What exactly is economics in JC?
-
Can anybody give me a rough understanding of what exactly is economics in JC? And would failing combine science like getting E8 cause you to not be able to enter art stream in JC?
-
jc economics is splitted into 2 different scopes: microeconomics and macroeconmics. Both require to explain and analyse problems, causes, evaluate and suggest policies.
Microeconomics: Generally teaches the idea that we have limited resources but unlimited wants, thus we need to allocate these resources efficiently. Focuses on the small picutre of specific industries. Then comes demand and supply, generally when there are people willing and able to pay for a good, the suppliers will supply more goods for them, though they are also many other factors affecting them.
Some goods also have negative and positive effects on 3rd parties, so government will come to intervene into the market to control the allocation of resources using various policies.
Macroeconomics: The big picture as a whole, commonly splitted the economics of different countries. Mainly about the governments goals for their countries as a whole: High and Sustained Growth, Low Unemployment Rate, Low Price Inflation Rate, Healthy Balance of Payments. You need to know their causes, problems, policies etc applied to different situations..(especially with globalisation)
my opinion: it sounds chicken-feet that relies only on pure memory work but it requires 120% understanding, knowing how to link each concepts etc..H1 econs has more weightage on case-studies while H2 econs has more weightage on essays. well...i dunno about other humanities subjects but im in science stream and really dislike humanities and find h1 econs really tough.
failing combined science in o lvls seem very dangerous if you are going to jc, whether science stream or arts stream..maybe others can give better advice here.. -
Economics is defined as No Free Lunch In The World...
Whether at JC level or PHD...the definition is still the same...just remember that when you are given a dollar, you are required to make ten for the company you work for, and squeeze out as many babies as possible to multiply national productivity...
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
Economics is defined as No Free Lunch In The World...
Whether at JC level or PHD...the definition is still the same...just remember that when you are given a dollar, you are required to make ten for the company you work for, and squeeze out as many babies as possible to multiply national productivity...
Not quite true.Economics is better defined as: If there's free lunch, then the world is not at optimal allocation.
-
Totally irrelevant, but I was wondering, is it possible to retake 4h2s in jc2 if you drop it at year end in j1?
-
all that you will ever learn about economics are the few concepts that are far removed from the cold harsh realities....
there was once a boy who became one of the top students in economics of his country and when he graduated, he taught economics. But one day, as he travelled deep into the poorest villages of his country, and in a fit of rage, he threw his economics textbook he used for teaching into the refuse bin.
It was the moment of great change for the poorest of the world's poors, he advocated microfinancing and the birth of village bank handing out very very small loans without collaterals. Through his actions, he saved many poor people with his village bank...and "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below"....
he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006...this boy's name is Muhammed Yunus...
-
So what?
Have you even attempted to learn the social sciences?
-
u could say that social actions are necessary and far effective than economic theories..there are still missing links in economic systems...
-
go youtube and type these people's name and you will know what is economics.
Jim Rogers, Nial Ferguson, Ken Rogoff, Paul Krugman, Roubini etc
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
u could say that social actions are necessary and far effective than economic theories..there are still missing links in economic systems...
There's no perfect subject.
Where economics fail lies in its assumptions that people-to-people relations do not involve power. Sociology comes to play.
Are we really that rational? Psychology complements here. Behavioural economics is a growing field.
There's also econometrics. This particular field is certainly most helpful in breaking down statistics and helping to decide if the treatment would be helpful for your cancer.
Are you sure you know what's economics?
Heard of the game theory? Or are you just assuming that prices and quantity can just be derived from demand and supply?
Or what about asymmetric information? A tremendously interesting branch that helps explain why I'm not likely to apply all that I know from my degree but still undergo the torture anyway to try to convince the prospective employer and how this actually improves the economy.
Are you sure you know what's economics???
-
economics is not an exact science, its a social science though. no one can predict output 100%
-
Personally I enjoyed sociology tremendously. Its a social science that's usually overlooked.
Curiously due to rather complex nature of economic theory, at lower levels, it is taught with plenty of assumptions. The higher the level goes, the more fundamental the theory gets, and the less common-sensical the theory gets as you begin to grasp how the theorists came up with all the assumptions and learn the caveats behind them and understand why economics will fail at times. It just isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean its useless. Far from it.
