Cool! Quantitative Confirmation Rocks!

[GG]

Holy ****...are you serious?

 

Kind of like a monopoly on simplemindedness.

[John Adams]

Holy ****...are you serious?

 

I'm shocked you read that post.

[OCinBuffalo]

1) Please explain to us how and when restrictions on housing development have ever:

a. lowered the price of housing

b. lowered the cost of housing production

a) areas designated for multi-dwelling units lower the cost of housing for people in that area

b) standardization of code allows for economies of scale and reduction in insurance rates

a) so now you have proven that you don't know the economic definition of "price" and "cost, which is why I asked the questions the way I did. The economic price is not a function of "designation". It is a function of supply/demand. ALL restrictions on housing reduce supply. Limiting supply and holding demand constant ALWAYS raises the price. Therefore, Restrictions on housing always increase price. Being allowed to build unlimited amounts of low-income, or high-income, housing is not a definition of a housing "restriction". This question is about restrictions.

b) that is true, but only after the fact. That is merely managing a restriction efficiently. IF there were no code, then housing would "cost" less. The presence of code restriction, by definition, always make housing cost more because of the additional resources that must be expended to ensure the code is followed. This may be a cost we are all more than willing to accept, but that is an economic choice, that has no bearing on whether it costs more to build an "up to standard" house. For every example of good housing code you can give, I can give you a bad one, but they ALL cause housing to cost more.

So, you are now 0-1.

 

2) Please explain to us how and when the licensing of professionals has:

a. lowered the price of their services

b. lowered the cost of providing those services

a) since the term services is ambiguous...

There is no ambiguity WRT the term "services" in economics. Again, raising or lowering cost is not relative to added value. One has nothing to do with the other, until an economic decision is made by a individual consumer, that defines value. There is a major difference between value, or worth, and price. Value/worth is a personal assessment, market price is an economic reality, again based on supply/demand. You are using these 2 terms interchangeably, and that is "stupid, and wrong" . You are also infusing value into how cost is calculated which is also, "stupid and wrong". Trying to tell us that "increased cost = increased value, therefore increased price is ok" is what friggin sales guys do, but it has nothing do with why, how or which cost is raised or cut.

So, you are now 0-2.

 

3) Is the standard of living higher now than 30 years ago or not?

Of course it is.

a) again ambiguous, if you were to define this using the income adjusted for inflation of the median two parent family then yes.....

Most of this irrelevant. You want to give credit to technology? Ok. Advancement in technology has a direct relationship to ROI(Return on Investment), and, taxation. If there is no incentive, or return, for an investment to be made in research, that investment won't be made. At the same time, regardless of incentive, if there is no additional $$ to invest, because it has all been taxed away, then there will be no investment. The technology advancements you praise have come from people taking risks with their money. If we didn't live in a capitalist society, those advancements would never have happened. So, yes, there is an absolute, and direct, relationship between letting people keep their money and invest it, and technology. I live in the tech-startup world, so let's not waste my time, ok?

So, you are now 1-3, because at least you got the answer right. How you got there is another story.

 

4) Define monopoly

a) control of a item, good, service in (and this is important) a given area-

b) the game monopoly ends when the future tea bagger flips the board over and runs out of the room crying.

I guess I will give this one to you, even though you are dancing around the question and making excuses for your liberal friends not knowing the answer. And, points for humor

So, you are now 2-4.

 

5) Please explain how rent control works in terms of supply/demand and the affect it has on price. Then, explain how enforcing artificial prices affects ROI for suppliers of housing.

a) Well if I have the rent controlled apartment my price is low, my supply is fine, and my demand is nil.

b) not sure if you want (rate of investment) (rate of interest) or if you mistyped and want (rate of return) I assure you I can make something up for any of them.

a) Is there a finer example of not knowing the definitions of supply, demand, and price? Even if you are kidding, you messed up the joke.

b) ROI always means ROI = Return on Investment. So that looks bad for you. I gave you plenty in the question to get this right, and you didn't. And worse, you proved you don't know what these words mean. How are you supposed to carry on a conversation about economics if you don't know what ROI means? Alright, I am done beating on you. Now I will give you the answer: If you reduce the ROI for housing suppliers, and rent control does that, you reduce the amount of new investment in housing, whether that is in new housing being constructed, or, existing housing being improved. This is for the same reasons I described above, if investors profits are limited, then, the amount of $$ they will reinvest in their business is also limited. Do that enough, and many investors leave the market = less housing. Or, the owners of the property decide to bulldoze the housing, and replace it with commercial buildings....thus, less housing. Go to downtown Cleveland some time, and you will see this with your own eyes.

