Posts by Emily Allen2

I am in favor of this proposal, though I should add that the current thread could still be salvaged through more rigorous moderation—an intervention that, in my estimation, has become absolutely essential. From its very inception, the discussion has been cluttered with off-topic tangents, but lately, the situation has truly spiraled out of control.

Amanda Allen4 said:Could someone please explain what "neoliberalism" actually represents in economic science? I am looking for a precise definition, stripped of all political bias. Thanks.

This might provide the clarity you're seeking:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issu...roufakis38.htm

Andrew Booth29 said:Sure, they want it—that’s exactly why we call it "fiat" money. Can you not see the blatant contradiction sitting right there in front of you? 😬

🤣

And now you’re attempting to lecture people using nothing but dictionary definitions...😬

Andrew Booth29 said:Yeah, the attack from my colleague Scorpio is basically a nirvana fallacy. He’s concluded that because the market isn't perfect, it's flawed. No shit, Sherlock. 🤣

But I can't really blame him—I mean, look at how those academic types built their entire case around the latest Nobel Prize in Economics (though, let's be honest, those professors have probably never actually applied for a job or had to hire a single person in their lives).

At first glance, there’s a strawman here, some post hoc reasoning, and quite likely another four or five logical fallacies tucked in as well. 😁

brightlynx11 said:Orty, nobody's actually scared. People just don't feel like messing around with reporters who love twisting words out of context. Some of them can't even talk to the press because of where they work.

Look, I'm not saying Keynes is bad. Far from it. He’s massive for economic science, one way or another. But honestly, looking at this, I see too many students clinging to Keynes because they can't handle the quantitative stuff. It's pure hypocrisy to trash-talk Black-Scholes when you don't even know what an integral is, let alone Itov's lemma. Respect to my colleagues in economic history and the history of thought—that stuff matters too. But there’s zero point in someone specializing in the history of RATEX trying to weigh in on growth theory or monetary economics.
It's like a cardiac surgeon trying to perform brain surgery.

I am being a bit playful here. I can certainly understand why this feels like such a Sisyphus task to you.😉

What is the actual situation regarding faculty staffing at the universities? I have a general idea of how things stand with Economics in Split, but what about the other institutions across the US? I am specifically referring to the professorial corps. Is there any hope for recruitment? 😁

brightlynx11 said:They exist, they just publish abroad and stay out of the public eye. Maybe only Velimir Sonja has the patience for media outbursts here and there.
Most of them are younger economists, killer at quantitative stuff. I know plenty of them personally, and honestly, they couldn't care less about being media personalities.

Who exactly are you afraid of? 😁

http://www.economist.com/node/171985...98511&fsrc=rss

slycrane94 said:Fortunately, the multi-quote feature isn't working, so you didn't miss a thing. 🙂

slycrane94 said:Damn it. I just realized there actually is a reply button; I honestly haven't noticed it until this very moment. (And apparently, multi-quote only works if you use it 😢 )

shadowpilot8 said:It works fine for me, so I can manage it. You just hit that plus sign on the posts you want to multi-quote—which turns orange—and then for the final one, you just click quote.

I was simply verifying whether or not I had finally grasped the mechanics of the system. 😬

Harold Sanders10 said:Even in America, there is a fundamental distinction between the economy and economics.

I am well aware of the difference, truly, but the issue lies entirely in the translation; you can clumsily lump together the economy, economics, econometrics, and general commerce all under the single umbrella of "economy"...

Is it fair to suggest that economics is the science, while the economy itself is merely the practical application? Can we settle on that? 🤷

I’ll go ahead and start a new thread over on the Business forum, where we can hopefully clear this up once and for all.😁

shadowpilot8 said:Take it easy. 😉
You haven't quite clarified that we are dealing with two distinct concepts here, so I find it highly doubtful that you'll be able to secure that PDF right away. 🙂

I’m certainly not some egoist obsessed with snagging a new PDF at any cost, though I suppose it might seem that way. It simply occurred to me that having access to this Economics textbook could significantly elevate the caliber of discussion on this forum while providing me the opportunity to master a few specific concepts I've been eyeing—admittedly, there is a touch of selfishness in that admission. 😁 ).

shadowpilot8 said:Perhaps you should consider starting a new thread over in the economics section and including a poll, as the current situation remains rather opaque.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't given much thought to the distinction between economics and the broader management of resources until this very moment.😕
It seems perfectly logical to me that economics is a far broader concept than mere commerce or the economy at large. In the English-speaking world, the distinction is handled quite clearly:

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services within an economy. The equivalent in our language is the economy.

An Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution At its core, economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, essentially examining the various ways in which people leverage their environment to satisfy their material needs.

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution The equivalent term in our language is economy.

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

🤷

Economy

1. a. property, estate [such as a farm or timberland]; b. the management of an estate
2. a. industry; b. the economy
3. rarely used to mean the total sum of wealth and resources on and beneath the earth's surface

Economics

1. a. the entirety of human activity directed toward sustaining and improving material existence; resource management in its broadest sense; stewardship; b. the prudent use of money or any other resource to achieve maximum utility with minimal expenditure of materials, labor, etc.; thrift; c. frugality, efficiency, or the sensible management of a household
2. the science concerned with economic activities in general, or specific sectors, businesses, and so forth
3. a farming estate (often involving diverse business operations)

Well, here is a suggestion for the first topic on our new PDF: Are "economy" and "economics" actually synonyms? 😬

@ Antonio Banderas, Kimberly Nguyen

While I wouldn't presume to be an expert qualified to draw such rigid lines, I have always felt that theories regarding money and capital function more as the abstract, theoretical foundations of the economy, whereas I tend to view the actual economy as its practical, lived application.🤷
To me, the economy is a scientific discipline, while the economy itself is a human endeavor.🤔

feraltrucker5 said:I don't hold an admin position, but I have a strong intuition regarding what kind of response you'll receive—or rather, won't receive 😬—given how thin this request currently is. 😛

Typically, if one wants to justify opening a new sub-forum, they need to demonstrate substantial demand; this means providing numerous specific topic examples and proving there is genuine enthusiasm among the community. 🙂

Finally, some actual discussion.🙂

It is difficult for me to gauge the exact level of interest, though it occurs to me that setting up a poll such as Are you interested in participating in discussions within an Economy sub-forum? would be an effective way to test the waters.🤷

Regarding subject matter, we could implement a standard division between microeconomics and macroeconomics.
As for potential topics, I could list them endlessly—things like the nature of inflation, drivers of economic growth, supply and demand theory, game theory, wage disparities, free trade versus protectionism, the debate over subsidies, monetary theory, the economic viability of alternative energy sources, or the economic implications of globalization.

I believe deep dives into foundational theories—be it Classical, Neoclassical, Keynesian, the Austrian School of Economics, or Monetarist—would prove incredibly engaging and educational. For instance, on the current Economy board, there is a thread titled The Free Market: Why don't we have one? which I personally find to be quite insightful and high-quality.

I have noticed several individuals on the Economy board who would likely jump at the chance to contribute, many of whom seem quite competent; for example, I suspect B. Pike would take great pleasure in defending the Austrian School of Economics😁, while Harold Sanders10 might offer clarity on the principle of comparative advantage😉, and Phil Lynott along with others could provide their usual biting, sarcastic commentary.😍

Those are just a few names that, based on my observations, would support and participate in such a forum. Of course, this isn't a representative sample, but it is what I have observed during my brief tenure on this site.

😬

Scott Patel said:I suspect this falls under the jurisdiction of the site administrator, so I would kindly request their official stance on the matter; please, feel free to tell me if I am being completely ridiculous, but I simply require an answer.🙂

Harold Sanders10 said:I agree, it’s just that there aren't enough people like that. 😢

I assume you'll be on board with this idea too.😉
I wouldn't go so far as to claim interest will be lacking; after all, the Business PDF section pulls decent traffic, and if we consider that an average of about 5,000 users log onto Reddit daily, the law of large numbers suggests there should be plenty of interested parties.😁

I truly believe this would be a smart move that could actually elevate the overall quality of the forum, and if it turns out to be unnecessary, removing it would be a simple enough task.🤷

I assume this falls under the jurisdiction of the administrator, so I’ll go ahead and request their official stance on the matter. Please, feel free to call me a complete fool if you must, but I would truly appreciate a definitive answer.🙂