as if it never meant anything to me. but you did
i loved mrs brazill for believing that what she did mattered. i loved casual letters. i loved being able to play and dabble in an arena that would in usual circumstances eat stupid little girls like me up--i'm speaking of the forum and realm of academia. like a playing ground, playing and being in awe but not having my hand burned in the fire. magic safety shields. i love experimenting. i do.
no academia for me.
i agree with stan. i'll take cookies with macademia nuts, and silliness, any day.
period 9
I have such an urge to start with the lecture “Is Globalization A Good Thing?” because it was the most interesting part of the program for me. Dr. Mitchell’s graphs seemed staggering. I’m not sure, though, if they aren’t at all inflated--visual “proof” or indicators so strong make me a bit suspicious. I’m considering asking Mrs. Fuerst what she thinks, since we did a project earlier this year on deceptive graphs. Actually I was pleased to see how economics and statistics held hands, what with the linear regressions etc. as evidence for Dr. Mitchell’s point. I wasn’t aware that there was such a strong correlation, and perhaps even causal relationship, between our interdependence ratio and the growing “unevenness” in the distribution of income. I’m also confused as to whether global price equalization is always a negative element. I appreciated Dr. Mitchell’s question at the end of the lecture concerning why people assume an uneven distribution of wealth is negative. It was refreshing to seek an answer to why it is “bad” in a positive (economic-positive, not subjective-positive) light. Her strong point was that crime rates rise. I think it’s very interesting that people appear to be more upset when they aren’t doing as well as their neighbors--even if everyone is doing somewhat better than usual--than when there is a recession. I suppose that’s where psychology enters the picture. As for politics, I wonder if everyone would agree that supply side economics are still being implemented in policies today--I was under the impression that wasn’t as large an issue as it was in the 1980s. Then again, we live in America, the home of Bill Gates. I’m not sure how government views him, actually.
Which brings me to the first lecture, by Dr. Malin. Are you at all skeptical of his assertion that the Fed’s policy never discriminates between rich and poor? I don’t know enough yet to know for certain if that’s true or not, and I’m not sure which policy would be better (trying to help the most people for the longest period of time, regardless of those categories, or looking at the categories to attempt to spot the problem areas). As for the idea that the Fed’s job is not to make everyone well off financially, but rather help maintain conditions conducive to growth and stability, that simply makes sense.
We’ve already learned in class that inflation is better for borrowers than lenders. I’m a little confused about whether inflation specifically hurts “the most vulnerable individuals and households in our society” or not. Is this because as prices rise, the poorest don’t receive the increases in wages to keep up with inflation?
This is just me on a soapbox: the anecdote about the college official who explained why college costs are rising disgusted me! I know that’s normative, but ick! I know, I know--there’s a demand for this education, and they know it, so it makes sense to put a higher “value” on it--but still! Ick. Grr.
The lecture on the role of public policy and our income distribution was a little disorienting. Though, I’d like to investigate the economist he spoke of, Gary Becker. The mathematics of finding the “factors that explain how much money an individual can make in the labor market” were a little strange to me--I’m too amused when people make equations for common-sense sentences (I’m not criticizing it or questioning its validity; I just think it’s funny, that’s all) like “take their education, aptitude, social standing, and experience, and taking into account the overall level for finding a job (that would be where slope comes in), the sum of those plus their uncertainty gives you their factors for finding a job.”
no academia for me.
i agree with stan. i'll take cookies with macademia nuts, and silliness, any day.
period 9
I have such an urge to start with the lecture “Is Globalization A Good Thing?” because it was the most interesting part of the program for me. Dr. Mitchell’s graphs seemed staggering. I’m not sure, though, if they aren’t at all inflated--visual “proof” or indicators so strong make me a bit suspicious. I’m considering asking Mrs. Fuerst what she thinks, since we did a project earlier this year on deceptive graphs. Actually I was pleased to see how economics and statistics held hands, what with the linear regressions etc. as evidence for Dr. Mitchell’s point. I wasn’t aware that there was such a strong correlation, and perhaps even causal relationship, between our interdependence ratio and the growing “unevenness” in the distribution of income. I’m also confused as to whether global price equalization is always a negative element. I appreciated Dr. Mitchell’s question at the end of the lecture concerning why people assume an uneven distribution of wealth is negative. It was refreshing to seek an answer to why it is “bad” in a positive (economic-positive, not subjective-positive) light. Her strong point was that crime rates rise. I think it’s very interesting that people appear to be more upset when they aren’t doing as well as their neighbors--even if everyone is doing somewhat better than usual--than when there is a recession. I suppose that’s where psychology enters the picture. As for politics, I wonder if everyone would agree that supply side economics are still being implemented in policies today--I was under the impression that wasn’t as large an issue as it was in the 1980s. Then again, we live in America, the home of Bill Gates. I’m not sure how government views him, actually.
Which brings me to the first lecture, by Dr. Malin. Are you at all skeptical of his assertion that the Fed’s policy never discriminates between rich and poor? I don’t know enough yet to know for certain if that’s true or not, and I’m not sure which policy would be better (trying to help the most people for the longest period of time, regardless of those categories, or looking at the categories to attempt to spot the problem areas). As for the idea that the Fed’s job is not to make everyone well off financially, but rather help maintain conditions conducive to growth and stability, that simply makes sense.
We’ve already learned in class that inflation is better for borrowers than lenders. I’m a little confused about whether inflation specifically hurts “the most vulnerable individuals and households in our society” or not. Is this because as prices rise, the poorest don’t receive the increases in wages to keep up with inflation?
This is just me on a soapbox: the anecdote about the college official who explained why college costs are rising disgusted me! I know that’s normative, but ick! I know, I know--there’s a demand for this education, and they know it, so it makes sense to put a higher “value” on it--but still! Ick. Grr.
The lecture on the role of public policy and our income distribution was a little disorienting. Though, I’d like to investigate the economist he spoke of, Gary Becker. The mathematics of finding the “factors that explain how much money an individual can make in the labor market” were a little strange to me--I’m too amused when people make equations for common-sense sentences (I’m not criticizing it or questioning its validity; I just think it’s funny, that’s all) like “take their education, aptitude, social standing, and experience, and taking into account the overall level for finding a job (that would be where slope comes in), the sum of those plus their uncertainty gives you their factors for finding a job.”