| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got most of them right mainly because I knew what they wanted as an answer and not because I believe the answers are totally true.Why do they want you to give false answers?They don't. They "want" the answers they believe are true.
There are disagreements in economic theory. If the quiz was written from a Chicago School PoV, an expert Marxist economist would disagree with many of the answers, but would easily be able to tell which ones the author thought was true.
Except that as far as I can tell, none of the questions/answers are cutting edge enough to be theory-dependent.
Not cutting edge perhaps. Note that I did mention schools of thought with very different takes on economics that are both at least decade old.
There was a good deal of debate above about various answers.
There is also a good deal of debate about whether the moon landings happened, Was any of the "debate" about this quiz any more informed?
There is also a good deal of debate about whether the moon landings happened, Was any of the "debate" about this quiz any more informed?
{takes a large bite of quiz} The moon tastes better with sea salt stoned wheat crackers and a moderately-aged Pinot Gris. The quiz tastes awful but probably has a much higher fiber content.
*Sniffs quiz* Smells like there's a lot of sawdust in there.
Except that as far as I can tell, none of the questions/answers are cutting edge enough to be theory-dependent.I got most of them right mainly because I knew what they wanted as an answer and not because I believe the answers are totally true.Why do they want you to give false answers?They don't. They "want" the answers they believe are true.
There are disagreements in economic theory. If the quiz was written from a Chicago School PoV, an expert Marxist economist would disagree with many of the answers, but would easily be able to tell which ones the author thought was true.
Not cutting edge perhaps. Note that I did mention schools of thought with very different takes on economics that are both at least decade old.
There was a good deal of debate above about various answers.
.
This is basic, basic stuff, and no one who knows Economics will debate
any of the answers.
The "debates" above were actualized by people who did not pass. (And, instead
of going to the library and checking out 3 or 4 Microeconomic texts and
2 or 3 Macroeconomic texts, and then reading them fully -- and then
finding an Economics professor and introducing themselves, and asking
him/her questions about the things they are learning -- tried to bring
into existence some type of group-consensus here on the boards to make them feel
better about not knowing stuff (i.e. un-learned basics theory).)
This behavior can be explained by intermediate economic theory. But
that is beyond the scope of this thread.
.
Mmmm, high fiber.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is basic, basic stuff, and no one who knows Economics will debate
any of the answers.The "debates" above were actualized by people who did not pass. (And, instead
of going to the library and checking out 3 or 4 Microeconomic texts and
2 or 3 Macroeconomic texts, and then reading them fully -- and then
finding an Economics professor and introducing themselves, and asking
him/her questions about the things they are learning -- tried to bring
into existence some type of group-consensus here on the boards to make them feel
better about not knowing stuff (i.e. un-learned basics theory).)
Yeah, that's roughly what I was trying diplomatically to suggest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any field of knowledge of which I am ignorant is not really a valid field of inquiry. Even so-called "experts" in a given academic discipline don't know as much about it as I do.
The same goes for any field of knowledge that implies things about the real world that don't align with my political ideology.
As a well-educated person with an extensive vocabulary, I can provide very wordy, articulate rationalizations for why this is so.
Yeah. For Cuba, it is likely that supply was low, but that was not one of the options. Of the ones offered, the only one that fit was that stuff was underpriced.
Raising taxes is the go-to solution for every Keynesian, so no surprise there. The reason the Austrian school got its chance at all was, IIRC, that the major economies got both high inflation AND high unemployment during the Stagflation, a situation Keynes did not even discuss.
I got 17/20, so I am apparently economically literate. That said, I have seen better tests.
I hate to contribute to a Grand Magus hooray for public schools! thread, but I got 75% which I'm pretty sure is a C, which isn't terrible seeing as I haven't taken a non-Marxist economics course since middle school.
.
There is this cool new thing called youtube. (Oh, and Coursera.org.)
.
To start with I got 17/20 correct, although I don't agree with all the answers.
3. The long lines of consumers waiting outside many stores in Cuba tell us that many consumer goods there are probably:A. Not in demand
B. Priced too low
C. In great supply
D. Priced too high
Answer E. and probably the most accurate. An extremely limited supply of the consumer goods.
7. At full employment, to slow down price increases during the next year of so, the government should:
A. Raise taxes
B. Increase governmental spending
C. Increase loans to promising college students
D. Stimulate business investment in more efficient machinery
This depends upon whom taxes are being raised upon. Raise taxes on corporate income and prices increase faster.
