Economics is the most boring shit in the world

name them all. if you're going to make a point, at least make it significant enough to read.

And anyway, showing me someones ass hurts my eyes, and if one broadcasts an ass to hundreds, and hurts all those eyes, than one must certainly conclude that the ass-shower is restricting our freedom of vision and being anti-ass is in terms of freedom, being pro-eye.

I could go on and on with that useless banter, if you get my point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with?

First off, there's nothing wrong with being anti-anything. It's whether or not you believe it ought to be legislated that makes you for or against social freedom.

Did I ever say we ought to ban sagging pants? No. I even said, it's your choice.

Yes, it's your choice; doesn't mean I have to like your choice, though, and it doesn't mean I have to support everything that I think we ought to tolerate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its not chess. Its not even checkers. Its tic tac toe. You can study that as long as you like but its really not that hard unless you make it harder than it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you believe that everyone should have the freedom to express themselves as they want, why bitch about it when they do?
Perhaps you're not so in favor of social freedom after all.

 

truly excellent point! People over-complicate the simplest things in econ.

However with analogies and exaggerations aside, I do firmly believe proficiency in economics takes years of intuition building.

 

That is a good point, but one made out of ignorance.

I can tell you that I am looking into jobs as a quantitative financial analyst, for hedge funds and investment banks. These are applied economics jobs, and the starting salary in Chicago or New York is around $250k, excluding bonuses. I have a friend in Chicago who works as a quant, and I asked him what the upper bound was on what he could make in a year, in bonuses. His answer: ``Inf.'' He went on to tell me about people in his job at his firm who regularly saw 8 figure bonuses, and some people at other firms who saw 9 figure bonuses.

When was the last time you heard of a psychic making $100 mil in a year?

The point is, this is a lot of money, even to rich people. If you give a person a $100 mil bonus, can you imagine how much money that person made for the company? If there wasn't some viable mathematical description of financial markets, why would they hire mathematicians and physicists?

If you don't believe me, check it out yourself. (I added bold and removed contact info.)

 

Touting how much money some of them make doesn't change my point at all. Isn't that a post hoc ergo propter hoc? It's obvious that most of the people in the US have stronger beliefs in economics than astrology which could account for the higher wages. Some astrologers make GOOD money though and I'm sure you think that's just stupid and unnecessary - well I think the same about economics.

 

Because if you were the corporation recruiting, and you had the option to only hire only top tier school graduates with a focus on difficult analytical skills - and a bankroll big enough to do it, you would do it. Statistically it's better probability of profit rather than hiring a farmer.

Speaking of which, there have been many cases including the famous "turtles" where it is almost proven beyond doubt that farmers, or any profession can become insanely profitable by following profitable rules.

But top tier analytic people still give a better probability of profit because there is less training to stick and understand those rules.

I'll shortly expand on the rules. They are just as psychologically dependent as they are analytical. Someone who scares easily simply can not stick to rules when stressed without due training or some kind of financial cushion to soften the blow. Emotional intelligence goes hand in hand with probability and back-testing when making a good trade. Most people fail for two reasons - emotionally unstable in times of fear or greed, or risking too high a % of bankroll, too many times without being able to fix it.

I support your venture completely.

One thing I especially recommend you think through, because the answer is really an essential theoretical backbone to me at this time (and I wish I thought about it sooner). Before looking at the charts,

Are you trying to solve a mystery, or a puzzle?

And you see by the answer why there is not really a set of rules or a description for how the market will move. Only rules you follow, that give you the edge.

 

If there was some viable mathematical description of financial markets, why can't I run it on my computer?

 

Can you specifically cite it for our viewing pleasure?

 

Economics is hard to understand.
I was getting As in accounting and programming and math, and in intro micro- and macroeconomics, but any economics above intro level is like Greek to me.

 

Who says you can't?

 

The point is that companies wouldn't do something if they didn't think that it had a chance of increasing profits. Applying quantitative economics to world financial markets seems to be profitable, which is evidenced both by the fact that firms are continually expanding their operations (i.e. hiring always), and by the salaries that firms offer their employees.

Now, you can dispute the premise that ``companies only do things that they think will be profitable.'' In practice this probably isn't always the case, but we're not talking about Trader Joe's switching to recycled shopping bags. Financial companies are in the business of making money, and if it didn't make sense to apply quantitative economic theories to the world financial markets, they wouldn't do it.

You mean, a set of rules by which the economy evolves and changes? We should find a word for this set of rules...too bad ECONOMICS is already taken

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To me, economics is like pre-revolutionary war tactics. I'm wondering how much longer we have to wait until some country stops thinking about subsidies and gross domestic products and just gets down to the very simple business of killing the enemy in whatever way is necessary at the moment.

 

It happens all the time. Have you heard of counry called Zimbabwe?

http://www.cato.org/zimbabwe

The problem is those that do as you say get chewed up really fast in the meatgrinder of reality.

 

Economics is the study of who gets what.

The complication comes in when we make the distribution unequal.

Its like the tax code. The only reason its complicated is because its not equal for everyone.

 

Of course I'm going to complain when people act stupid.

 

Good point. Maybe that's why I find it so boring - because of so many of the unnecessary overcomplications. This supports my theory that what we call "economics" does not actually exist but is a kind of perversion of something that never required study in the first place and in which people have been duped into believing is real.

 

I have trouble understanding how economics can be a real science. I'm sure there are trends, and I took eco in high school too, just like anyone else. But the thing is, it's so dependent on the uncertainty of human desire and actions, that it must be hard to develop any real laws.

 

They act stupid according to you, but then, according to you, they have every right to do the things you think are stupid. So if you are for social freedom, as you claim, you might dial down your vocalization of your dislike a bit.