Economics question, really have no clue.?
a. i. Increase ii. G increases b. i. No change ii. C increases, NX decreases c. i. Increase ii. C increase d. i. No change ii. I increase, NX decrease
I really really need help economics!!?
A side effect of a price floor set above the equilibrium price is: A- the new price is below equilibrium price B- an excess of supply of the good is created. C- an excess demand for the good is created D- the supply of the good decreases E- the demand for the good increases ______ When a 2 percent increase in price generates a greater than 2 percent decrease in quantity demanded, then: A- demand is price inelastic B- total revenue increases C- demand is positively sloped D- demand is unit elastic E- total revenue decreases?
How hard is economics really?
Not as hard as the really hard disciplines.It is way “lighter” than medicine (but lets face it - everything is, there is not a single other field where you would HAVE TO simply memorize as much as in medicine - not learn, not understand, memorize)It is way less hard in qualitative terms than astrophysics.It way less structured than computer sciences.Yet, it is much harder than many people think.You DO have to memorize some things.You DO have to be able to do some a little bit more advanced math (no rocket science calculations, yet no simple additions either). And you DO have to UNDERSTAND what they mean.You do have to be able to create logical connections intuitively. This can be partly learned, but not everyone can really do that easily.The thing with economy is, that economy is like a puzzle. There are plenty of individual things. Every single one of them is relatively easy to learn and comprehend.There are things which behave contra-intuitively. For example 500.000 USD budget behaves very differently than “personal wallet size budget” of few thousand USD. Really - rules are different, debt works differently, money get their own value in time and so on. But this can be learned - in few terms, you get used for it really well (if you are not just dumb loser who tries to get the major by memorizing everything without understanding it).The real trick is to understand connections between the pieces of puzzle. And to predict the connections. To see connections which are not obvious on first sight. To be able to find a connection which goes through indirect domino of four other pieces of puzzle.There is no real textbook for that. You can see it and do it or you can’t. Some of us are intuitive and we can simple feel it. Others are more analytical and they can find it in numbers. So or so, what differentiates some memorizing nut from competent economist is not amount of knowledge or some kind of deep qualitative insight, but this talent of seeing connections where they are without making them up where they are not.And lots, lots and lots of detachment. Once you fell to the idea you do know the answer in advance or that some political or economical paradigm is the right one, you are lost - you might get a good job mummling what someone wants to hear, but that is not the same as being good economist. And sooner or later, this self-deception will force you make mistakes.
Economic help?
Alan is sitting in a bar drinking beers that cost $1 each. According to the economic decision rule, Alan will quit drinking when: A) the marginal benefit to him of an additional beer is < $1. B) the marginal cost to him of an additional beer is < marginal benefit. C) the marginal cost to him of an additional beer is > $1. D) the marginal benefit to him of an additional beer is > $1.
Is economics really a dismal science?
No its not. Just the opposite.The phrase "dismal science comes from Thomas Carlyle and his essay, "Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question". Carlyle wrote that economics was, "dreary, desolate and indeed a dismal science". To Carlyle economics was a subject that, "finds the secret of this universe in supply and demand and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting them alone". To Carlyle letting people alone was a bad thing.Here is an what Carlyle said to support his argument. "Look at the Black population. They are lazy and indolent and if you leave them alone they won't do any work. The first right of man for an indolent person is to be compelled to work and do the marker's will." To Carlyle economics was dismal because it did not recognize that God meant for White landowners to force Blacks to work, for their own moral good. To Carlyle it was the duty of the strong and wise to force the weak and lazy to work. In this was he was a Social DarwinistEvery economist should be proud that the famous economist John Stewart Mills responded to this assertion with an essay of his own. Mills said, "there is no moral merit to stupefying toil. The strong are not equal to the wise. They are just strong. Given a chance the poor are capable of managing their own lives and seeking out their own happiness as they see fit".That does not sound dismal to me.
Is economics really better than accounting?
For Transfer pricing, yes - economics is a better discipline than accounting.Accounting and auditing have rules that are applied to categorize, classify, and communicate financial information.Transfer pricing requires creating models and equations for a specific business model that will stand up to Tax Authorities and Legal Authorities. Economists are better trained at research and at creating models to justify the pricing. In my opinion, micro economists would be better at transfer pricing than macro economists.If you have a strong background in math and economics, you might be acceptable to the team. If you have any graduate research experience in economic modelling you might be able to convince the team that you are almost an economics analyst and there might be hope for you.I have enough background in international taxation and transfer pricing to know what is required in this area. I am a CPA with an undergraduate major in Economics. I know what I don’t know and I know that I would be better finding a different area than transfer pricing with my skill sets.
Should I continue studying economics when I'm really bad at mathematics?
In the first and second years of graduation we had two compulsory papers of mathematics and statistics along with the theoretical papers. But in the last year we were to choose b/w either mathematics/statistics (economics related) or agricultural economics. A lot of my classmates who were not great at mathematics chose mathematics as their special paper just to ensure they get good marks in the last year. I took agricultural economics as my special paper because I, too, was afraid of taking mathematics but now I regret it. So I took mathematics in my masters and did quite well.What I am trying to say is that it is all about understanding. Don’t get afraid easily and make a judgement that You will not be able to do it. I thought like that too. Economics with mathematics is scoring as well as it is going to help in great deal in your future.But still I would suggest you to invest some of your own time in testing your ability in mathematical economics. Ask an expert or your teacher face-to-face who has a great deal of knowledge in this field.All the Best!!!