<p>“No, the common individual does not have any say in the situation. No, for any hope of a solution to occur, he must trust the oligopoly of Great Ivy League Economic Advisors turning the Magic Knob. It must be through Government Action, a Planner with foresight.”</p>
<p>This is why I disagreed with you initially, when you insinuated that motivation, determination, and correct use of recources will be enough to get one through the recession. A person does have very little power to control their own economic destiny, not becuase the government is the only one who can solve the crisis, but because the government is the only one that insists on exacerbating the crisis (sorry if that was incohesive- its 1:30am). We already do have central economic planners. Treasury and The Fed are the only obstacles between economic stagnation and economic recovery. Bernanke is sticking his nose right in between, see? </p>
<p>Galoisien, I agree that War is not good–but it was good for farmers, whose production boosted the economy. Every History/Civics & Ecomonics/Government teacher I’ve ever had agrees and teaches this.</p>
<p>Achieving socialist and humanitarian (positive liberty) ideals under the framework of a libertarian social contract. Negative liberties still always come first. While the economic decisions of individuals should heavily be biased towards individual autonomy, there’s no reason why one shouldn’t actively engineer a culture or a social contract, much like one engineers a constitution to achieve the maximum of liberty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but unless I see their research papers (<em>ideas</em> not credentials), I say that’s ********. Tell them Fr</p>
<p>I assert that serving in an overarmed military, unless the military is actively supporting economic development (e.g. peacekeeping in Iraq, Somalia…) is of no economic use whatsoever and is a frightening waste that ought to be suppressed.</p>
<p>What peacetime use is there for a tank? A missile? Use those heavily armed mechanised divisions to prevent next Hurricane Katrina? Where the **** were they when crime and looting reigned in the black portions of New Orleans?</p>
<p>Wartime production is false GDP, unless that production is actually critical for something (securing peace required for economic development elsewhere).</p>
<p>Actually if you were born after 1990 you will have about the same ability to learn computers as if you were old. Kids born between 1981 and 1988 have the highest ability to learn technical acumen, and after that year the numbers plummet.</p>
<p>I guess it’s because technological acumen was invented at the right time for that generation. They were old enough to grasp it quickly yet they had fresh, young minds to adapt to new ideas. The younger generation was too young as they were practically born into it and had to learn at the same pace as everyone else.
That’s my guess. Is this right? I was going to ask you why, but I wanted to make sure I had the common sense to figure it out.</p>
<p>Jobs are lost simply because consumerism is down. Some business are doing better then others therefore they can afford to keep more people on payroll–which is why your girlfriend was able to get an internship and why there are multiple job offers in your area.</p>
<p>It’s hard for people to switch jobs especially if they are accepting a lower wage. Most people that have been laid off are taking what they can find but that doesn’t mean that times are easier. Lower wages equate to lower consumerism which effects the market as a whole. People can’t simply qualify for a higher paying position by being motivated, intelligent, or using the right resources.</p>
<p>“I would agree with my teachers (who have doctorates) over a college freshman.”</p>
<p>That is a rather shallow statement. Agreeing with one individual’s beliefs over another’s simply based on their respective levels of education is idiotic (and stereotypical).</p>
<p>^ Ok, but let’s say I had a question about economics, and I asked 2 people: a kid I met at the dining hall, and my economics professor, who has a PhD, has studied the subject extensively for decades, and writes research papers published in periodicals. It’s not that I would automatically agree with the professor and dismiss the student’s points, but I would likely take the professor’s opinions more seriously on the basis that she is a professional whereas the kid may or may not have ever taken an econ class. That’s not idiotic and I believe all Blair was trying to say is an undergrad isn’t knowledgable or experienced enough. And judging from the way Galoisien has behaved throughout this thread, and especially based on his first post, I wouldn’t take him too seriously either. Not insulting him, this is true of most students.</p>
<p>“It’s not that I would automatically agree with the professor and dismiss the student’s points”</p>
<p>But I believe Blair was saying she would.</p>
<p>“Blair was trying to say is an undergrad isn’t knowledgable or experienced enough”</p>
<p>Which is a horrible assumption.</p>
<p>“I would likely take the professor’s opinions more seriously on the basis that she is a professional whereas the kid may or may not have ever taken an econ class.”</p>
<p>So you have to take an econ class to be considered knowledgable of economics? News to me…</p>
<p>oh, don’t put words in my mouth…my point is, the average undergrad student simply isn’t as knowledgable about economics as an actual economist who has studied the subject entensively. now, will you find the occasional student who is very knowledgable and passionate and reads about econ in his/her spare time? Sure, but generally speaking, I would take the prof more seriously.</p>
<p>Well the idea is, is that those born on the 80’s were at the proper age to learn computers when they weren’t very easy to learn. Currently computers are just so easy to learn, that the need to truly understand how they work is not their any more. Its all speculation though,</p>
<p>“oh, don’t put words in my mouth…my point is, the average undergrad student simply isn’t as knowledgable about economics as an actual economist who has studied the subject entensively. now, will you find the occasional student who is very knowledgable and passionate and reads about econ in his/her spare time? Sure, but generally speaking, I would take the prof more seriously.”</p>
<p>I was most certainly not putting words in your mouth. Remember, I did quote you.</p>
<p>My point is that judging an individual’s opinion based on their degree is utter nonsense. You can’t deny that…</p>
<p>The point is if you want to know about economics chances are an economics professor is going to give you a better, more in depth outline than a freshmen, lthe same goes for biology, philosophy, engineering, etc.</p>
<p>“The point is if you want to know about economics chances are an economics professor is going to give you a better, more in depth outline than a freshmen”</p>
<p>I don’t know if that was directed towards me, but that was most certainly not <em>my</em> point. What you have said may be practical, but it is an awful theory.</p>
Sure I can deny that, and I do. If I had a health question, sure I could ask a random person off the street, but I’d rather ask a doctor. Since the doctor has spent years studying medicine and health, I would trust his or her opinion more, based on a degree. It may be an awful theory in your opinion, and perhaps you’d take the random person just as seriously, but I think my idea makes more sense Let’s just agree to disagree then.</p>
Let’s just agree to disagree then.</p>