Ironically, I disagree with you...

Post #164,313 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 8:17:51 PM Reply	Ironically, I disagree with you... There are alternative motivations that have nothing to do with economics of the Saudis as a whole, no NO economic theory, even if it is correct, can explain their actions. Economics has well-established ways to model non-financial incentives that people value. A simplistic one is to assign a dollar-equivalent. For instance one could assign a dollar value based on the current value of Saudi investments, an estimated value of managing to remain in power, and an extremely large estimated value of remaining alive. Now the economic model that we have for the Saudis will show a desire to walk the tightrope until their lives come under serious risk, at which point they'll bail. The example may seem silly, but similar types of analysis are frequently done by economists who are trying to apply economics to public policy questions about things like the environment. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,316 by broomberg 7/13/04 8:34:40 PM Reply	Figures But assigning numbers just to force fit a model is the height of bullshit. It's no longer an "economic" model.
Post #164,318 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 8:53:25 PM Reply	Depends how you define economics Generally the professionals define it more broadly than the general public would. You can get a sample of different alternatives from [link\|http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&oi=defmore&q=define:economics\|http://www.google.co...=define:economics] Of those the one that is closest to what I was taught when I took economics is, Economics is the study of how men and society end up choosing, with or without the use of money, to employ scarce productive resources that could have alternative uses, to produce various commodities and distribute them for consumption, now or in the future, among various people and groups in society. It analyzes the costs and benefits of improving patterns of resource allocation. Accounting for non-monetary considerations by assigning monetary equivalents is just an accounting trick. With this definition, doing so doesn't take you out of the realm of economic theory. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,320 by ChrisR 7/13/04 9:02:35 PM Reply	The economic/philosophy term of "Utility" comes to mind. Money is but one way to measure utility. Many economists (especially the Monetarists) think it's the only reliable gauge. Of course, the concept of money is also very fluid: M1, M2, M3, .... in banking terms, but then there's soft money like stocks, bonds, loans of various sorts... and failing that there's always barter (an ineffecient form of money).
Post #164,322 by ben_tilly 7/13/04 9:13:52 PM Reply	Exactly It's often ridiculous to think that way, but economists really try to when they tackle complex issues. Sadly enough, when things are complex enough that regular intuition fails, the ridiculous way is sometimes also the best way that we have to think about things. :-/ Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #164,321 by Ashton 7/13/04 9:09:24 PM Reply	Sadly, I find your disagreement implicitly supports -the notion that- there is ANY SENSE what-so-ever! to a materialistic culture's manic efforts to PUT NUMBERS on.. Everything willy-nilly, including the fucking ineffable 1) Believe in 'god'? 47 points 2) Believe in God? 53 points 3) Believe in a 'personal'-'god'? 56 points 4) Believe not in {yada}? -37 points per each variation 5) Believe in belief? .. 6) Believe in stupid multiple-choice questions? .. Do I gots ta quote Einstein re math/reality One More Time? [Or variants from the Prose Masters?] (That Econ carries this farce right into its spreadsheets is - perhaps all one needs to Know, in order to rank Econ a tad below 20th century newspaper 'astrologer' readouts.) Fie on thee, who hast not the excuse of even Disc-world special-ignorance. -66.63 points. (We at ETS measure our IQs to 4 significant figures, thankyouverymuch cha cha)

Welcome to IWETHEY!