http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/the-...-the-multiplier

Under this logic, one possible remedy is for public spending to take the place of private spending. As government increases its spending, the money creates new employment. That, in turn, spurs those new workers to consume more and prompts businesses to buy more machines and equipment to meet the government-induced demand. Economists call this increase in aggregate income the “multiplier” effect. One dollar of government spending, the theory goes, ends up creating more than a dollar of new income. It’s a rare free lunch.

I'm reminded of sitting through my macro econ lectures and the formulas for determining a multiplier effect. In theory, the Government multiplier is bigger.

But then we don't live in a classroom...

It all depends on the MPC, though.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


"mutliplier effect". Now THIS merits Sheik coming in and telling everyone economics is not science.

The mutliplier effect is an unproven miracle in which the government takes people's money and runs it through a costly bureaucracy before distributing it to those, in its infinite wisdom, it deems worthy somehow having a superior impact on the economy compared to never taking the money out of the private sector in the first place and elminating the costly bureaucracy.

Yeah, but dude!

It's a "Multiplier". That's sounds shiny and really smart.

I'm not smart enough to figure it out. But, the gubmint says it's good.

Economics is not a science.

Econs inherently behave and decide irrationally. Put that in your econometrics equation and get back to me on what the "answer" is.

Yes it is.

Economists disagree with you. But these are always fun little pointless arguments to watch unfold. Because, frankly, you'd have no fucking clue whatsoever if it was, or wasn't.

Compelling argument.

Tell me more.

Something JG or Space should add to their reading list.... http://www.coxmoor.com/economicsbook.html

"I made the observation a few days ago on this blog that economics is not a science. Some from the right have, predictably, argued to the contrary.

Unfortunately, their arguments do not hold water...." http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/12...mics-a-science/

Of course, Maxwell. ;)

"Social Science"

Look it up, read about it, pause to consider what it means, reread a few more times, sleep on it. Repeat the process the next day with a clear mind. Apply to the field of economics and compare to other "sciences". Thanks

During sheiks busy day of being a disgruntled peon in a finance department lurking in his cubicle, he found something shiny that fed his misguided anger at his chosen profession. Sheik shared it with his sole source of social contact, this board, and naturally NOIP immediately latched on without a thought.

you make me laugh when you attempt to project strength.

Strong language won't conceal the fact that you're a known dumbass.

Climatology is a science, though!

:spaz: :spaz: :spaz:

Indeed. Debating whether economics is science or not is silly. It is a social science with highly unscientific areas and some that are highly scientific. Pretty much everyone can point out areas they disagree with and don't believe to be real science but that applies to every field, especially social sciences and to a lesser extent even the natural sciences.

It's laughable when the entire field of "economics" is condemned because of its modern portfolio theory and free markets. Meanwhile every economic theory from marxism to Keynesian economics are included in that condemnation.

Even more absurd is criticizing the shift to more quantitative approaches. While these approaches often are verifiably wrong when taken out of a vaccuum, they consequently make the field MORE scientific by allowing more accurate testing and measurement. The increasing ability to identify bad theories or weaknesses in theories is not an indication of a lack of "real" scientific study. If anything, the quants growing dominance has strengthened the scientific basis of economics by shifting it away from the subective, not easily tested and lacking analysis that plague other social sciences.

Heavy hitting.

And managed to avoid demonstrating how economics is a science.


Never make an argument bottom feeder.

Provide some examples of "highly scientific areas" of economics.

That you don't understand is not anyone's fault but your own. Keep lashing out though, it underpins your naivety.

Supply and demand!! Fool proof.