The annoying thing about economics is that it is so packed with political colouring.Every politician can find an economist who proclaims exactly what he likes to hear. The Italians have economists who tell them that more guilt is the way to re-hunt growth and then begin to repay the enormous sovereign debt. Debt to solve the debt problem.
People like Trump and Rutte have economists who believe that it is increasingly undressing the welfare state and giving tax reductions to the business world, leading to great prosperity for all.
Left-thinking economists say that you have to force the companies to pay a greater proportion of their turnover to wages, in order to hunt the purchasing power and give economic growth a stimulus.These are the same economists who say that during a recession you should not cut into spending, but rather stimulate it. In this way, you prevent the recession from becoming even deeper and whole sectors are being sanitized.
As a regular citizen, you can not do much more, then look at what makes you most logical and that logic is usually governed by political preference.
Well.You probably have it about macro-economists, government policy advisors.
When I see that it is still not well know how inflation is so low in western economies, despite injecting thousands of billions of euros and dollars by central banks, I certainly ask myself.And indeed, as in other humanities there are “schools” or currents that disagree. It is not a “paradigmatic science” in the words of Thomas Kuhn.
I would assume that macroeconomics is now in the state of medicine in the years 1920 or 1930.It has something but it can’t do much.
Economy should be abolished immediately as a scientific study.The study has a moderate explanatory value and zero predictive. Sin of the money or the time of the boys and girls who are studying. Economists must-it sounds hard-be retrained to geriatric nursing assistance to ensure that their self-esteem goes back to their societal usefulness.
Economists who work at a bank must first have their punishment out before they are retrained.(I assume those lazy have all been at least TBS imposed)
I take them not seriously because there are so many variables that are possible!Impact on future economic developments. No one knows which ones are and how heavily they weigh and how they influence each other.
Think not only of interest and economic growth, price development, debt issues and inflation.But also to war reging, power politics, Cyberwar, cryptocurrencies, emergence China, political systems, etc etc.
Anyone who knows what the future will bring here may say.
Tis Koffi Edik look.
Politics and the media regularly attack economists to defend the silly superstitions of their voters and readers.So they keep the people stupid. It would be better to take economists more seriously and be more critical of the politicians and the media that tell the popular story.
Predicting economic crises is a modern stone of sages.In fact, you can earn gold money with such knowledge. Naturalists and chemists are not accused that they still have not found a profitable way to change lead in gold, but for economists there are much stricter requirements, purely because that science is popular leader 鈧?”in everyone’s interests 鈧? more often Contradicts. When it comes to the effects of economic policy, economists can clearly indicate which side the economy is going to be.
There are more sciences that are struggling with the problem that experiments are almost not to be done.You can even see it in the exact sciences: there are dozens of large telescopes and particle accelerators and if an experiment that needs it does not get enough money to rent them, then it does not happen. That does not mean that scientists cannot do anything other than keep their mouths. Instead, they are able to look carefully at the information that can be given In an economical way and, on this basis, draw cautious conclusions. When it comes to economic issues, then economists do that much better that all others.
If economists were to agree, they would fall out of the tone in the academic world.Scientists constantly disagree on questions in their fields. Unanimity is rather a characteristic of religious sects or political factions that suppress dissenters with violence.
Take that minimum wage.There is a scientific consensus on the impact of price floors, and almost all economists agree that it also applies to the labour market. A higher minimum wage means fewer jobs for more jobseekers. On the one hand, however, the minimum wage is usually too low to expect clearly visible consequences. On the other hand there are a hop 鈧?”coincidentally political opportune 鈧? Theorien that unemployment is compensated by other economic impacts, as for example the following.
- By shifting income from economical employers to lavish employees, you not only get more CO2 in the atmosphere and plastic in the oceans, but also more demand in the economy and therefore more jobs.
- Fierce competition for scarce jobs is forcing the unemployed to invest more in their own development, which in the long term generates more productive workers.
- The minimum wage stimulates automation and automation can increase the productivity of the marginal employee.
Is there anyone who thinks it’s weird that economists disagree on this?According to Marike Stellinga, even the blatantly partisan Paul Krugman likes ‘ less schadelijk’ 鈧?’ which is still not a recommendation.
Journalists and politicians exaggerate the conflict between economists because they know that conflict attracts attention and to pay attention to them.Unpopular measures that economists predominantly support 鈧?”like free markets for nieren 鈧? are rather swept under the carpet to not deter the people.
Finally, you can take best economists seriously without directly putting everything they say for where to nemen 鈧?”critical questions may be best.In addition, you shouldn’t have everything you read in the newspaper, “especially not if the message is very good to you.”
The only thing people recall from their economy lessons is the law of supply and demand: make the product more expensive and people consume it less.
Apart from being an oversimplification of the law of supply and demand, it has also become a kind of malignant tumor in our society.
All sorts of politicians, civil servants and journalists are convinced that you ‘ just ‘ need to make a little more expensive and that it will disappear or become less.
Make parking more expensive and parking spaces appear everywhere.Where then?
Make flies more expensive and it gets less crowded at Schiphol.Have a look at our national Airport.
Make motoring more expensive and if by magic everyone is going to work with public transport.Haha.
Make garbage disposal services more expensive and people produce less waste.Garbage man, can this proposition also be with it?
Make a pack of cigarettes a penny more expensive and so many smokers suddenly quit smoking.Alas, in the long term everyone stops smoking.
No eh, all is not so. The law of supply and demand works but limited and in certain products (stocks, foreign currencies, beer crates) and all the other are simply disguised tax increases.
Thank you very much, Mr Keynes and Mr Heertje.
Usually with a train load of salt.Classic example is Milton Friedman, with his catastrophic economic ideas, trickle down, my ASD.