banks should fail; deregulation works.

Congratulations - you made the same exact point mongoose did and my claim still stands. I'm not saying bad banks shouldn't fail. Those banks would never have made such risky decisions if they weren't subsidized (protected by the government in the form of taxpayer bailouts). However, since they WERE, then the government should have been regulating them. Period. In other words if the government is going to get involved, then it needs to be far more conscientious of wtf is going on with taxpayer money. You can't just give banks a carte blanche. That is not to say I don't support deregulation. I thought I made that clear; apparently not.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 1:23:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/8/2011 10:19:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:55:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.

Yes, but it doesn't represent real profits, just nominal.

Gross profit is gross profit. Net profit is nominal anything and everything can affect this. You either took in x amount of dollars and paid out x amount of dollars or you didn't. If being a liar and a crook is what you mean by nominal then yes. But one does not base economics principals on lies and deception. That is not economics, that is net loss on someones part and can be accounted for. Some one will write it off their books as cash out.

Just making a distinction that there is a difference between the amount of cash you have and the amount of goods/services it can buy. It doesn't matter how much profits one makes, If the currency is devalued. Nominal means its not adjusted for inflation, while real means it is adjusted for inflation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 3:00:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 12:15:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:44:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Bad Banks should fail; deregulation works.

Congratulations - you made the same exact point mongoose did and my claim still stands. I'm not saying bad banks shouldn't fail. Those banks would never have made such risky decisions if they weren't subsidized (protected by the government in the form of taxpayer bailouts). However, since they WERE, then the government should have been regulating them. Period. In other words if the government is going to get involved, then it needs to be far more conscientious of wtf is going on with taxpayer money. You can't just give banks a carte blanche. That is not to say I don't support deregulation. I thought I made that clear; apparently not.

I know you are saying Regulation just needs to be better.
I believe that it's the same thing as saying communism is a good idea, you just need to have the right people in power....
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 3:22:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 3:00:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/9/2011 12:15:29 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:44:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Bad Banks should fail; deregulation works.

Congratulations - you made the same exact point mongoose did and my claim still stands. I'm not saying bad banks shouldn't fail. Those banks would never have made such risky decisions if they weren't subsidized (protected by the government in the form of taxpayer bailouts). However, since they WERE, then the government should have been regulating them. Period. In other words if the government is going to get involved, then it needs to be far more conscientious of wtf is going on with taxpayer money. You can't just give banks a carte blanche. That is not to say I don't support deregulation. I thought I made that clear; apparently not.

I know you are saying Regulation just needs to be better.
I believe that it's the same thing as saying communism is a good idea, you just need to have the right people in power....

You really don't acknowledge that ANY regulation can be good?

Policymakers might be incompetent, but they aren't completely incompetent. You know, If they come up with legislation that might screw people over, they might be voted out of office.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 3:48:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am just suggesting that efficient social responsibility lies within collective personal responsibility and not through proxy institutions.

Ther is no perfect utopia or system.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 4:01:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 3:48:37 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I am just suggesting that efficient social responsibility lies within collective personal responsibility and not through proxy institutions.

Ther is no perfect utopia or system.

Except nobody believes in a perfect utopia. Just that there's really not much of an incentive to engage in social responsibility If the incentives are weak and the incentives to engage in social harms are incentive by personal benefits. I'm not stating that government officials aren't also influenced by this same, but to corporations and individuals are also as well. There is a balance between the amount of government needed to regulated the economy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 5:13:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 1:23:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:19:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:55:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.

Yes, but it doesn't represent real profits, just nominal.

Gross profit is gross profit. Net profit is nominal anything and everything can affect this. You either took in x amount of dollars and paid out x amount of dollars or you didn't. If being a liar and a crook is what you mean by nominal then yes. But one does not base economics principals on lies and deception. That is not economics, that is net loss on someones part and can be accounted for. Some one will write it off their books as cash out.

Just making a distinction that there is a difference between the amount of cash you have and the amount of goods/services it can buy. It doesn't matter how much profits one makes, If the currency is devalued. Nominal means its not adjusted for inflation, while real means it is adjusted for inflation.

Things cost what they cost at the time of purchase. Inflation is caused by artificial and arbitrary means IE: printing worthless money to monetise debt. The sole pupose of inflation is to monetize debt. Don't confuse supply and demand with inflation. Inflation is not part of economic principals. It is corruption and manipulation of the money supply. It is theft. The people who founded this country warned of this 200 years ago. That is why they had the death penalty for people who manipulated the the monetary system like they do today. Everyone in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept would be hanging from the gallows right now if they attempted to do what they are doing now 200 years ago.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 5:26:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 5:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/9/2011 1:23:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 10:19:14 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:55:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/8/2011 8:30:02 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/7/2011 3:28:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is there any economic concept that holds true in space and time? That is, anywhere at any time?

