✚ relate to nothing ✚

nzbabygirl:

universalequalityisinevitable:

David Suzuki in this interview about facing the reality of climate change and other environmental issues from Moyers & Company.

So much yes.

Sorry but i have to rebutt his claim that free markets are man made and can be changed. Sure they are manmade, but they are made NATURALLY because of the rational behaviour of human beings. We all live to maximise our utilities and cost minimise. There are reasons why we want to buy certain products over others, due to our incomes and preferences. Rationally we would not spend more for something you can get for less, and we can’t spend over our budget sets. You might say but the income system is manmade, true but how company draft salary contracts are based on the individual costs/benefits of a worker in exerting effort, hence another human factor. Civilisations existed tens of thousands of years ago, and even then when people didn’t know what economics was there were already markets. You can’t stop technology from expanding, and with it comes a bigger effect of the ‘invisible hand of capitalism’ which is unavoidable. So if we want to change the darn thing, we have to stop being human beings first. 

just stared at this shit for like 10mins. still cannot see the lines.

just stared at this shit for like 10mins. still cannot see the lines.

found out today my econ prof is on the same level of fame as Paul Krugman

sadkjfsd’ljfdfsja’sdjfa’lsjdfas’dljfalsdjflsdjfa’fslj HERO WORSHIP

omfg economics

i just read this:

"Concerns about equity, fairness, responsibility, duty, self-image, etc. plat as big a role as individual optimization and personal gain."

and in economic terms, we live and function to maximise our utilities or ‘happiness’ or ‘personal gain’.

so that means, we naturally NEED to worry about equity, fairness, duty and self image. it’s not a choice. WE WERE MADE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM.

wow

dear violetotaku

Thank you so much for your informative answer!

However S’s are not spending anything on labour, as they are saving and investing all their income. 

What I think from an economic perspective, is that since labour and capital are both supplied (though by different parties), the economy has its factor inputs in order to operate. Therefore economically, everything is good. Since the question explains no changes/shocks in amount of L and K, I am assuming that the economy is functioning at the Golden Rule steady state (Solow model of growth), where C’s enjoy maximum consumption per worker, where the workers are the C’s themselves as they supply all the labour. Since the S’s had to give a fraction of their income to the C’s, who then spends it rather than saves it, the savings rate will drop, hence shifting back the steady state level of capital stock, decreasing their consumption and their income (or GDP per capita). This means that current C’s are well off, but for future C’s, when they arrive at the new steady state they will be worse off than initially. However this is of course talking about a change in savings rate ceteris paribus.

Well that’s what I wrote for my answer after hours of thinking… hopefully it will score something! Thanks anyway :)

Isomorphismes: How did the Zebra get its Stripes?

isomorphismes:

This has confused me ever since I learned about evolution.

As Mr. Shepherd explained it to me in the second grade, zebras are hard to kill because, when the zeal runs, their collective stripes make it hard for a predator to visually pick out an individual zebra to tackle.

So the benefit of…

just finished economics exam! whoop!

answered the first question on patents, unbranded products to consumers, government policies to promote competition between firms and firms’ reactions to threat of new entry.

relatively pleased with my paper. but for the last question (part d) i assumed that you could pick any market and talk about the different reactions to threat of entry. well in the end i picked the healthcare market like they suggested, and wrote about firms’ behaviour for a monopolistically competitive market. i reckoned it would be monopolistically competitive because of slightly differentiated products, overall quite homogeneous goods (each type of drug will still use the same ingredients and have the same effects no matter with brand), rather good market knowledge and transparency (the article said that the patent set out on RB ended in 1999), and the fact that all products were targetted to the same group of consumers (in the case consumers of all gender, age groups, interests because everyone can get ill).

sooooo.

i chose for the resulting behaviourial changes as: becoming more cost and price competitive, develop other objectives other than profit maximising such as sales revenue max (of course to do with the short run), short run limit pricing and possible vertical integration.

BUT i wrote so little for my 4th point (vertical integration) it was literally not worth even mentioning it! TT

HOPEFULLY my part c made up for it……

hyper-inflation
100 Trillion Zimbabwenean Dollars

hyper-inflation

100 Trillion Zimbabwenean Dollars

this is absolutely SPOT ON and the best thing that’s happened to me in a while :D