And I completely disagree with questions 16-20 and their answers. 20 is a real laugher, because deficits are sky high and interest rates are extremely low. And in the late 70s to early 80s deficits were low and interest rates were sky high.
Queues is what you get if everyone has more than enough money to pay for the stuff they need, but delivery to the shops is far below what would be needed, in effect, the shops are only supplied every so often. You want toilet paper, you better spend your six hours in the queue. Rationing is not technically necessary.
.
It has been three years. Any improvements?
.
No improvements were needed.
A better question -- who's learned more economics since tanking the test three years ago?
#19 is a poorly written question, technically every answer is correct. It exceptionally vague AND includes the word "may".
#19 is a poorly written question, technically every answer is correct. It exceptionally vague AND includes the word "may".
Goal-Post-Mover got one correct! Wait, if everyone gets the point does that count. Sure.
.
I'm noticing news feeds with words thrown around by persons wanting to be your master. What are they saying? One guy is a billionaire -- or something made-up like that.
Yes.
Queues is what you get if everyone has more than enough money to pay for the stuff they need, but delivery to the shops is far below what would be needed, in effect, the shops are only supplied every so often. You want toilet paper, you better spend your six hours in the queue. Rationing is not technically necessary.
your wording here is off.
It's not far below what is 'needed', it is far below what is 'wanted' and 'affordable'.
The supply and demand have to 'meet'.
When you have a queue, that means you have more demand at a given price then you have a supply. That means the price isn't high enough. As you move the price higher and higher, people suddenly don't want the good, and the queues start disappearing, until the amount you can supply now dovetails with what people want.
This is why the ration system doesn't work. If people get what they want, as opposed to what they need, they will take everything they can get...then turn around and resell it in the black market for the real value to others.
That's just basic human nature. And exactly what happened in Russia,and Cuba, too, and is going on in Brazil.
If you charge the correct price, things will balance and people will look for alternatives OR production will increase and prices drop as supply increases to meet demand.
It's also why a Marxist economy doesn't work.
A capitalist economy tries to produce exactly the right amount that it can sell at a price where people buy it...where supply meets demand.
A Marxist economy tries to keep people fully employed, and assign production so that that goal is made while necessary things are produced. Unfortunately, assigning production driven by need of employment is not the same as production driven by demand for goods, and you'd get chronic over and underproduction because no matter how good you are, you can't predict the market. So, the waste would pile up in tons, or you'd get long lines because someone would overlook shoe production this year.
Oh, 20/20. MBA econ/finance, heh. A couple of the questions were kind of written crappily, not how I'd let a class of mine get questioned.
==Aelryinth
I'm noticing news feeds with words thrown around by persons wanting to be your master. What are they saying? One guy is a billionaire -- or something made-up like that.
There's this billionaire running for President. Probably him.
==Aelryinth
basic necessities are called Giffin goods. Even if you drive the cost up, people must pay for them to live. So, yes, you are absolutely correct.
But what happens is then demand for other items fall, particularly luxury items.
But what you describe is exactly what happened during the Irish potato famine. the british lords of the lands decided selling the crops on the lands was more important then feeding their own people with them. As a result, there was a huge migration of Irish people that left rather then face starvation, to the extent that the production capacity of those lands plummeted to near nothing.
A clear case of short term, stupid market response. And the fact the nobles should have been shot, but that's neither here nor there.
I never said capitalism was perfect at prediction, especially when producing raw materials. but it at least tries, and then tries to compensate, where a Marxist economy just shrugs its shoulders and waits to be told what to do. When you have a million people trying to balance things instead of a squat few planners, you tend to get a far more balanced result.
However, booms and busts will still happen without active management. It's the art of trying to balance the boom and bust cycle that drives the whole need of economics in the first place, to discern why they happen and how to even them out.
The problem with the invisible hand is that it includes the parts of the economy that we'd rather not think about - the black markets and law breakers, both of which are driven by the same forces, but often ignored.
But what was the whole housing implosion about? Abuse of risk management, outright lying about mortgage risk, and passing the buck off to make money as fast as possible while skirting or ignoring the law.
There's no way to win the war on drugs as long as there's money to made. The invisible hand will find a way, at a price. And if lives are lost, that's just a price some are willing to pay.
