Where is the dream team of economists to tackle the slump?

treliac

michaels wrote: »

. One of my favourite theories is satisfysing on that individuals will look at each choice individually on a 'does that seem to make sense to me right now' basis rather than following some life plan.

I would identify with that ... to the point at which making a particular choice has an unavoidably negative impact on my life plan.

It's called consequences. Some of us ignore them - push them out of the consciousness. Some of us face up to them and respond in a measured way.

Perhaps something to do with which part of the brain dominates?

el_gringo_3

It's pretty simple really. Theres been very little demand really for those of us (un) fortunate enough to be qualified in this field. Where there are jobs available - especially for the younger generation - this has regularly been as yes men. I only recently was interviewed for a position were I was being asked to write policy for things I could tell quite easily would show great short term benefits but worrying long term effects.

Funnily enough a lot of the people (both freemarket and protectionist) that have gained credence recently have been those that have been scoffed at over the past ten years for being extreme thinkers.

ShelleyC_2

I heard two economist eloquently argue completely the opposite thoughts and plans of how to tackle the countries problems. I wasn't sure who was right by the end.

And who cares as currently we've got the Gordon and Alistair dream team to save us! Was watching BBC news yesterday and some bloke was saying Gordon was a super chancellor who got this country into the best economic position ever but he's not a great leader - I think I must have been hallucinating :rotfl:

ad9898_3

ShelleyC wrote: »

Was watching BBC news yesterday and some bloke was saying Gordon was a super chancellor who got this country into the best economic position ever but he's not a great leader - I think I must have been hallucinating :rotfl:

I heard this, and defintiely believe the guy was sniffing glue before the interview, Brown has been the worst chancellor this country has ever had, he is the ultimate Debt Free Wannabe, he built the entire economy on debt and a housing bubble, which is sinking fast (revised GDP is likely to be -2.2 for the first quarter). His answer............ keep spending and racking up debt...... he is a tool, and a dangerously deluded one at that.

Generali

Where is the dream team of economists to tackle the slump?

Here I am! Just waiting for the call.

tomterm8

There's an old joke that where you get two economists in the room, you get three opinions.

Really, I wonder why people think it's the politicians and economists who are going to "get us out of it". My personal bet is that it is the 5 billion people who are all striving to make their own life better that is going to be the main reason things are almost bound to get better. I don't know where the new jobs will come from, but I know if politicians don't get in the way, they will come.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

There's an old joke that where you get two economists in the room, you get three opinions.

Really.. I've read that hjoke with something other than economists in it before now, too

ShelleyC_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Really.. I've read that hjoke with something other than economists in it before now, too

Was it MSE forum members or was that 33 opinions :rotfl:

GeorgeHowell

Further to some earlier posts, it is certainly the case that some economists are now trying to factor in what would previously have been considered irrational behaviour. Economics relates very largely to human behaviour, (and in the more recent past to an extent on the behaviour of computer programs designed by humans). This is therefore arguably a more realistic approach, but it also builds in yet another level of complexity and unpredictability.

An example which was discussed on here at some length when interest rates flatlined, was those people determined to cut back on spending rather than dig into capital. It was pointed out that if inflation also flatlined then they could actually be better off in real terms. But of course 'irrational' factors come into play here :- lack of proper understanding, the paralysis of uncertaintly, the 'comfort zone' and status resulting from holding a certain amount of capital in absolute terms, unrealistic assumptions about longevity etc. The philosophical question is : if by abiding by those considerations, some people experience a greater sense of well-being than by not doing so, then is it irrational ?

CLAPTON

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Further to some earlier posts, it is certainly the case that some economists are now trying to factor in what would previously have been considered irrational behaviour. Economics relates very largely to human behaviour, (and in the more recent past to an extent on the behaviour of computer programs designed by humans). This is therefore arguably a more realistic approach, but it also builds in yet another level of complexity and unpredictability.

An example which was discussed on here at some length when interest rates flatlined, was those people determined to cut back on spending rather than dig into capital. It was pointed out that if inflation also flatlined then they could actually be better off in real terms. But of course 'irrational' factors come into play here :- lack of proper understanding, the paralysis of uncertaintly, the 'comfort zone' and status resulting from holding a certain amount of capital in absolute terms, unrealistic assumptions about longevity etc. The philosophical question is : if by abiding by those considerations, some people experience a greater sense of well-being than by not doing so, then is it irrational ?

It would seem to me that no serious economists believes in 'rational behaviour' as a bais for economic analysis.
Although rational behaviour, perfect competition etc is introduced in the first chapters of economics books the subject quickly moves on to real behaviour.
It seems to me just like most science...which talks about frictionless motion, point particles etc etc to build simplified build models, no serious scientist believes that how the world actually works.

So although understanding 'real' world problems and in particular how peoples actual behaviour is very difficult, it's what economists have been trying (not necessarily succesfully) to do for the last 50 years or more.