Economist: How can you possibly accept macro-economics?

Answer 1

Good point, if I can turn cash in to goods, why is there still cash?

Answer 2

Depends on what strain of ideas you're looking upon. I've heard it said that we wouldn't need macroeconomics if microeconomists were doing their job. I think that's true to a large extent, hence the surge in behavioral foundations theory being added to the base of knowledge.

Macroeconomics as most people understand it is intentionally vague because of the abstract and highly complex nature of the theory - it would chase away anyone who is taking it as an elective.

The core of macro theory goes far beyond Keynes, Friedman, Smith, Hayek, all of them put together. Fed projections are based upon highly detailed Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models that require microprocessors (think Cray supercomputers) to run, and include institutional elements of behavior (ie, financial market responses to interest rate changes, consumer responses to loosened credit restrictions, labor responses in job search times to changes in unemployment insurance and prices of basic commodities).

For the reasons of depth, breadth, and statistical applicability, I can accept macro... with a grain of salt.

Answer 3

ROFLMAO

My translation of "The Wealth of Nations" is superior to yours. What? It was originally written in English? This is some form of Devil's trick!! I do not believe in the multiplier effect!! It is only a theory. Charles Laffer has misinterpreted Scripture or elasticity or something!

Answer 4

Because they absolutely worship John Maynard Keynes...what he says goes...

Answer 5

What Barbara and Silverbirch said, I think.
I Cr 13;8a

Answer 6

INTERDEPENDENCE

MICRO DEPENDENT UPON THE MACRO
AND MACRO DEPENDENT UPON THE MICRO?
MAN NEEDS WOMAN BOTH NEED SOCIAL STATUS/STRUCTURE

Answer 7

There you go---educating me again.