Seriously, just go look at Columbia. There's three different exchange rates to US dollars - the official rate, which nobody but the government uses; the subsidized rate for foreigners, which has an entire black market economy using it around the basis of plane tickets against the even more lopsided black market exchange rate, which is the closest to the 'real' value of the Columbian currency. It's crazy...people want their cake and to eat it, too, and the whole system just starts to break down as soon as you start trying to dictate supply and demand to people. You have entire planes worth of tickets being bought, and jets flying totally empty, just to get access to the second exchange rate and leverage that money on the true international market because you bought that right with your plane ticket.
Totally crazy.
==Aelryinth
By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate...
The dismal's fine its the science where they prevaricate...
By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate...
The dismal's fine its the science where they prevaricate...
I'd take that opinion a lot more seriously if I thought you knew anything about what does and doesn't constitute science, but your postings on the other thread have convinced me otherwise.
In fact, economics is quite scientific. The recent economic crisis, for example, is playing out exactly the way the saltwater economists said it would. The problem is not with the economics, but with the politicians, who don't want to believe the predictions.
In that regard, it's no different than a patient refusing to take pills and complaining that pharmacology is unscientific because he's not getting any better.
By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate...
The dismal's fine its the science where they prevaricate...
I'd take that opinion a lot more seriously if I thought you knew anything about what does and doesn't constitute science, but your postings on the other thread have convinced me otherwise.
I'd take that more seriously if the person deriding me thought I wanted to be taken seriously while linking a song from xkcd sung to the Gilbert and Sullivan classic "modern major general"
I'd take that more seriously if the person deriding me thought I wanted to be taken seriously while linking a song from xkcd sung to the Gilbert and Sullivan classic "modern major general"By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate...
The dismal's fine its the science where they prevaricate...
I'd take that opinion a lot more seriously if I thought you knew anything about what does and doesn't constitute science, but your postings on the other thread have convinced me otherwise.
Well, I'm glad you've acknowledged that your lunatic ravings on scholarly matters should not be taken seriously.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several questions do not have any correct answers for instance
7. At full employment, to slow down price increases during the next year of so, the government should:
A. Raise taxes
B. Increase governmental spending
C. Increase loans to promising college students
D. Stimulate business investment in more efficient machinery
the correct answer to number 7 would be in the US for the Fed to raise the interest rate to slow inflation to slow price increases. The Fed could also tighten the money supply to cause less lending to bring down the rate of inflation by causing less economic activity.
Several questions do not have any correct answers for instance
7. At full employment, to slow down price increases during the next year of so, the government should:A. Raise taxes
B. Increase governmental spending
C. Increase loans to promising college students
D. Stimulate business investment in more efficient machinerythe correct answer to number 7 would be in the US for the Fed to raise the interest rate to slow inflation to slow price increases. The Fed could also tighten the money supply to cause less lending to bring down the rate of inflation by causing less economic activity.
Er, no. Raising taxes (answer A) would also "cause less economic activity" and thereby bring down the rate of inflation. The other three answers would actually cause MORE economic activity and accelerate inflation. So there's only one answer that's not wrong.
Cut taxes on the rich and let the money trickle down! Return america to the glorious 1920s with no government regulation over anything when everything was perfect!
Er, no. Raising taxes (answer A) would also "cause less economic activity" and thereby bring down the rate of inflation. The other three answers would actually cause MORE economic activity and accelerate inflation. So there's only one answer that's not wrong.Several questions do not have any correct answers for instance
7. At full employment, to slow down price increases during the next year of so, the government should:A. Raise taxes
B. Increase governmental spending
C. Increase loans to promising college students
D. Stimulate business investment in more efficient machinerythe correct answer to number 7 would be in the US for the Fed to raise the interest rate to slow inflation to slow price increases. The Fed could also tighten the money supply to cause less lending to bring down the rate of inflation by causing less economic activity.
Don't be silly, I've been told by many very authoritative sounding people that government spending damages the economy, as of course would increasing loans or stimulating business investment ("picking winners and losers").
Of course, raising taxes is the worst thing ever. The correct response to any economic situation is to lower taxes. Which will bring in more revenue due to the economic boom, forcing you to lower taxes again.
Well, it's certainly possible that "increasing economic activity" could damage the economy. Inflation has a Goldilocks zone; too much is bad, too little is bad, but just right is.... well, just right.
But, yes, most of the people who are complaining that questions have no right answer are simply not actually understanding the question, and most of them seem to be ideologically blinkered as well.
