Economics knowledge dropped May 6, 2004 8:26 PM Subscribe
I nominate this thread for sidebar acknowledgement.
And a shoutout to Ethereal_Bligh and Gyan for some great and thoughtful answers. Respect to these n00bs!
posted by Lynsey at 8:56 PM on May 6, 2004
posted by Lynsey at 8:56 PM on May 6, 2004
Thanks for the compliment. As I say in a new comment where I correct something, I wrote those in something of a frenzy, and I should have been much more thoughtful and careful. But I got carried away.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 PM on May 6, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:18 PM on May 6, 2004
Shit, now money scares and confuses me. Thanks a lot. All this time I just knew I needed more of it if I was going to get more porn. Now I have to figure out.... math and stuff to get naked ladies.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:52 PM on May 6, 2004
posted by Stan Chin at 9:52 PM on May 6, 2004
Stan, if you're paying for porn you've got more to worry about than math and stuff. You need to seriously rethink this whole IntarWeb thing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:44 PM on May 6, 2004
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:44 PM on May 6, 2004
I'm not sure that last sentence fragment of Stan Chin refers to porn.
Or does it?
posted by Gyan at 11:39 PM on May 6, 2004
Or does it?
posted by Gyan at 11:39 PM on May 6, 2004
Stan. One word: USENET. (It's the new plastic.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 PM on May 6, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 PM on May 6, 2004
math and stuff to get naked ladies.
I'm not sure that last sentence fragment of Stan Chin refers to porn.
No indeed, I think he's referring to the lovely Amaryllis Belladonna
posted by freebird at 12:02 AM on May 7, 2004
I'm not sure that last sentence fragment of Stan Chin refers to porn.
No indeed, I think he's referring to the lovely Amaryllis Belladonna
posted by freebird at 12:02 AM on May 7, 2004
It's the beauty of AskMeFi that my dumb little questions can produce such massive and thoughtful answers only a few minutes later.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:10 AM on May 7, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:10 AM on May 7, 2004
Color me underwhelmed.
Mr. Bligh has his good points, and he certainly answers at length, but there is something more than a touch pedantic and rather condescending about the corrections of other people's answers. For example correcting blue mustard (who was paraphrasing the Fed on money creation) by saying: "bank lending does not increase the money supply as Pretty Generic understands the term 'money supply'." His knowledge of Pretty Generic's understanding of a technical term brought up in the discussion but not used in the question is remarkable.
Money is funny stuff; we may rattle coins around in our pockets, but most of our money has no physical presence -- it exists in our banks' computers and is exchanged as data between banks. I get paid by electronic deposit, I buy most things using a credit card, I settle my credit card bill electronically. If you believed in money as a physical thing none would have changed hands. The money supply is one step further removed from the physical, so anybody who talks of "money supply as a tangible entity" is either confused or spreading confusion.
I may know more about economics than I do about music but for my money Mr Bligh has come nowhere close to the standard set by chrismear's explanation of key.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 10:27 AM on May 7, 2004
Mr. Bligh has his good points, and he certainly answers at length, but there is something more than a touch pedantic and rather condescending about the corrections of other people's answers. For example correcting blue mustard (who was paraphrasing the Fed on money creation) by saying: "bank lending does not increase the money supply as Pretty Generic understands the term 'money supply'." His knowledge of Pretty Generic's understanding of a technical term brought up in the discussion but not used in the question is remarkable.
Money is funny stuff; we may rattle coins around in our pockets, but most of our money has no physical presence -- it exists in our banks' computers and is exchanged as data between banks. I get paid by electronic deposit, I buy most things using a credit card, I settle my credit card bill electronically. If you believed in money as a physical thing none would have changed hands. The money supply is one step further removed from the physical, so anybody who talks of "money supply as a tangible entity" is either confused or spreading confusion.
I may know more about economics than I do about music but for my money Mr Bligh has come nowhere close to the standard set by chrismear's explanation of key.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 10:27 AM on May 7, 2004
Quinbus Flestrin: For example correcting blue mustard (who was paraphrasing the Fed on money creation) by saying: "bank lending does not increase the money supply as Pretty Generic understands the term 'money supply'." His knowledge of Pretty Generic's understanding of a technical term brought up in the discussion but not used in the question is remarkable.
I can't speak for the OP, but from reading the questions, Bligh's assumptions seem reasonable.
posted by Gyan at 10:42 AM on May 7, 2004
I can't speak for the OP, but from reading the questions, Bligh's assumptions seem reasonable.
posted by Gyan at 10:42 AM on May 7, 2004
Hmm. Here we get to the heart of the difficulty in answering Pretty Generic's question.
