<p>So I'm registering for classes right now, and we engineers need to have an economics/art elective this year.</p>
<p>I don't really want to take art classes (except language ones which didn't fit in my schedule), so I've narrowed it down to intro into Micro/Macro economics.</p>
<p>I'm just wondering what each one is about? What's more useful for me who would like to join the work force after graduation?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Micro = behavior of localized markets, such as the interaction between buyers and sellers for a given good/service or set of goods/services. E.g. if gasoline prices go up $1/gallon, how much difference will that make in gasoline consumption?</p>
<p>Macro = behavior of entire regional, national, and/or world economies. E.g. if gasoline prices go up $1/gallon, how much difference will that make in terms of the growth of the entire national economy, including effects on unemployment, tax revenue collection, government spending, etc…</p>
<p>At the intermediate level, micro can be fairly heavy with math (at some schools, multivariable calculus may be a prerequisite), but the introductory level courses are generally designed for students with at most algebra and precalculus level math.</p>
<p>As an old engineering major, macro tends to be much more interesting because you deal with interactions on a national and global scale.</p>
<p>Micro is basically basic math (I kid you not).</p>
<p>Even though micro is pretty boring, I would take both as you need both to truly understand the economy as whole.</p>
<p>Depending on the school, there may be a Economics course that goes over both Macro and Micro and has a prerequisite of Calculus I. Not every school has it, but here is an example:</p>
<p>[MSU</a> RO: Course Descriptions](<a href=“MSU RO: Course Descriptions”>MSU RO: Course Descriptions)</p>
<p>Just beware ‘heterodox’ economics.</p>
<p>Dude, in my opinion, the one most useful as you start your career would be micro. You will learn about supply and demand and apply the model to the various forms of firms in the marketplace and consumer choices. Also, there will be discussions pricing and productions decisions as well as the associated costs.</p>
<p>You will learn far more from microeconomics than from anything else. A typical macroeconomics class will be a mixture of solid economics and pure voodoo.</p>
<p>And today’s heterodox economics could be tomorrow’s consensus. Hayek and Friedman were considered borderline-crackpot heterodox economists when Keynesianism reigned supreme, now their teachings are respected and integrated into mainstream econ.</p>
<p>lol@pure voodoo</p>
<p>Nothing special comes out of micro (This coming from someone that has a BA in Econ)
other than understanding supply and demand and choice. (An absurdly easy thing to understand)</p>
<p>With macro, you will understand how aggregate demand is calculated, how they measure unemployment, models of growth, interest rates, money supply etc…</p>
<p>It has far more interesting applications IMHO.</p>
<p>But like I said, you really need both to fully understand the economy.</p>
<p>Speaking more generally, there is nothing worse IRL than armchair Economic experts commenting on the current state of the Economy.</p>
<p>“Speaking more generally, there is nothing worse IRL than armchair Economic experts commenting on the current state of the Economy.”</p>
<p>I have found that professional economists are pretty bad too.</p>
<p>You need to understand both topics, although taking the two intro courses is sure as hell not going to make you understand how the economy actually works. I’ve taken them and don’t even feel half way there. The intro courses I think just give you basic economic literacy, which is very important to have, but not going to make you a junior economist.</p>
<p>Keep this in mind while studying economics. It has its roots in the philosophical theory of utilitarianism, which most philosophers discard as a very incomplete and flawed theory. I believe this is one of two reasons why economists often get predictions wrong, the other being that there is simply too many unknown variables involved in predicting the future, which is why no one can do it with consistent accuracy. Utilitarianism just does not reflect with much accuracy how human beings make decisions and live out their lives.</p>
<p>Some economists drew from the utilitarian well, but I wouldn’t say economics sprung from utilitarianism. Adam Smith is considered the father of economics and he came out of moral philosophy. I think you’ll find a lot of economists, both historical and modern, will agree that utilitarianism was flawed but they will not agree that economics comes from it.</p>
<p>But don’t take it from me, a really good book on this subject is “On Classical Economics” by Sowell. Dismantles many recurring myths about the classical economists, what they actually taught, who they were inspired by, etc.</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that economics came directly from utilitarianism. I was just recalling that at the birth of classical economics, utilitarianism, and specifically jeremy bentham and john stuart mill played a significant role. Smith was largely an egoist I believe, and that school of thought has probably had a bigger influence on modern economics than any other. I happen to not be a fan of either egoism or ulititarianism. Although I do think they partly help explain some aspects of human relationships and trade, I think it paints a very incompete picture of human action and thought processes. I think its quite possible that we should have never strayed so far away from the teachings of aristotle, plato, and their students, at least in regards to virtuous living.</p>
<p>My my own experience in the classroom years ago during the stone age, the most important thing in appreciating and learning something in an intro Economics class is the profeciency of the teacher’s English skills. At my alma mater we had a notorious graduate assistant for intro micro. His language ability was horrid, to say the least. Class was down to a half dozen brave souls within two weeks.</p>
<p>hahaha^^^</p>
<p>You always have a class like that in UG. Taught by a godawful GS with sub-par English skills (Why do they even let these people teach? It boggles my mind tbh) and everybody is left wondering what on earth he actually said after the class is over.</p>