Market Power is creating a community of people interested in and excited about economics. We look at the power of markets and economics to shape our world so that you can understand choices and consequences, which will allow you to make meaningful change in your community and your personal life. In the words of Alfred Marshall: “The two great forming agencies of the world’s history have been the religious and the economic.”
www.craigpalsson.com
This channel participates in the Amazon Affiliates program and sometimes posts affiliate links in video descriptions.
Hi Prof, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts about the two different notions of "Economic History" in universities today - programs of the same name being offered in parallel by departments of History and departments of Economics under the same school. The humanities scholars investigate things like how particular commodities spread around the world, how something that was deemed repugnant could become a popular consumer good, and vice versa etc. Then there's the social scientists doing economic history basically trying to tighten controls with newer instrumental variables. But both seem to be seeking different truths, where the economists want to find standardized answers, and historians want to develop context specific, N=1 answers, sometimes even considering individual human actors as major historical agents. As someone trained in the humanities for undergrad and transitioning to development econometrics for grad school, I see the merits in both and am keen to integrate them in doctoral work when I'm done with my masters, but (perhaps reflecting the data you highlighted) it's hard to find supervisors who could help me straddle both domains. So I'm considering applying to both Econ and History PhD programs next year and hopefully get a committee with at least one scholar from the other department as advisors.
It's called AEA JOE: American Economic Association Joe Openings for Economists. Just google it and you'll find the listings for this year and previous years.
Economic History and Economic Anthropology are the best ways to understand how real economies work! It’s not surprising that these are the people coming up with novel ideas
"Best" is a normative and subjective claim, not scientific. Focusing on which "classes" of social science you like is reductive and myopic, arguably tribal thinking.
I'm not sure how it's handled at Yale but at many of the institutions you mentioned econ history is woven through out classes and the seminar tends to be a potpurri of different topics involving historical data and explaining the past with current methods. I'd say EH isn't a major field of economics but an application of micro, macro, and metrics. This appears to be an idiosyncratic problem rather than a problem in the field overall to me.
My best intro to Economics or what got me to start to understand Economics was reading Alan Greenspan’s The Age of Turbulence right dead center in the Great Recession. I had lost my high paying job and was in the search to know why.
I think its difficult to have Nobel in Economics because Economics is very subjective and political. A person improving welfare of people will be criticised by Capitalists while a person creating improvements for corporate profits will be criticised by socialists
This is literally why the people who made this movie thinks we’re all going to die. If something like this happens, we’re royally, and I mean Queen Elizabeth II screws Sofia the First royally, fucked.
Shit I am doing business and poli science majors with only a minor in Econ. Am I cooked. Might have to drop poli science to do a Econ BS to get the math classes
Is Macroeconomics in particular more about slow economic growth rate models akin to biology? If I recall, most economic models taught macroeconomics at the graduate level all seem to be about economic growth but at a slower pace that is not exponential aside from population growth, but even that staves off after reaching a steady state in the Solow model. Anyway, take the Cobb Douglas functions, or the multitude of other growth models that has fractional exponents as their growth rates, which is also slowed down by subtracting a percentage of say Labor or Capital by its own amount and then dividing it by some discount factor.
For me the S tier would be : Micro, Macro, Econometrics, Economics history. Because if I already master this topics, most likely other topics would come easily
I don’t know how familiar you are with One Piece, but the economics in it go deeper and more complicated as the series goes on with concepts of war, global trading, slavery, negotiations, power struggles, etc. One of the most interesting parts of the series and why it’s one of the best series to theorize over is that it is so well thought-out and consistently thoughtful. Every part is connected through economics from a macro to micro scale. There isn’t really anything like it. I recommend looking into getting even further into it, beyond the live action adaptation.
So many things wrong with this video. But mainly, the movie was entirely accurate in depicting him saying this because astronomers spew this type shit all the time when discovering asteroids rich in rare metals, not considering how it would affect supply and demand. Your video is pointless