So, you are now 2-5.

 

6) Please explain how Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited...

a) do I have to make the case that all American companies overseas exploit all the third world workers all the time?

a) yes, all the time, because that is how the question is phrased, which I don't like, but still. And, come on, when is the last time you DIDN'T hear a liberal talking about this issue in terms of absolutes? Balance? I do know, and it's not even close. Demand is the #1 driver of wages, always has been, always will. Since we have allowed Third World countries to attenuate the voracious demand of this country their wages have inevitably gone up, not to mention the jobs that have been created, that otherwise wouldn't exist. That is not exploitation by any definition. Liberals have to make up their minds: are they committed to world wide poverty reduction or aren't they? We can talk about how we do it, but, there is 0 doubt that economic globalization has reduced poverty.

You gave a non-answer to an easy one, so, you are now 2-6.

 

7) Please explain how exactly free trade has caused worldwide unemployment?

a)I have nothing against Free-ish trade but lets be clear that our country and most 1st world countries have used tariffs and other forms of protectionism to build up and maintain certain vital industries -

What? Where? When? The only thing we protect is defense contracts for things like making our weapons. And the reason why is obvious. However, many DoD contracts are let to foreign entities.

globalization has lead some countries to building very unbalanced economies....

And what is the alternative? Letting these third world countries do nothing, have no jobs, putter around selling mangoes and bananas? Do you know what the term banana republic means? How has selling bananas improved standard of living, or, reduced poverty, and therefore, prevented war?

At least you have a passing understanding, you are now 3-7.

 

8) Please explain how and when minimum wage laws have lowered unemployment.

a) they aren't meant to lower unemployment they are meant to provide a living wage and dignity to work but there has been no correlation made between unemployment and the minimum wage

There have been multiple studies that prove a correlation between raising the minimum wage and unemployment. So you are wrong, again. There have also been some, dubious, studies that say the opposite. As I said, I don't like this question, because of how it is worded, and for the reason you picked up on here. The consensus seems to be that raising the minimum wage has a very small effect on raising unemployment. But, who cares really? The REAL study would be: how much would unemployment rise if the "living wage", not minimum wage, was imposed? I can guarantee you, all the excuses and number fudging of liberal economists would melt away in a heartbeat, and we'd see a causation on the very next heartbeat. The minimum wage is also used to calculate a whole bunch of other wages, and therefore raising it or lowering it has a definitive effect.

It's hard to say on this: do you understand that the minimum wage has a negative effect on unemployment? Do you understand what would happen to unemployment if a "living wage" was imposed? I don't think you do. So, 3-8.

 

This should be fun- and how

It was as I expected, and 3-8? That gets a D in economics. So I guess you are a moderate?

[OCinBuffalo]

Ok since you want 60 years I'm going to give you 1950 - 2009 GDP in (year 2000 dollars)

 

United States GDP 1950 1.5 trillion 2009 14.2 trillion a very respectable 9.4 fold increase ( I rounded so if you want to say ten that's fine)

 

China GDP 1950 .24 trillion 2009 8.7 trillion a 36.2 fold increase ( again I rounded so if you want to say 35 that's fine) China has had massive growth spurts even under pure communism, might have killed a lot of people but you didn't ask that, they have also had massive declines that have killed even more people but crap like that happens when you are trying to move from the 15th century to the 20th century in 20 years.

So how does any of this account for:

1. last 10 years, significantly reduced government control, massive economic growth

2. preceding 50 years, massive government control, next to 0 economic growth

 

When Nixon opened up China, China got better. This is undeniable. Try again. It helps when you actually respond to my point. I am talking about the difference in the last 10 years vs. the preceding 50. Try to stay focused.

2. "Scandinavian Socialism? hey I don't have to prove that Scandinavian Socialism or China's managed capitalism are the greatest systems in the world all I have to do is to Show that which you hate ( a degree of government involvement) does not absolutely destroy economic growth (China) or produce hellish living conditions (Denmark et al) and now that I've politely replied I'm still waiting for your country that is a shinning example of pure libertarianism or the closest that you can muster so I can study and compare and see if I'd like to live there.