-
looks like behavioural economics holds the key to a deeper understanding of economics...but not at the basic level of mere demand-supply, or basic econometrics..
the emotive element becomes a qualitiative branch of the study of economics now...
it should begin with ....
-
economics cannot be fixated to over rationalization and solely on quantitative approaches..thats old economics ....
to master the game of life, one needs to understand the behavioural aspects, and the multiple faceted minds and possibilities of mankind... in the constant flux of change...
thanks to a psychologist who opened such a new path of economics....and “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty”....
his name is Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Laureate for Economics
-
Aren't you already "ratonalising" when you say that it is a discipline full of potholes and therefore not good to study? If economics had to account for every single variable you can think of, why do we have geography (not the sec sch geog), sociology, psychology, political science (I personally think its bull-sh*t, but pol sci people are passionate about it so....)? Going by your logic, Physics is the most fundamental of the sciences, so why do we have chemistry and biology?
Anyway, everyone's pretty much entitled to their own views, but I would point out that even classical economics prove interesting although like any "discovery", "application", such stuff should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Using mathematics to try to formulate behaviour may seem terribly unrealistic but by controlling variables you'll see intriguing results. The Diamond-Dybvig model is an interesting example that shows how one's rationality => group irrationality with bank runs.
Instead of just lampooning a discipline, why not take the initiative to just learn it with caution to what it may teach? Learn the models that have been criticised. Learn the caveats deemed to be too important to ignore.
You don't learn anything by hearing people say that its useless and then conclude that it is useless without fully understanding why application of such knowledge can fail despite best intentions!
Perhaps you should also understand that "well-meaning" policies can fail not because those who formulate it were wrong but because it can be intentional. Conspiracy theories are abound that by making domestic banks fail, it would be even easier for global banks to gain footholds in the Asian Financial Crisis with the "bungling of IMF". It's not an entirely implausible theory, however far-fetched it might seem.
-
Anyway if TS is reading this, the most relevant answer to your question would be the 1st reply.
-
Hence, the need for a balanced view of economic sciences...not pure economics, but extends to other humanities to make it more plausible....
whether it applies to banks having too big to fail perception, or on the possibility of dynamic inefficiencies ...
in a nutshell, economics is a cross disciplinary subject as with the advancement of learning for other disciplines as well...and before u leapt into the cutting remark that one does not know economics...
-
Really besides generalising, dodging, and espousing views that reek of "I think that's what economics is".............you know the subject you are talking about very well, do you indeed?
What cross-disciplinary......?
Really, just learn the "basics". Learn why economics assumes that the utility function is concave in nature. The reasoning behind it is based on human psyche that isn't terribly unrealistic.
It is based on risk aversion, which appears to be how you are answering my queries aren't you?
-
u learn more by reading in newspaper articles. read the current European debt crisis malaise.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
Jim Rogers, Nial Ferguson, Ken Rogoff, Paul Krugman, Roubini etc
I rather go for Keynes, Minsky and Michael Hudson or Max Keiser.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
I rather go for Keynes, Minsky and Michael Hudson.
keynesian doesnt work in this era liao. out of touch already his concept.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
keynesian doesnt work in this era liao. out of touch already his concept.
Then try Minsky and the others.
-
And suscribe to the views of others and be swayed by potentially simplistic views?
Nah. All I suggest is that why not take a deeper look into the reasonings behind the different economic models and then re-read the criticisms.
Hindsight is 20-20. It is always easy to look back and say: Oh this person was wrong.
Despite us knowing that Karl Marx was wrong on several counts, it didn't hurt to read his classic "The general formula of capital" which made for one of the most interesting reads. The ideas are not as out-dated as many would have you think.
Unless you guys take a bottom-up approach in learning, all that would ever come out of it would be unproductive sceptism.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
keynesian doesnt work in this era liao. out of touch already his concept.
Econometrics figured that Keynes was using the wrong variables for his hypothesis with regards to consumption patterns all these while. Once they "corrected" the problems and regressed the results, they showed that he wasn't wrong.
His way of trying to stimulate the economy is more controvesial though.
But that doesn't mean his ideas are out-dated.