I've been told that inflation is purely a product of the federal reserve and the existence of fiat currency. That's why we should only use gold.
/sarcasm
|
|
So BNW do you think that the EPA should have a SWAT team? IMO they should have no criminal enforcement arm period all enforcement of an environmental law should be referred to Justice and assigned to the FBI for criminal enforcement. he EPA right now is filled with left wing zealots that are just plain crazy, for instance in Montana a cattle rancher got all the correct state permits to build a stock pond on his land and in swoops the EPA and tells the rancher he has to either fill in the pond or be subject to huge daily fines as in the bureaucrats view the rancher was violating the wet lands law.
The Wetlands law should be held unconstitutional as for federal jurisdiction it should have to effect water crossing state boarders or federal land.
You don't violate wet lands laws by adding a pond. You violate by destroying other wet lands.
More likely what the rancher was doing was diverting water supply from one place to his stock pond so he could water his cattle more easily...thereby destroying wet lands with the water diversion.
Always find out all the facts.
==Aelryinth
The Wetlands law should be held unconstitutional as for federal jurisdiction it should have to effect water crossing state boarders or federal land.
No offense, but you should at least be aware of which law you're angry at.
Also, you got the state wrong, the current case in the news isn't in Montana.
Thirdly, you got his profession wrong. I'm willing to spot you that one though, since it's kind of nitpicky.
Lou Diamond:
Lets say for sake of argument that you're right. The EPA dun messed up and arrested a farmer who had done nothing wrong.
How on EARTH would that ever justify not having them? The police stopped me while I was walking the bridge minding my own business, therefore we'd be better off without police? Some asphalt company charged the feds extra for building the highway, lets not have a highway system. We had a mean teacher, therefore abolish the school system.
The question is never "is it perfect" : that's disingenine. The question is are we better off with or without it and.. holy cow no. Look at china if you want to see what life is like without them.
Instead of China, we can just look at Ohio in the late 60's.
You know, when their rivers used to burn.
|
|
BNW, I did not say we did not need the EPA. The EPA does not need a SWAT team. The EPA is not a law enforcement agency. If the EPA finds criminal activity then it needs to refer that activity to justice and the FBI needs to do the criminal enforcement action. Just like the USDA
should not have an enforcement arm. THe EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers are two out of control agencies under this admistration the
congress needs to cut their funding and do heavy oversight over these agencies. Why does the EPA need over 1000 lawyers on staff that makes them the biggest law firm in the country. If you get too many lawyers
together in one place they will get into trouble as they feel they have to generate billable hours to justify their jobs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate...
The dismal's fine its the science where they prevaricate...
+1. Rather than saying everything I could about this topic (which is frankly much more than I'd like), I will confine myself to saying the following:
I myself have studied multiple semesters of economics, under two teachers who I liked very much and who liked me very much. I paid attention and took it seriously, like I always do with school. In the end, I reached the conclusion that economics is one of two things:
At best, it is really a mere subtopic of history, a river that displays a few recurring eddies, but can never truly be stepped in twice.
At worst, it is pseudoscience that more than borders on religion.
When I look at America's infatuation with economics, I am reminded about what I read in a class about the history of the USSR: After their epic victory in World War II, Soviet military academies came to believe that military strategy and tactics were a science, one that could be honed to the same precision as the laws of physics, and they believed that they would one day be able to accurately predict the outcome of a battle before a single shot was fired. That all came to an end when they lost in Afghanistan.
Life is a carnival; I honestly believe that the sheer self-admitted dismalness of economics is itself of the stronger indicators that it's an active handicap to understanding the world around us, and not a legitimate science.
Without knowing the specifics of the case, I agree that the EPA doesn't need its own enforcement. It needs inspectors, regulators, administrators, lawyers, and access to a separate enforcement agency.
As for whether they need 1000 lawyers, I'd be surprised if the actual need is that low. They should have dedicated lawyers because specialization is important to building expertise. They need a lot because there are lot of legitimate industries that have different environmental stories and without the ability to litigate against the legal teams of those industries they're toothless and meaningless.
As for whether the federal government should have jurisdiction, I don't know the specifics here, but I'd be shocked if the environmental impact of the actions the law was meant to regulate stay in one state even if the water in question would take a long time to leave the state.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I look at America's infatuation with economics, I am reminded about what I read in a class about the history of the USSR:
Its easier to justify oppression when its the inevitable law of the universe rather than when its something that one group of people deliberately do to another.