What’s it going to take?
Comments
-
Lol don’t bet against the fed. As long as usd is still the reserve currency we can tell the world to fuck itself
-
tick tick tick ...FireCohen said:Lol don’t bet against the fed. As long as usd is still the reserve currency we can tell the world to fuck itself
-
I'll toss my hawt taek on this out there:
The economy as a whole is a perpetual motion machine. Slowing down = economy bad, speeding up = economy good. Different sectors move at different speeds and are either accelerating or decelerating accordingly. March was the closest we've come to ever just stopping the damn thing, but it didn't stop. The basic needs on Maslow's hierarchy still need to be fulfilled. Psychological and self-fulfillment needs were still there, but how they were delivered had to change, but the need didn't go away. It just moved around. People need stuff to do, so they don't stop and the wheel keeps moving.
Stopping the whole thing would take a massive psychological change where no one could agree on the relative value of goods and services anymore or if tangible asset holders which provide for basic needs decided to quit selling goods.
So shit could go down, and this somewhat depends on how "crash" is defined (stock market? Housing market? job market? How bad and to what degree?), but 7 billion people need something to do each day with their miserable and pathetic lives and are highly interdependent on each other.
I'd love to spend some time studying psychology and behavioral economics since I think that's the foundation of the study of all of this. -
The economy has always been a sort of confidence game and as long as enough people have confidence the game goes on
The cliff notes to @whlinder -
What happens when the only people with Confidence are the people with no money?RaceBannon said:The economy has always been a sort of confidence game and as long as enough people have confidence the game goes on
The cliff notes to @whlinder -
Our now retired staff economist, PhD dude from Cal, was advising one of my kids about her possible career directions. He’s the one who encouraged her to seek out a LAC for undergrad because they are particularly adept at interdisciplinary instruction given that’s what they are all about. His take is that the future is going to be all about cross- disciplinary solutions to problems, and he cites what you said as example 101. That we have these economis theories that make sense and should predict human action100%, except that it doesn’t.whlinder said:I'll toss my hawt taek on this out there:
The economy as a whole is a perpetual motion machine. Slowing down = economy bad, speeding up = economy good. Different sectors move at different speeds and are either accelerating or decelerating accordingly. March was the closest we've come to ever just stopping the damn thing, but it didn't stop. The basic needs on Maslow's hierarchy still need to be fulfilled. Psychological and self-fulfillment needs were still there, but how they were delivered had to change, but the need didn't go away. It just moved around. People need stuff to do, so they don't stop and the wheel keeps moving.
Stopping the whole thing would take a massive psychological change where no one could agree on the relative value of goods and services anymore or if tangible asset holders which provide for basic needs decided to quit selling goods.
So shit could go down, and this somewhat depends on how "crash" is defined (stock market? Housing market? job market? How bad and to what degree?), but 7 billion people need something to do each day with their miserable and pathetic lives and are highly interdependent on each other.
I'd love to spend some time studying psychology and behavioral economics since I think that's the foundation of the study of all of this.
Hence the burgeoning dev of economis/psychology curricula and focus. -
Indeed, though I still maintain confidence doesn't matter on the bottom layer of the hierarchy of needs. Confident or not, you need to eat, and that's still economic activity, just not as much if you're confident.RaceBannon said:The economy has always been a sort of confidence game and as long as enough people have confidence the game goes on
The cliff notes to @whlinder
Yeah it's funny cause I'm an Econ grad from UW (went for the BS track but also got a Stat minor) and all that theory was nice but none of it really holds in practice. The econometrics and game theory was great though. Luckily all of it taught me how to think about problem solving instead of how to "do economics".creepycoug said:
Our now retired staff economist, PhD dude from Cal, was advising one of my kids about her possible career directions. He’s the one who encouraged her to seek out a LAC for undergrad because they are particularly adept at interdisciplinary instruction given that’s what they are all about. His take is that the future is going to be all about cross- disciplinary solutions to problems, and he cites what you said as example 101. That we have these economis theories that make sense and should predict human action100%, except that it doesn’t.whlinder said:I'll toss my hawt taek on this out there:
The economy as a whole is a perpetual motion machine. Slowing down = economy bad, speeding up = economy good. Different sectors move at different speeds and are either accelerating or decelerating accordingly. March was the closest we've come to ever just stopping the damn thing, but it didn't stop. The basic needs on Maslow's hierarchy still need to be fulfilled. Psychological and self-fulfillment needs were still there, but how they were delivered had to change, but the need didn't go away. It just moved around. People need stuff to do, so they don't stop and the wheel keeps moving.
Stopping the whole thing would take a massive psychological change where no one could agree on the relative value of goods and services anymore or if tangible asset holders which provide for basic needs decided to quit selling goods.
So shit could go down, and this somewhat depends on how "crash" is defined (stock market? Housing market? job market? How bad and to what degree?), but 7 billion people need something to do each day with their miserable and pathetic lives and are highly interdependent on each other.
I'd love to spend some time studying psychology and behavioral economics since I think that's the foundation of the study of all of this.
Hence the burgeoning dev of economis/psychology curricula and focus.
Since Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning is all the rage now I would love to consider those emerging capability in the construct of behavioral economics. -
If I had to do it all over again, I would have taken more economics and statistics classes at UW. I find both those fields fascinating.whlinder said:
Indeed, though I still maintain confidence doesn't matter on the bottom layer of the hierarchy of needs. Confident or not, you need to eat, and that's still economic activity, just not as much if you're confident.RaceBannon said:The economy has always been a sort of confidence game and as long as enough people have confidence the game goes on
The cliff notes to @whlinder
Yeah it's funny cause I'm an Econ grad from UW (went for the BS track but also got a Stat minor) and all that theory was nice but none of it really holds in practice. The econometrics and game theory was great though. Luckily all of it taught me how to think about problem solving instead of how to "do economics".creepycoug said:
Our now retired staff economist, PhD dude from Cal, was advising one of my kids about her possible career directions. He’s the one who encouraged her to seek out a LAC for undergrad because they are particularly adept at interdisciplinary instruction given that’s what they are all about. His take is that the future is going to be all about cross- disciplinary solutions to problems, and he cites what you said as example 101. That we have these economis theories that make sense and should predict human action100%, except that it doesn’t.whlinder said:I'll toss my hawt taek on this out there:
The economy as a whole is a perpetual motion machine. Slowing down = economy bad, speeding up = economy good. Different sectors move at different speeds and are either accelerating or decelerating accordingly. March was the closest we've come to ever just stopping the damn thing, but it didn't stop. The basic needs on Maslow's hierarchy still need to be fulfilled. Psychological and self-fulfillment needs were still there, but how they were delivered had to change, but the need didn't go away. It just moved around. People need stuff to do, so they don't stop and the wheel keeps moving.
Stopping the whole thing would take a massive psychological change where no one could agree on the relative value of goods and services anymore or if tangible asset holders which provide for basic needs decided to quit selling goods.
So shit could go down, and this somewhat depends on how "crash" is defined (stock market? Housing market? job market? How bad and to what degree?), but 7 billion people need something to do each day with their miserable and pathetic lives and are highly interdependent on each other.
I'd love to spend some time studying psychology and behavioral economics since I think that's the foundation of the study of all of this.
Hence the burgeoning dev of economis/psychology curricula and focus.
Since Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning is all the rage now I would love to consider those emerging capability in the construct of behavioral economics. -
It is certainly within the realm of possibility within my lifetim.FireCohen said:
