LI Facutly of Economics and Commerce.

  • Thread starter Thread starter lolwatever
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 36
  • Views Views 5K

lolwatever

IB Expert
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
655
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Does anyone study economics at college or university level? or is ne1 atleast intersted in it?

Maybe we could start some sort of study group for economics, quantitave methods, econometrix, management etc if anyone happens to be doing those

To start off this thread.. in economics "a rational decision maker doesn't take into consideration money already paid (aka sunk costs)" right?

how about this situation... suppose you had 1000 dollars and u went to buy an Xbox which cost 500, you value the xbox at 500+ so you're willing to pay for it right? You get to teh shop and you notice 'damn i lost 500 dollars'... so ur left with 500 dollars.... as a rational decision maker, should you buy the Xbox or not?
;D
 
i did economics at AS Level and dropped it..erm i would much rather wait for the PS3....im biased i know...cant help it!!
 
lol i feel sorry 4 u...
when i first done economics it was easy but sooooo booring, coz things like Demand and Supply are just so uninteresting.. u probably couldnt wait till you got to thins like international and development economics which are really fascinating.

It's a cool subject man.. coz u get to see what the 'money mind' is like, and then u learn about things like free market which gets even more evil coz everyone is out there for their own good.. and when u look at welfare economics its even better coz it strikes you how Islam is very much inline with ... for now i want an answer to the question and maybe ill raise welfare economics vs freemarket later on

ok ok back 2 question, if u want assume i said PS3 instead of Xbox.. answer the question! :D
 
if i lost 500 dollars i would be slapping myself silly lololol!! erm it depends....
 
lol and guess what
that's purely irrational in economics :D
note the definition i said about a rational thinker

"They don't take into consideration sunk costs (payments, costs/losses already made)"

so theoretically if u lost 500 dollars each time, you should go back 2 ur house and bring back another 500 dollars even if u keep loosing it. Cool huh? :okay:

my tutor at uni gave us that example.. proving that thought it works in theory its not always the case practically... Islamically a rational thinker is someone who doesnt waste.
 
economics woz hard lol i had a module in uni based on it, mmmm u jus gota get 2 no d rite ppl lol (nerdy crew) dey will help u out lol:p
 
another thing.. has it ever occurred to you that stealing, robbery etc are all forms of money transactions? lol!

i remember at high school we where talking about implication of free markets (becasue theoretically they are teh most efficient due to perfect competition).. and i was like 'but wont there be alot of crime and robbery and people stealing money'

and my teacher goes "so what, they're still forms of transactions.. whether you steal the money or someone gives it to you.. you're still carrying out a transaction".

lol hence the hitmen... they get paid, and they're happy to provide the 'hitman' service as long as they get the money so all is good economcially lol
 
economics woz hard lol i had a module in uni based on it, mmmm u jus gota get 2 no d rite ppl lol (nerdy crew) dey will help u out lol:p

yehh ifeel for you, when i started economics at uni i felt sorry the kids who dont hava ny eco background coz they go through the material sooooo fast and most ppl are like 'blah' and they get turned off it..

but if u hangon for long enough it does clickin.. and yeh nerds are a good help hehe, so are some really neat text books
 
another thing.. has it ever occurred to you that stealing, robbery etc are all forms of money transactions? lol!

i remember at high school we where talking about implication of free markets (becasue theoretically they are teh most efficient due to perfect competition).. and i was like 'but wont there be alot of crime and robbery and people stealing money'

and my teacher goes "so what, they're still forms of transactions.. whether you steal the money or someone gives it to you.. you're still carrying out a transaction".

lol hence the hitmen... they get paid, and they're happy to provide the 'hitman' service as long as they get the money so all is good economcially lol

wot skool did u goo 2 lol?? in me skool if we had spoken lik dat we wud hav ended up in oxford lol!!!

perfect competition model eh eh eh?? lol c i do no sum thins!!! n inelastic n elastic model summin lik dat lol i did me uni assignment on it few days agoo :embarrass
 
hehe i'm not from UK, does oxford offer economics? oh silly me.. the entire IB study guide program is oxford based!! loll ok ok-

lol yeh perfect comp is the simplest of all models.. market dynamics i think is the hardest bit for most ppl to grasp (u know.. when demand rises and so perfect comp firms make profit in short run and so other firms kick in and the equillibrium returns to its initial state)..

i think its important that people realise that just because something is economically efficient, it by no means that it's socially the best outcome...

like ill giv u guys example.. in economics efficient is when Demand = Supply... so if there's demand for drugs, and there's supply of drugs... as long as the consumer and supplier can exchange the goods and the money, then that's a beautiful... its efficient. But look at the imlpications of that..

