Jump to content

Any economists out there?


Zanarkin

Recommended Posts

I want to know how working age population contributes to economic grwoth...

I figured they get money and spend it... creating demand and such... but what else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bump, i put there, they get money, spend it, create demand, with more demand --> more jobs --> until demand evens out(...?)

Also, one more question with an aging population, what will happen to shelter needs? I'm supposed to predit what will happen with an aging population and shelter needs but i'm not entirely sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is and the answer is NO

speaking of economics can any economists out there explain how slayer is contributing nothing to society if all he is providing are someone else's answers, much like how buying a stock low and selling it high generates profit for the buyer but gets absofuckinglutely nothing done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A working age population is broad...besides what you said, there is also the perhaps somewhat slim possibility of members of the population becoming capitalists, using their money to buy tools and equipment and hire laborers to start a business. You also seem to have left out the goods and services they produce as they work in order to earn income.

Oh and there's also the possibility of household production, but supposedly that's pretty negligible, and most gets produced by the organized, business/corporate side of the private sector.

I'm not going to address the aging population question because not enough details are given, do you mean what will happen to shelter needs as a larger and larger proportion of the population becomes old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he is and the answer is NO

speaking of economics can any economists out there explain how slayer is contributing nothing to society if all he is providing are someone else's answers,

How does answering a question on homework contribute to society?

much like how buying a stock low and selling it high generates profit for the buyer but gets absofuckinglutely nothing done?

According to the efficient markets hypothesis, it's impossible to make money just by buying and selling stock (since it would be impossible to predict whether a stock would increase or decrease in value). Thus, markets must be inefficient... in other words, buying and selling stock and making a profit on it is ripping off other people who don't know what they're doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the efficient markets hypothesis, it's impossible to make money just by buying and selling stock (since it would be impossible to predict whether a stock would increase or decrease in value).

Actually, not quite. It would be impossible to make money by buying and selling stock, but for a different reason: the markets would so rapidly reprice assets to their correct values based on their change in fundamental value that you wouldn't be able to make a profit. It has nothing to do with being unable to predict the returns on a stock. The only reason the stock price would change would be as a result of information that leads to repricing, and it's not so much that the stock price would be unpredictable as that you'd be unable to profit off of knowing more than anyone else in the market.

Thus, markets must be inefficient... in other words, buying and selling stock and making a profit on it is ripping off other people who don't know what they're doing.

Wrong. I mean, you're right in that I agree that the stock market frequently involves ripping off people who don't know what they're doing. But you're wrong about how markets MUST be inefficient just because a hypothesis says they are. Profitable arbitrage probably occurs. Why? Information isn't perfect - we don't all get every single relevant datum of information that affects an asset's value. Some information isn't even true - companies fudge on the balance sheets, it's been known to happen.

In addition to this, there's another factor at play - there are many different ways of calculating the value of an asset. Even if you're focused solely on profits, and not on book value or ownership, the question is, do you look at profits? Or do you look at dividends? Generally, for the small-time investor who isn't able to command a controlling share, it's dividends, but if you're talking about organizational hierarchies, if you can command the kind of capital to take over a firm you might be able to glean profits rather than what the board of directors decides to throw your way. There are other questions to ask too. It's not as simple as you've painted it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...