<p>Microeconomics or macroeconomics? Which one should you take first? Whats the difference? Which one is harder?</p>
<p>Take micro first. Microeconomics is basically economics on an individual level, while macro deals more with a whole country's economics (interest rates, currency, etc.). Some of micro is re-used in macro, so you'd have a bit of an advantage if you took micro first.....</p>
<p>Take micro first. Micro deals with the economics of companies and individuals, macro deals with the economics of the country and the international community. They're both about equal, really.</p>
<p>Either can be taken first. Micro mainly deals with theories affecting the price of things people buy -- such as supply and demand, costs, other competitive forces. Macro deals with such things as learning why Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan really is the most powerful man on earth.</p>
<p>"learning why Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan really is the most powerful man on earth."</p>
<p>Why is Alan Greenspan the most powerful man on earth? Isnt the most powerful man on earth George W Bush?</p>
<p>(Not addressing l33twArR10r, just a general question)
Doesn't the Federal Reserve Board regulate interest rates, control the amount of money in circulation, and essentially maintain financial stability?</p>
<p>The answer to CDN_dancer's question is yes which is also why Greenspan is so powerful. The markets of the US and every industrialized nation virtually follow and hang on every word that Greenspan speaks, and, if he sneezes, it is major financial news. He can be at a picnic and mention to some market analyst that "I might be thinking about possibly considering later considering making a change to the current pace of interest rate increases" and within hours billions of dollars of market capitalization world-wide would be lost as markets respond to this piece of major news from Greenspan (and the man sometimes actually speaks like that when he is not being totally incomprehensible). If he felt like it, he could cause the US economy and the economies of the industrialized world to collapse by simply speaking the following sentence, "We are raising, effective immediately, the interest rate for short-term borrowing among banks to 15%." People on Wall Street jumping to their deaths out of buildings would immediately follow, and hapless George Bush, who could not do a thing to overrule Greenspan, would be sending FEMA to deal with victims of the sudden 80% unemployment rate.</p>
<p>Wow, Greenspan certainly has a lot of responsibility! How did he get his position (elected, appointed, etc.)? Is it a life-long position or does he serve for a certain length of time?</p>
<p>But then again, the President has the most powerful military force in the world at his disposal...so there is no clear cut "world's most powerful."</p>
<p>"How did he get his position (elected, appointed, etc.)? Is it a life-long position or does he serve for a certain length of time?"</p>
<p>The members of the Federal Reserve Board are appointed by the president and approved by the senate and have terms of 14 years (and can be reappointed to new terms). The Chairman of the FRB is chosen by the president, with approval of the senate, from the existing members and serves a four year term as chairman. Greenspan has been a member of the FRB for a long time and Chairman for a little over 18 years as he has been appointed Chairman by all presidents from Reagan forward. The board and the chairman are by statute given almost unfettered automony over matters involving money supply and banks and each member has a 14 year term, and the members terms come up in different years, to avoid having the FRB committed to one president or one political party. </p>
<p>And to those above who say Bush is most powerful, I was not trying to create a debate but instead to generate some interest in economics by highlighting Greenspan and his role and how important it can be to learn about economics which most people, for one reason or another, remain ignorant of their entire lives.</p>
<p>If greenspan is so important then why don't terrorist take him hostage instead of trying to killing the president??</p>
<p>l33twArR10r, I have the impression that you are a person new to the US, based on all your posts. No offense, just saying that the questions you ask, and the way you ask them, make me chuckle.</p>
<p>Why do you think terrorists are trying to kill the President? Sure they would, if they could, and I guess you could say they made a possible attempt on 9/11 (the jet that crashed in Pennsylvania was supposedly headed towards the White House), but there hasn't been any serious attempt at killing the President.</p>
<p>I don't know how it is where you are from, or how often politicans are held hostage in your native country, but here that never really happens. It just isn't feasible for terrorists due to the amount of security these guys have.</p>
<p>And also, Greenspan doesn't really have any direct effect on what the military is doing, and the actions of our military in the Middle East are what the terrorists are most directly concerned about.</p>
<p>But holding Greenspan hostage would cause the the US economy to collapse therfore causing the US military to collapse also. </p>
<p>Also I don't think Greenspan have as much security as the President has 24-7 and he would be easily taken hostage by professional terrorists.</p>
<p>Greenspan is good, but he isn't indespensible. Someone can do what he does. It's not like he will be around forever anyway.</p>
<p>And no, "professional" terrorists cannot feasibly kidnap Greenspan. If it were possible, it would have happened already.</p>
<p>when Greenspan retires, I guarantee that the economy will take a hit.</p>
<p>Greenspan isnt protected by secret service like the president.</p>
<p>That is his protector.......the wife.</p>
<p>l33t is a joke account.</p>
<p>From above: "when Greenspan retires, I guarantee that the economy will take a hit."</p>
<p>He is retiring at the end of this year.</p>
<p>i disagree. greenspan has manipulated interest rates too much and allowed a bubble to be created in the stock marlet in the 90's which is going to pop as well as the housing bubble he has created and that is why he is resigning.</p>