What? Seriously? What? The relationship is: more government control = less economic growth. Look at Western Europe compared to us, again, not even close, unless, again, you fudge the #s like the Scandinavians do.

 

One, of the many, countries that have applied Milton Freidman's economic theories to great success is Chile. Do yourself a favor and learn about Chile. Or, if you don't like that one, look at what happened to Ireland when they massive slashed their corporate taxes in the 90's. Again, there is no doubt that less government tampering with the economy is always better. Look at our current situation: the government told banks they had to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers....and the whole thing blew up. Explain how forcing that lending that was a good idea. I will be here all day.

[finknottle]

Were those the only three options, and was it an "or" question? If so, that is most definitely retarded. I'm a resident of all three, and I have "allegiance" to all three, I suppose.

 

It's not clear to me that people realize the difference between the survey questions and the background questions.

 

The survey questions are the point, and they are the ones which need to be carefully selected. The background questions, things like race, religion, income, how often you shop at Wal-Mart, whether you a NASCAR fan, and yes - do you consider yourself a citizen of your city, country, or planet first and formost - are strictly background. Extra responses that might be of later interest. If you don't have an answer you want to give, you can choose 'don't know,' 'other,' or choose not answer it. They don't really care, that's not the information they were really after.

 

How do you feel when they ask about race? Ambiguous, incomplete choices, with no clear rules for deciding your race. I guess you just answer what you identify with most, despite technically being a mix of everything, or don't answer at all. I can't see calling one retarded without calling the other it too. And yet, nearly every survey includes an ethnicity question for background.

 

Taking another tack: would people here consider the idea of a standalone survey on peoples attitudes towards allegience inherently retarded? I would argue that in an era of globalization, it would be interesting to see the relative weights of identification with community, nationalism, and globalism, especially contrasted with race, religion, and class.

[....lybob]

So how does any of this account for:

1. last 10 years, significantly reduced government control, massive economic growth

2. preceding 50 years, massive government control, next to 0 economic growth

 

When Nixon opened up China, China got better. This is undeniable. Try again. It helps when you actually respond to my point. I am talking about the difference in the last 10 years vs. the preceding 50. Try to stay focused.

 

(deep sigh)

China GDP in year 2000 dollars

1950 (.24 trillion) 1973 (.74 trillion) increase in growth 308%

1973 (.74 trillion) 1998 (3.87 trillion) increase in growth 529%

1998 (3.87 trillion) 2009 (8.7 trillion) increase in growth 225%

 

U.S. GDP in year 2000 dollars

1950 (1.45 trillion) 1973 (3.53 trillion) increase in growth 243%

1973 (3.53 trillion) 1998 (7.39 trillion) increase in growth 209%

1998 (7.39 trillion) 2009 (14.2 trillion) increase in growth 192%

 

China has had economic growth both under communism and under managed capitalism- under communism the growth came mainly from increases in agriculture, heavy industry, and infrastructure - under managed capitalism the engine of growth has shifted to export of consumer goods- btw if you want to see the economic future of China look at Japan's history, China plans on making the same move from low end consumer goods to high end consumer good and state of the art equipment that Japan made except they plan to do it in a much shorter time period.

[DC Tom]

So how does any of this account for:

1. last 10 years, significantly reduced government control, massive economic growth

2. preceding 50 years, massive government control, next to 0 economic growth

 

When Nixon opened up China, China got better. This is undeniable. Try again. It helps when you actually respond to my point. I am talking about the difference in the last 10 years vs. the preceding 50. Try to stay focused.

 

(deep sigh)

China GDP in year 2000 dollars

1950 (.24 trillion) 1973 (.74 trillion) increase in growth 308%

1973 (.74 trillion) 1998 (3.87 trillion) increase in growth 529%

1998 (3.87 trillion) 2009 (8.7 trillion) increase in growth 225%

 

U.S. GDP in year 2000 dollars

1950 (1.45 trillion) 1973 (3.53 trillion) increase in growth 243%

1973 (3.53 trillion) 1998 (7.39 trillion) increase in growth 209%

1998 (7.39 trillion) 2009 (14.2 trillion) increase in growth 192%

 

China has had economic growth both under communism and under managed capitalism- under communism the growth came mainly from increases in agriculture, heavy industry, and infrastructure - under managed capitalism the engine of growth has shifted to export of consumer goods- btw if you want to see the economic future of China look at Japan's history, China plans on making the same move from low end consumer goods to high end consumer good and state of the art equipment that Japan made except they plan to do it in a much shorter time period.