also things like child prostitution, whilst 'the deal being done' might be economically efficient... you're ignoring the social effects.. and hence...... why welfare economics comes into play... hav u covered that topic chacha jalebi?
 
woh lol u no ur stuff, uve lost me matey!! lol but if i hav any more modules based on economics, im gona b comin 2 u *wink wink*
 
yee man lol, bless him/ her lol sowy dnt no if u a bro or a sistaaa, but yeeee lol u can help moi!!!
 
alpha your nick makes me think you're passionate about physics, i like physics too :D (quite a lot actually.. too bad i dont do it at uni :rant: anyway ill leave that to the physics thread.

stock markets... hey i dont understand why some people say its not Islamically permissible.. i can understand why some stocks arent, because they might be involved in dirty things (i heard that Lynx or adidas (one of them) promoted porn or something like that) so they say u cant tarde in lynx shares for example..
 
i did economics at AS Level and dropped it..erm i would much rather wait for the PS3....im biased i know...cant help it!!
normally I try my best to disagree with you but this once I agree....as for the this topic...I would like to know more..continue
 
lol hafizmo ur funny

nah chacha i dont lecture.. i do tutor though and really i'm not much of a genuis i just find it intersting coz of some of the grim world realities that become so clear all of a sudden when you learn economics..

and i guess most Muslims tend to learn commerce to change it right? :) becaue the principles of economics are pretty factual, but when its not controlled by a set of morals things go out of hand.. and you endup with 3rd world africa and south america and 3rd world east asian countries (except a few).

and hey... economically, doesnt it make sense, if you run a business, you want to be successful and make as money as possible.. and so if u assume the government of country x is running a business (which is in the form of the entire economy)... it would do all it can to make sure it gains the most profit.. so it's only natural that it will impose heavy protectionism measures on imports from cheaper producing 3rd world countries and subsidise its own producers...

and so u get all these potentially strong 3rd world economies (due to them having so much more comparative advantage over first world countries) being kicked back coz everyone else is imposing tariffs, quotas on their exports.. and so they're flushed into poverty.

And the story gets worse... because after they've been flushed into poverty, people get unhappy and they blame the government (and assuming the gov is not corrupt at first), the government runs desperately to the IMF for help.. and the IMF (which.. similar to the UN is mostly controlled by strong developed economies... and the country that has the biggest share in it happens to be *cough cough*).. so yeh.. the IMF forms advises to the helpless country based on the conclusion arrived to by the member countries that control the IMF which till recently was in the form of 'SAP' (Structural Adjustment Program)

And so the SAP encourages things like tightening the monetary policy (pump up interest rates), squeezing fiscal policy (tighten governmetn spending, cut health assistance and public good provision), privatise public assets... AHA!

And so the politicians of stuffed economies hear 'privatise public assets!!?' and they get really annoyed coz they know it means doomsday for them (due to the publics reaction if such thing was done)... and so you have the IMF fella winking to them indirectly hints that the politician will get money out of the privataisation.. and so his eyes widen and happily agrees.. ofcourse the people who buy these assets tend to be foreigners who have the money from overseas... the poor country desperately wants to attract foreign investment sot hey induce such business people with tax free periods and tax cuts and all sorts of gizmos.. natuarlly it means that the government budget experiences negative growth.. the IMF is pleased (with the full support of theoretical economics, because afterall it is majorly influenced by *cough cough* and the rest of the first world countries who are naturally out there for their own interests, which is economically understandable) and encourages them to continue that behaviour and they'll happily fill the economy with loans..

the populous are seething with rage because they have to pay for hospital services now.. nothing is free anymore, the government isnt quite after trouble, so in the short term borrowing money is a good idea regardless of the interest rate... so they borrow.. and borrow and borrow.. but ofcourse there's no such thing as 'free donation', you need to pay it back with more on top to encourage 'more donations' by the IMF.. and interestingly the case becomes such that the 3rd world country is donating to the IMF (the first world countries) instead of visa versa... and then a few weeks later you hear Kofi Anan (Head of the U.N.) innocently realising:

"“Funds should be moving from developed countries to developing countries, but these numbers tell us the opposite is happening…. Funds that should be promoting investment and growth in developing countries, or building schools and hospitals, or supporting other steps towards the Millennium Development Goals, are, instead, being transferred abroad.”
But economically speaking, it'd be foolish to wave all the debts on these poor countries because you'll be making economic losses.. but teh countries are now riddled with corruption (that was triggered by guess who.. read above if you forgot), so the best way to solve the embaresment is to accuse the politicians corruption as teh source of the problem and not the loans..

