074 605 600
srinagarind.panya@gmail.com
109 ม.9 ต.บ้านนา อ.ศรีนครินทร์ จ.พัทลุง
ช่องทางติดต่ออื่น:

XQLOhQDaCqBAOxxB

กำลังดู 1 ข้อความ - 1 ผ่านทาง 1 (ของทั้งหมด 1)
  • ผู้เขียน
    ข้อความ
  • #104106 Reply
    Isabella

    Deprecated: คำสั่ง wp_make_content_images_responsive นี้ถูกเลิกใช้ตั้งแต่รุ่น 5.5.0! เป็นต้นมา กรุณาเปลี่ยนไปใช้ wp_filter_content_tags() แทน in /home/srihospi/domains/srinagarindhosp.net/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4774

    I went to http://chandra-profile.com/coopharmacoop-5113.pdf#manifest mercury.mednet-tech.com Good set of responses, and while I agree with the spirit of much of what you say, I think it is necessary to make the arguments from a tougher position (which to be fair to the authors is the original thrust of their article, although they don’t execute it well at all): do the authors misrepresent what is taught in Econ 101 classes/texts? So defenses such as, “behavioral economics obviously show that this claim in incorrect” or “epistemological debates in economics show that we don’t all agree that it is a science.” Still, there’s plenty problematic about the article: as you mentioned, disagreement among economists about minimum wages/among climate scientists about the speed of global warming does not mean that the discipline is any less scientific, and no Econ 101 text ever claims that the economy is comprised of only markets (if anything, it is the other way round). Myth5 that Econ 101 claims profitable activities are good but market power being bad (Myth 6) are inconsistent, since supernormal profits typically accrue only to those with market power, after all. Even Econ 101 acknowledges Stolper-Samuelson-type redistributive effects of trade, and in any case the authors confound overall gains from trade with within-country losses (Myth 10). When economists argue that prices reflect value (Myth 4), they are not arguing for a free market, merely that they reflect, in part, the distribution of willingness to pay in a market, as captured by a demand curve (and incidentally Econ 101 doesn’t say prices reflect ONLY value, which omits the supply side; it reflects where cost and value meet). And I’m unaware of any principle *econ* texts that make bold claims such as “industrial policy is good/bad” (other disciplines are another matter). They often say *distortions* are often bad (which is generally true), but there is a world of difference between acknowledging the problem of a distortion and corrective policy (any economist writing about policy has in his/her head second-best problems that may be introduced).

  • ผู้เขียน
    ข้อความ
  • #104106 Reply

    Isabella

      Notice: Undefined variable: reply_id in /home/srihospi/domains/srinagarindhosp.net/public_html/wp-content/plugins/bbpress-new-ui/inc/online-status/online.php on line 35
    • Offline

    Deprecated: คำสั่ง wp_make_content_images_responsive นี้ถูกเลิกใช้ตั้งแต่รุ่น 5.5.0! เป็นต้นมา กรุณาเปลี่ยนไปใช้ wp_filter_content_tags() แทน in /home/srihospi/domains/srinagarindhosp.net/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 4774

    I went to http://chandra-profile.com/coopharmacoop-5113.pdf#manifest mercury.mednet-tech.com Good set of responses, and while I agree with the spirit of much of what you say, I think it is necessary to make the arguments from a tougher position (which to be fair to the authors is the original thrust of their article, although they don’t execute it well at all): do the authors misrepresent what is taught in Econ 101 classes/texts? So defenses such as, “behavioral economics obviously show that this claim in incorrect” or “epistemological debates in economics show that we don’t all agree that it is a science.” Still, there’s plenty problematic about the article: as you mentioned, disagreement among economists about minimum wages/among climate scientists about the speed of global warming does not mean that the discipline is any less scientific, and no Econ 101 text ever claims that the economy is comprised of only markets (if anything, it is the other way round). Myth5 that Econ 101 claims profitable activities are good but market power being bad (Myth 6) are inconsistent, since supernormal profits typically accrue only to those with market power, after all. Even Econ 101 acknowledges Stolper-Samuelson-type redistributive effects of trade, and in any case the authors confound overall gains from trade with within-country losses (Myth 10). When economists argue that prices reflect value (Myth 4), they are not arguing for a free market, merely that they reflect, in part, the distribution of willingness to pay in a market, as captured by a demand curve (and incidentally Econ 101 doesn’t say prices reflect ONLY value, which omits the supply side; it reflects where cost and value meet). And I’m unaware of any principle *econ* texts that make bold claims such as “industrial policy is good/bad” (other disciplines are another matter). They often say *distortions* are often bad (which is generally true), but there is a world of difference between acknowledging the problem of a distortion and corrective policy (any economist writing about policy has in his/her head second-best problems that may be introduced).

กำลังดู 1 ข้อความ - 1 ผ่านทาง 1 (ของทั้งหมด 1)
ตอบกลับไปยัง: XQLOhQDaCqBAOxxB

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

ข้อมูลของคุณ:




ข้ามไปยังทูลบาร์