Do you know what economists do?
Let’s assume an economist does know how to create a job. Why would that mean they are an entrepreneur? Why would they not work for an established company? Or local/state/federal government to consult on their economic plan?
Ya…
I’ve actually considered a Masters in Applied Economics for what I do in the private sector. For some reason, people tend to think economists sit in a government office and just project GDP.
The research machine usmcc is quick with his google fingers.
Based on that list, I don’t see anything that leads to starting a company, unless the company is an independent consulting firm for economic analysts, which in my mind is less of a “company” and more of an individual. But I digress. There is no logic that means if an economist knows how to create job he will be an entrepreneur.
For all the blabbering about discrediting sources, that is exactly what you (raj) did, with little evidence to back it up other than “they aren’t entrepreneurs so they must not know what they’re talking about.” I haven’t seen any analysis that shows Trump’s economic plan as anything other than a disaster. Any by the looks of things, we’ll never have to realize it. Too bad Clinton is in the same boat.
Ya, I just assumed theraj meant private sector and not specifically an entrepreneur. We deal with actuary’s that have started their own practices a few times a year. You can certainly be an entrepreneur and an economist, but it’s not as typical as it is with other professions.
Absolutely agree. But if you are not an entrepreneur and are an economist, that doesn’t mean you have no idea what you’re doing. I don’t agree with raj’s litmus test for credibility.
Yup, totally agree. It’s sort of like the adage about teachers. “If you can’t do, teach.” That may be true for some, but, like most generalizations, is wrong more times than not. Many of my accounting professors at the undergrad and graduate level have extensive work experience including starting their own firms. Many of them run a firm and teach concurrently.
Back to the original topic. I agree with TB. Avoid the chest thumping us vs. them mentality. One of the best political debators I know always finds the common ground before engaging. The Sean Hannity’s of the world do the opposite by immediately polorizing the situation, where people only get defensive.
The best source I’ve found for both sides is Real Clear Politics. You can find a pro-Clinton article directly above an anti-Clinton article for almost every situation.
I also like coming to places like here, where you can challenge your ideas. Similar to what we talked about in the “change your mind” thread, when discussing I prefer to not pretend I have all the answers but put the idea out there to see if it is credible or not. I’m always amazed at how people don’t change their minds even when there is a mountain of evidence against their position. That usually happens when the discussion gets personal and the perspective is not to learn or discuss, but to defend.
Finally, I would say to be able to back up everything with facts. Understand that people selectively pick facts to fit their agenda. Try to go to the source and get a better understanding, or (usually quicker), read the opposite opinion using those same facts. It’s always interesting to see how a “fact” can be used to support editorials of both sides, but try to see what opinion is more reasonable and go from there.
The bulk of economists work in academia.
They’d be entrepreneurs creating jobs because that’s where the money is.
That I couldn’t say. Someone like Hannity is a Trump apologist because he has put winning above all else. He put his principles aside, ignores that Trump is a progressive and just was the guy with an R next to his name to win. Molyneux, who is a free market guy and somewhat libertarian, supports a progressive and I’m not sure why. According to Raj it’s “because he can change stuff.” Well okay that’s great. His changes don’t really line up with what Molyneux has been preaching so what gives?
That’s it? That’s your logic?
I think big businesses (non-entrepreneur led companies) and government disagree, but I don’t see any point in following this to its conclusion.
Because he also believes demographics is destiny. If Clinton wins, Mass immigration + amnesty continues America is done and so is Canada through interdependence with America
Yes that’s the basic fundamentals of economics. Incentives shape people’s decision making
No, that’s really not true…
What are you even talking about? we weren’t talking about incentives.
Edit: Under your assumption that money is only in entrepreneurship, the incentive of an economist would be to enter that field. I am not challenging that, I am challenging your orginal assumption that money is only in entrepreneurship. Follow now?
You made a statement saying all the money is in entrepreneurship, which is not even remotely close to being true. Do you need me to cite government funding on the local, state, and federal level to show that money and jobs exist elsewhere?
The last amnesty was signed by… A Republican.
?
Incentives shaping decision making is a results control and nothing more.
The very basis of Capitalism is Supply and Demand and the private sector has a significant demand for economists. So too does the public sector and academia. Saying economists only work in academia or the public sector is short sighted.
Two things, I am guessing:
He buys into the Raj theory in that he’s a racist bigot who only thinks only Caucasians are worthy of and able to enjoy Liberty, but we can’t very well have Libertopia with all these damn non-whites around, so step one is to use the powers of the anti-constitutional autocrat to clean house and get the non-whites out of the country to establish the conditions for Libertopia.
Molyneux senses that there are a lot of gullible, uninformed, naive, confused, and therefore vulnerable, people who (for those reasons) follow Trump (these people are the natural base for political strongman cults) and Molyneux considers them easy targets to convince to buy into his philosophy and, most importantly, his revenue-generating cult. Thus, supporting Trump is his marketing strategy.
That isn’t how it works. Allied intelligence services share information relevant to each other and compare notes where investigations overlap. British intelligence doesn’t come audit the USIC’s assessment of goings-on within its own borders. But you’ll be very happy to know that one of the most compelling pieces of evidence available to the public is a tool used in the DNC hack that was attributed by the German BND to Russian military intelligence, which hacked the Bundestag.
Mostly, though, I’ll take this as your most revealing answer:
No. Not only is “all the money” NOT exclusively in entrepreneurship, but incentives take multiple forms based on what is most important to an individual. This would be like saying if scientists really knew anything they’d go start a drug company themselves. Firstly, drug companies aren’t the only source or field for “scientists”, which is a hugely heterogeneous pool to begin with, and secondly many scientists incentives do not revolve around money—they revolve around figuring things out, discerning new knowledge, and/or solving problems and thinking.
This is exactly the same as economists, who have multiple different incentives based on what they consider most important to them: money, knowledge, problem solving, time with family, freedom to travel, teaching, etc.
It is completely asinine to try to fit everybody in the same mold, which is what you seem to do all the time. The very nature of an incentive is that it will be different based on what an individual values most.
Yup. Many economists just want to contribute meaningful works. Their paycheck is secondary.
This is my biggest problem with theraj. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, but his view of the world is so restricting. There are very few things in life that are black/white, right/wrong, moral/immoral, etc… Almost everything is a matter of degree and perspective.