And it gets worse! foreigners are now using the developing economies as a spring board for their personal success, and they've made sure they boudn the government to contracts to make sure they wont be touched by any national work legislation (so their workers can work for less than minimum wage standards, no worry about polution permits... afterall the head of the World Bank was very much against hte idea of 3rd world countries having clean air (that was inefficiency according to him) http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html . The poor old farmers who use to account for the majority of 3rd world countries exports are now worth cactus, because the government was forced to devalue the currecny adn so they're export is dirt cheap... farmers want to make as much as money as they can (and they need to! they're poor for gods sake) so they flood the market with goods.. the poor fellas dont realise that flooding the market with their crops means that prices will drop (coz there's more than what ppl want, so u only encourage them to buy by drecreasing the price) and the farmers go broke.

But it gets better in a way! Now the first world countries have a good suggestions to the 3rd world people "You guys suck at producing technological goods and services, and that's the only way you'll get any decent economic output... soooo why not let us come in and open up technology firms, we're the ones with teh epxerience.. buttt we need your help too.. we want to have full transaction flexibility, u gotta promise ull set us free as far as taxation and all that crap is concerned, because free markets work most efficiently without protectionism and taxation"... the governments don't have much of an option, its either that or walls go up betweent hem and first world coutnreis (in terms fo international trade).. so you get these (smart) entrepeanuers running massive enterprises and stuff... they epxort their goods to first world countries, the money gets to go back to the 3rd world country (how coool), but the government cant tax the business, it's got no repatriation limits on the owner(s)... and so the owner decides he wants the money transferred back to his homeland and so the money goes on a journey in the opposite direction...

The government is miserable, but they cant say anhything coz they're corrupt and they'll be exposed if they dare reveal anything about how bad the policies in place are.. so they swallow the bullet, the people are desperate, no decent jobs no nothing, so they resort to crime and drugs. the U.N. is very concerned about all this and are upset that the governments arent doing enough to stop violence theft and robbery, it's all the governments fault.. its nothing to do with the economics of teh situation. So it's catch 22.

And the poor countries live miserably ever after...

Disclaimer: This is no criticism to the IMF, they mean well with whatever they're doing... they're economic genuises implementing teh laws of economics with full loyalty and sincerity... even based on welfare economics principles they'er very arguably correct... because they have (economically smart) definitions of Social Marginal Cost and Social Marginal Benefits.. which is economically understandable.. it was never meant to be one of those lame moral institutions coz then they'll become economic suckers and no one will sponsor them.. so respect to the IMF.
 
lol hafizmo ur funny
*blushes* thank you for stating the obvious..
foreigners are now using the developing economies as a spring board for their personal success
I didnt quite get this sentence.........could you care to elaborate please?
 
btw alpha, computer science ay... i got a bit of passion for programming.. at moment trying to get my head around bubble sort algorithm and arrays (ok ok maybe i should launch a programming thread, i cant help but feel there's a fair bit of programmers lurking around here hehe)

and hafizmo.. ill xplain why it's still rational to purchase the Xbox..

basically in economics (i'm simplifying this) you ignore what's happened... as i said in a previous post... giving 100 dollars in exchange for a book, or losing that 100 dollars, or getting that 100 dollars robbed from you is all equivalent.. they're all different forms of transcations, but the piont is, they are transfer payments...

similarly, when you where going to the shop.. you valued the Xbox at more than or equal to 500 dollars, and even if you where absolutely poor, you still would value it at 500 dollars (only that you'd be willing to pay much less).

So economics says.. you only buy a good or service if the 'Benefit is greater than the Cost' of doing something... 'satisfaction' isnt quite quantifiable, but we do that buy using the idea of cost-benefit analysis... so we can measure 'your satisfaction' by asking you... 'if i offered you thsi xbox for 5 dollars would u buy it, u would say yes.. and i keep raising the price till i say to you how about 500, you say yes, and then i say how about 501 dollars.. and you would say no"

so from that we can say 'the monetary value of the benefit you will gain from purchasing an xbox is 500 dollars'.. thefore you should only buy an xbox if your benefit is greater than or equal to the cost of buying such thing.

so in economics, we are only looking at 'whether it is worth buying it or not in absolute money value', we dont look at the background.. or whether you lost money or got it stolen.. we're only looking in absolute terms how you would value that item, and whether the cost of the item is such that it makes it logical to purchase that good or not.

so in other words, just because you lost 500 dollars 5 yeras ago, shouldn't affect your decision to buy an Xbox today for 500 dollars, similarly, just becaue you lost 500 dollars 5minutes ago, shouldn't affect your decision to purhcase an Xbox now... because 'khalas' its happened, the money you lost is a 'sunk cost' (beyond retreival), so ur suppose to move on and assess whether you should go ahead with something or not purely based on the current moment, ignoring everything that happened before as far as money is concerned.

its very simplified but yeh das teh gist of the idea :)

hehe but ofcourse, its a theory.. doesnt always hold in real life :)
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top