 

Because the transformation of a pastoral economy to modern industrial one is, like, totally the same thing as growth in an established modern industrial economy.

 

Either that, or it's simply because the Chinese have a monopoly on the Chinese economy.

[Magox]

Either that, or it's simply because the Chinese have a monopoly on the Chinese economy.

A Monopoly, in a Communist country?? Noooooo

 

Who'd a thunk it?

[DC Tom]

A Monopoly, in a Communist country?? Noooooo

 

Who'd a thunk it?

 

I'm eagerly awaiting the explanation that they don't have a monopoly. I fully expect it to use product trademarks as a half-assed analogy.

[....lybob]

"What? Seriously? What? The relationship is: more government control = less economic growth. Look at Western Europe compared to us, again, not even close, unless, again, you fudge the #s like the Scandinavians do."

 

you can't come close to proving this, for every country you could show me with a high degree of government control and poor economic growth I could show you one with a high degree of government control and excellent economic growth- for every country with a low degree of government control and good economic growth I'll show you one with a low degree of government control and poor economic growth- Somalia comes to mind- the correlation is weak at best.

 

"One, of the many, countries that have applied Milton Freidman's economic theories to great success is Chile. Do yourself a favor and learn about Chile"

 

one thing I can tell you I learned about Chile is that their growth rate in 2009 was -1.5% which happens to be exactly the same as commie pinko Venezuela who also had a growth rate of -1.5% in 2009.

[....lybob]

Because the transformation of a pastoral economy to modern industrial one is, like, totally the same thing as growth in an established modern industrial economy.

 

Either that, or it's simply because the Chinese have a monopoly on the Chinese economy.

 

Never said it was, I was merely refuting his point that all of China's economic growth came in the last 10 years and the 50 years before nothing was happening.

 

as for my definition of Monopoly- incipient gotcha questions deserve flippant answers.

[Magox]

"What? Seriously? What? The relationship is: more government control = less economic growth. Look at Western Europe compared to us, again, not even close, unless, again, you fudge the #s like the Scandinavians do."

 

you can't come close to proving this, for every country you could show me with a high degree of government control and poor economic growth I could show you one with a high degree of government control and excellent economic growth- for every country with a low degree of government control and good economic growth I'll show you one with a low degree of government control and poor economic growth- Somalia comes to mind- the correlation is weak at best.

 

"One, of the many, countries that have applied Milton Freidman's economic theories to great success is Chile. Do yourself a favor and learn about Chile"

 

one thing I can tell you I learned about Chile is that their growth rate in 2009 was -1.5% which happens to be exactly the same as commie pinko Venezuela who also had a growth rate of -1.5% in 2009.

bull ****, you are out of your mind if you believe that more government control = more economic growth. The U.S has averaged 1% of GDP more so than Europe over the past 30 years.

 

And your example of Chile is a horrible one. Chile's economy is very sensitive to copper mining, and copper went from $4 a pound to $1.5 in early 2009.

 

Why don't we take a look at the end of 2010 and judge Chile up against Venezuela and that will be a more representative and accurate gauge. Chile has the most sound South American Economy in all of South America and that is a FACT!

[....lybob]

"bull ****, you are out of your mind if you believe that more government control = more economic growth."

 

I never said this, what I said is you can't prove that Less government control = more economic growth.

 

To clarify where I stand, I believe that that the economy is like a biological system in that it probably functions best in certain narrow ranges of conditions- like you'd probably like your body temperature somewhere around 98.6F give or take a tiny amount, now if doctors were like most of these absolutist economic theorist you'd have one arguing that the best temp for a person is as high as possible and another one arguing that the best temp for a person is as low as possible - and they would continue to argue after all their patients had died.

 

"And your example of Chile is a horrible one. Chile's economy is very sensitive to copper mining, and copper went from $4 a pound to $1.5 in early 2009."

 

Well I didn't bring up Chile in the first place, and of course the down swing in copper was factor, every economy has it's factors, there are millions and millions of factors floating around, Venezuela had a drop in oil prices that was their factor.