Of course there is. This concept holds true no matter what the cost of anything is, raw materials, labor, investment, expansion, being sued, you name it.

Cash in - cash out equals gross profit/loss in a fiscal year. If this did not hold true it would be impossible to pay taxes, as there would be no figure upon which to figure taxes.

Yes, but it doesn't represent real profits, just nominal.

Gross profit is gross profit. Net profit is nominal anything and everything can affect this. You either took in x amount of dollars and paid out x amount of dollars or you didn't. If being a liar and a crook is what you mean by nominal then yes. But one does not base economics principals on lies and deception. That is not economics, that is net loss on someones part and can be accounted for. Some one will write it off their books as cash out.

Just making a distinction that there is a difference between the amount of cash you have and the amount of goods/services it can buy. It doesn't matter how much profits one makes, If the currency is devalued. Nominal means its not adjusted for inflation, while real means it is adjusted for inflation.

Things cost what they cost at the time of purchase. Inflation is caused by artificial and arbitrary means IE: printing worthless money to monetise debt. The sole pupose of inflation is to monetize debt. Don't confuse supply and demand with inflation. Inflation is not part of economic principals. It is corruption and manipulation of the money supply. It is theft. The people who founded this country warned of this 200 years ago. That is why they had the death penalty for people who manipulated the the monetary system like they do today. Everyone in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept would be hanging from the gallows right now if they attempted to do what they are doing now 200 years ago.

Monetising debt is nothing more than legalized counterfeiting. The govt prints worthless money to pay a debt. The people lose wealth because their money is worth less than it was before because of the increased money supply. It is stealing wealth by proxy. The people have to write it off as a loss. Someone always takes a loss when the monetary system is manipulated. It is not part of economics it is blatant in your face stealing of wealth.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 5:37:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 5:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:

Things cost what they cost at the time of purchase. Inflation is caused by artificial and arbitrary means IE: printing worthless money to monetise debt.

Actually inflation can be caused by three things. It can be caused through changes in the money supply, the circulation of money, and the change in gross domestic production.

The sole pupose of inflation is to monetize debt.

In that case why doesn't Congress control the FED? Why isn't the debt being reduce If we could just monetize it like that.

Don't confuse supply and demand with inflation. Inflation is not part of economic principals.

Really?! You mean the medium of exchange in which we use transaction has nothing to do with a science that is about resource allocation and distribution.

It is corruption and manipulation of the money supply. It is theft.

Really? Increasing the supply of an asset is theft? In that cases, I better not start a corporation because that just might devalue stocks.

The people who founded this country warned of this 200 years ago.

Really? You mean like the first national bank that existed immetially once the US federal government was formed.

Also "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Constitution.

I think the government has the right to create money.

That is why they had the death penalty for people who manipulated the the monetary system like they do today. Everyone in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept would be hanging from the gallows right now if they attempted to do what they are doing now 200 years ago.

Read above.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 9:05:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 5:37:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/9/2011 5:13:28 PM, sadolite wrote:

Things cost what they cost at the time of purchase. Inflation is caused by artificial and arbitrary means IE: printing worthless money to monetise debt.

Actually inflation can be caused by three things. It can be caused through changes in the money supply, the circulation of money, and the change in gross domestic production.

The sole pupose of inflation is to monetize debt.

In that case why doesn't Congress control the FED? Why isn't the debt being reduce If we could just monetize it like that.

Don't confuse supply and demand with inflation. Inflation is not part of economic principals.

Really?! You mean the medium of exchange in which we use transaction has nothing to do with a science that is about resource allocation and distribution.

It is corruption and manipulation of the money supply. It is theft.

Really? Increasing the supply of an asset is theft? In that cases, I better not start a corporation because that just might devalue stocks.

The people who founded this country warned of this 200 years ago.

Really? You mean like the first national bank that existed immetially once the US federal government was formed.

Also "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" Constitution.

I think the government has the right to create money.

That is why they had the death penalty for people who manipulated the the monetary system like they do today. Everyone in the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept would be hanging from the gallows right now if they attempted to do what they are doing now 200 years ago.

Read above.

Ya, your right that's why we as a nation are "not" 15 trillon in debt. Inflation is a normal aspcet of economics. And printing money without creating wealth is a normal aspect of economics. barrowing and printing money to sevice debt is also a normal aspect of economics too. What was I thinking. There is nothing more to say, I have no understanding of economics.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 4:59:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 4:23:29 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Kermit shoud debate "Minor Inflation is more desireable than minor deflation"

I debated that counterfeiters shouldn't be prosecuted on the basis that inflation was good and won :p.

I think debating mongoose on deflation/inflation would actually be fun, since he is economically literate.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...