Figures

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!