I find myself supporting an econ professor from Harvard. Maybe just the b school raises the well dressed thieves. What the hell do these students know? They think they know something because they facebook form their phone? There is nothing more basic or nothing which plays itself out over and over in business and life than Adam Smiths theories. here is a summary from wikipedia. The Wealth of Nations Main article: The Wealth of Nations There is a fundamental dissent between classical and neoclassical economists about the central message of Smith's most influential work: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Neoclassical economists emphasise Smith's invisible hand,[66] a concept mentioned in the middle of his work â book IV, chapter II â and classical economists believe that Smith stated his programme how to promote the "Wealth of Nations" in the first sentences. Smith used the term "the invisible hand" in "History of Astronomy"[67] referring to "the invisible hand of Jupiter" and twice â each time with a different meaning â the term "an invisible hand": in The Theory of Moral Sentiments[68] (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations[69] (1776). This last statement about "an invisible hand" has been interpreted as "the invisible hand" in numerous ways. It is therefore important to read the original: As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. [emphasis added]. Those who regard that statement as Smith's central message also quote frequently Smith's dictum:[70] It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. The first page of The Wealth of Nations, 1776 London edition Smith's statement about the benefits of "an invisible hand" is certainly meant to answer Mandeville's contention that "Private Vices ⦠may be turned into Public Benefits".[71] It shows Smith's belief that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society. Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and warned of their "conspiracy against the public or in some other contrivance to raise prices."[72] Again and again, Smith warned of the collusive nature of business interests, which may form cabals or monopolies, fixing the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers".[73] Smith also warned that a true laissez-faire economy would quickly become a conspiracy of businesses and industry against consumers, with the former scheming to influence politics and legislation. Smith states that the interest of manufacturers and merchants "...in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public...The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."[74] The neoclassical interest in Smith's statement about "an invisible hand" originates in the possibility to see it as a precursor of neoclassical economics and its General Equilibrium concept. Samuelson's "Economics" refers 6 times to Smith's "invisible hand". To emphasize this relation, Samuelson[75] quotes Smith's "invisible hand" statement putting "general interest" where Smith wrote "publick interest". Samuelson[76] concluded: "Smith was unable to prove the essence of his invisible-hand doctrine. Indeed, until the 1940s no one knew how to prove, even to state properly, the kernel of truth in this proposition about perfectly competitive market." And it was then when neoclassical economics was revived in Chicago from oblivion and Samuelson entered the scene. Very differently, classical economists see in Smith's first sentences his programme to promote "The Wealth of Nations". Taking up the physiocratical concept of the economy as a circular process means that to have growth the inputs of period2 must excel the inputs of period1. Therefore the outputs of period1 not used or usable as input of period2 are regarded as unproductive labour as they do not contribute to growth. This is what Smith had learned in France with Quesnay. To this French insight that unproductive labour should be pushed back to use more labor productively, Smith added his own proposal, that productive labor should be made even more productive by deepening the division of labor. Deepening the division of labor means under competition lower prices and thereby extended markets. Extended markets and increased production lead to a new step of reorganising production and inventing new ways of producing which again lower prices, etc., etc.. Smith's central message is therefore that under dynamic competition a growth machine secures "The Wealth of Nations". It predicted England's evolution as the workshop of the World, underselling all its competitors. The opening sentences of the "Wealth of Nations" summarize this policy: The annual labor of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes ⦠. [T]his produce ⦠bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it ⦠.ut this proportion must in every nation be regulated by two different circumstances; first, by the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which its labor is generally applied; and, secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed [emphasis added].[77]
Economics professors are not traders. Why do people on ET keeps getting economics confused with trading??
This is something Bill Gates supports. Either way it will have to compensate or people will have no education because Universities are going to shrink.
I always found it stupid to try and understand economics without learning simultaneously how to profit from it. They should relabel the learning of economics economic history. Many banks are full with 'economists' spouting terrible future market movement predictions but it does nothing to their reputation since they are economists and not traders so they say. Then why open your mouth in the first place....
You can find the opinion of the worlds leading experts about everything in 2 minutes on the internet. Why should that be inferior to a professor who derives most of his authority by his title alone...
Cool - so an astrophysicist is stupid to study planetary dynamics if he's never going to be an astronaut? This board is clearly dominated by 12 year olds.
an econ degree does not really focus on profits it focuses on think through systems. On top of that you learn there is no free lunch and that that marginal this equals marginal that
Not outside of that the required humanities course that spent about half of its time on marxism (you are talking about the the Crisis Theory that's usually associated with marxist economic theories, right?) Further, I'm going to guess you never got further in game theory than reading the wikipedia article on prisoner's dilemma and watching that russel crowe movie.