I'm a big believer in factors and the level of government control is just one out millions of factors I'm sure it has it's effect but if you are telling me you can quantify it against all other factors then I call Bullpoop, if you make an absolutist statement like Less government control = more economic growth I say bullpoop with a side order of "you're a moron"- I know I would not want to live in a place with either total government control or zero government control, what is the optimal range? that's a worthy debate.

[Rob's House]

Most of the questions used were very basic and fundamental questions of economics that break down to the relationship between supply and demand. If it appears otherwise you're probably looking too deep.

[Rob's House]

...you can't prove that Less government control = more economic growth.

 

You can't prove it. It's just an eerie coincidence with no legitimate evidence to refute it.

[Hossage]

1) Please explain to us how and when restrictions on housing development have ever:

a. lowered the price of housing

b. lowered the cost of housing production

a) areas designated for multi-dwelling units lower the cost of housing for people in that area

b) standardization of code allows for economies of scale and reduction in insurance rates

 

2) Please explain to us how and when the licensing of professionals has:

a. lowered the price of their services

b. lowered the cost of providing those services

a) since the term services is ambiguous (leeches and heart surgery could both be medical services but they are not the same) so we have to weigh the cost of the service verses the value of the service and I contend that the Licensing of professionals has increased the average value of the services more than the average costs of the services and thus lowered the price of the services.

b) see above

 

3) Is the standard of living higher now than 30 years ago or not?

Of course it is. Even this idiot(link) in the NY times begrudgingly admits that the black people of Memphis have made progress over the last 20 years. I know, shocking, isn't it?

a) again ambiguous, if you were to define this using the income adjusted for inflation of the median two parent family then yes, If I was to define it as the amount of discretionary income produced by an hour of work by a worker earning the median hourly wage then no- just for example of how hard comparisons are, my father worked two jobs an average of 64 hours a week total, my mother did not work - my fathers work provided a middle class life style, paid for most of college for his five children, the jobs provided good benefits (vacation, medical, dental, pension), Even with dollars adjusted for inflation my brothers family makes about 20% more than father but they work a total of 120+ hours a week to do it, because my brother's wife works they absolutely needed two cars, they cook less and eat take-out more, they needed day care, and baby sitters, benefit wise they have good medical, but not dental, no pensions (brother has 50% match sister-in-law nothing), less vacation - my brother thanks the gods they only have two children to help put through college and even so the girls are going to end up with a lot more debt than we did. That being said I'd say we do have a higher standard of living than 30 years ago but that would be due much more to advances in science and technology than any absolutist economic theory- and if I wanted to argue the other way I could use the tenets of biological stress theory, any environment that provides more stress than is adaptable to brings unhealthy physical and psychological changes which I see everyday in the combination of fat bellies, skinny legs, and depression- which is an excellent indication of elevated cortisol levels due to high levels of stress.

 

 

4) Define monopoly(and no, not the board game). Then define market share(and no, not Park Place and Boardwalk). Then define how much market share a company has to have to be considered a monopoly. Actually... define how the game monopoly ends: what do you have to have in order to win the game?

a) control of a item, good, service in (and this is important) a given area- so how do I know the one with the largest market share is a monopoly? trick question all I have to do is increase the specificity of the item or the area and all businesses have monopolies for example coke doesn't have a monopoly if I define the item as soft drinks but does have a monopoly if I define the item as coke, on the other hand no one probably (except maybe God) has a monopoly if define the area as the multiverse.

b) the game monopoly ends when the future tea bagger flips the board over and runs out of the room crying.

 

5) Please explain how rent control works in terms of supply/demand and the affect it has on price. Then, explain how enforcing artificial prices affects ROI for suppliers of housing.

(Hell, I have given you more than enough in the question to get this one right so no answer on this one).

a) Well if I have the rent controlled apartment my price is low, my supply is fine, and my demand is nil.

b) not sure if you want (rate of investment) (rate of interest) or if you mistyped and want (rate of return) I assure you I can make something up for any of them.

 

6) Please explain how Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited, when they are making way more than they would be than if they WEREN'T working for American companies.

(Only an idiot argues this point, so again, no answer. I am so sure all those Indian, Russian, Polish and Irish programmers I used to have to jump through INS hoops to bring here back in the day, are being...exploited by getting to stay home and live like kings in their own country today. )

a) do I have to make the case that all American companies overseas exploit all the third world workers all the time? that would be very hard- or do I just have to make the case that some American companies exploit some third world people? that would be very easy- or are we talking about on balance? that would take a lot of study, I don't know and neither do you.

 

7) Please explain, especially in terms of "social justice", how exactly free trade has caused worldwide unemployment?

If anything, free trade has done more to employ people, especially in the third world, than any other single policy. It was intended to stop wars from starting and make things cost less world wide, thus, reducing poverty world wide. It has. Nothing is a cure all, but free trade is certainly part of the solution.

a)I have nothing against Free-ish trade but lets be clear that our country and most 1st world countries have used tariffs and other forms of protectionism to build up and maintain certain vital industries - we would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Why? I mean the Saudis can produce oil much cheaper than we can, free markets absolutist would say whoever can provide a product cheapest should be the one to do it- globalization has lead some countries to building very unbalanced economies very vulnerable to any global downturn, free markets taken to a religious extreme would say a country should only produce what they can competitively produce vis a vis the global market- the IMF advances this policy to what many would say is to the detriment of 2nd and 3rd world countries.

 

8) Please explain how and when minimum wage laws have lowered unemployment.

a) they aren't meant to lower unemployment they are meant to provide a living wage and dignity to work but there has been no correlation made between unemployment and the minimum wage - example no minimum wage during the great depression very high unemployment, with minimum wage laws unemployment has been as low as under 4%

 

This should be fun- and how

 

 

..lybob, I really feel bad for you, and I am not saying that to be mean. I have a degree in economics, and I am a little but of effort away from an mba in finance. I am older than most students would be. You are clearly a bright and insightful person, but some of your responses read like a punch line for students in an Econ class. My advice would be that this is a subject you should leave alone. Your arguments are so exasperating I do not think I could attempt to address them. I hope we can talk about some other topic in this forum, because you seem like an interesting person.

[....lybob]

QUOTE (....lybob @ Jun 9 2010, 04:04 PM)

...you can't prove that Less government control = more economic growth.

 

 

You can't prove it. It's just an eerie coincidence with no legitimate evidence to refute it.

 

An absolutist statement like ( Less government = more economic growth) is false

 

If you want to add modifiers to the statements like (sometimes, or most of the time) then it could be true - it's better if you specify the government and the involvement (law, regulation, action, etc) that you think should cease. Then debate can ensue, I'm sure that there is often government involvement where the harm outweighs the benefits but I prefer the use of a scalpel and not a meat cleaver.

 

but if you truly believe "Less government = more economic growth" then I believe the first thing you should do is get rid of Patent Law, Copyright law, and Trademark law - I pretty sure most businesses would be thanking you. Another government involvement that you could dump is fire fighting you should privatize fire fighting, that's how it use to be, if you didn't have their seal of protection they'd let your house or business burn down, if the houses on either side didn't have protection they'd use the event to promote their services, sometimes there were competing services in the same area and instead of fighting fires they'd fight each other, good times I tell you good times.

[DC Tom]

QUOTE (....lybob @ Jun 9 2010, 04:04 PM)

...you can't prove that Less government control = more economic growth.

 

 

 

 

An absolutist statement like ( Less government = more economic growth) is false

 

If you want to add modifiers to the statements like (sometimes, or most of the time) then it could be true - it's better if you specify the government and the involvement (law, regulation, action, etc) that you think should cease. Then debate can ensue, I'm sure that there is often government involvement where the harm outweighs the benefits but I prefer the use of a scalpel and not a meat cleaver.

 

[omitted: many absolutist statements illustrating the use of a meat cleaver rather than a scalpel]

 

You're an idiot.

[....lybob]

..lybob, I really feel bad for you, and I am not saying that to be mean. I have a degree in economics, and I am a little but of effort away from an mba in finance. I am older than most students would be. You are clearly a bright and insightful person, but some of your responses read like a punch line for students in an Econ class. My advice would be that this is a subject you should leave alone. Your arguments are so exasperating I do not think I could attempt to address them. I hope we can talk about some other topic in this forum, because you seem like an interesting person.

 

As something I have faith in or respect for, Economics ranks below Psychology but ahead of Homeopathic remedies- I'm glad you are getting a MBA in finance I'm sure you'll get rich, hopefully you'll be doing something useful like intelligently suppling capital to businesses after due diligence on products and business plans- not shuffling money around and skimming of the top- try for work of Quality not Quant-identity.

[....lybob]

You're an idiot.

 

stung by the blobfish (I do fear, I do fear)