Pretty Generic clearly knows very little about economics. He talks about money in a way that directly equivocates it with, for example, a dollar bill. He asks about printing money arbitrarily, etc. That tells you how he is thinking about money. If you say to him "money supply", he's going to think in those very concrete terms. This is the sense in which I said, "money as a tangible entity", but notice that in all cases I talk about money in electronic form—which, strictly speaking, isn't tangible. But, relative to what is being discussed when the technical term "money supply" is used, electronic money is still quite "tangible". Tangible was a poor choice of wording, I could have made the point more clearly.
Anyway, I tried to answer his question in those very simple terms, building from a foundation of very basic definitions and assumptions.
The problem I had with some of the other answers is that, to my intuition, they relied too greatly on presenting something like Econ 101 technical definitions and assuming they answered PG's question. I don't think that's helpful, and it's often very misleading. Here and in any other technical subject. I probably should have been more tactful in my attempt to clarify.
No, it's not of the quality of chrismear's explanation of key. I began my answer extremely casually, then got caught up in the moment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:06 PM on May 7, 2004
Pretty Generic clearly knows very little about economics. He talks about money in a way that directly equivocates it with, for example, a dollar bill. He asks about printing money arbitrarily, etc. That tells you how he is thinking about money. If you say to him "money supply", he's going to think in those very concrete terms. This is the sense in which I said, "money as a tangible entity", but notice that in all cases I talk about money in electronic form—which, strictly speaking, isn't tangible. But, relative to what is being discussed when the technical term "money supply" is used, electronic money is still quite "tangible". Tangible was a poor choice of wording, I could have made the point more clearly.
Anyway, I tried to answer his question in those very simple terms, building from a foundation of very basic definitions and assumptions.
The problem I had with some of the other answers is that, to my intuition, they relied too greatly on presenting something like Econ 101 technical definitions and assuming they answered PG's question. I don't think that's helpful, and it's often very misleading. Here and in any other technical subject. I probably should have been more tactful in my attempt to clarify.
No, it's not of the quality of chrismear's explanation of key. I began my answer extremely casually, then got caught up in the moment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:06 PM on May 7, 2004
I don't think the concepts are as difficult as you're making out. Take my question of whether putting money in a bank has the effect of multiplying it. Am I asking whether it causes new banknotes to magically appear? Unlikely. It's obvious to everyone that money can exist in non-physical forms, and that debts have to be repayed - I obviously phrased my questions very badly if I gave any other impression. But as I said, your answers were very well written and enlightening.
Anyhoo, my brain's all thinked out; I'm off to the dumpster to shoot rats with ma girl-cousin. (hic)
posted by Pretty_Generic at 12:58 PM on May 7, 2004
Anyhoo, my brain's all thinked out; I'm off to the dumpster to shoot rats with ma girl-cousin. (hic)
posted by Pretty_Generic at 12:58 PM on May 7, 2004
I don't think the concepts are as difficult as you're making out.
Neither do I. A general, hand waving sort of understanding is pretty accessible (a full understanding is the result of considerable study, but that's another matter). If the other responses had been filled with terms like velocity and M1 & M3, I might understand the urge to correct and simplify their statements, but that wasn't what was going on.
It wasn't a bad thread, and the responses were polite and helpful, if long winded, just not worth special notice in my opinion. Prolixity should not be cause for praise.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 1:37 PM on May 7, 2004
Neither do I. A general, hand waving sort of understanding is pretty accessible (a full understanding is the result of considerable study, but that's another matter). If the other responses had been filled with terms like velocity and M1 & M3, I might understand the urge to correct and simplify their statements, but that wasn't what was going on.
It wasn't a bad thread, and the responses were polite and helpful, if long winded, just not worth special notice in my opinion. Prolixity should not be cause for praise.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 1:37 PM on May 7, 2004
I wrote those in something of a frenzy, and I should have been much more thoughtful and careful.
Ethereal Bligh, IMO, it's your spontaneity which saves you from being insufferable. Please feed it. Take care of it. Exercise it. Keep the bottom of its cage well lined with lecture notes.
Continue to avoid ornamental recitation and Googlified ooze - those belong to blogs, undergraduates, and the chronically pre-literate. MetaFilter is where informed ad-lib comes to see how it looks on TV.
You did well here, and here too. You dance on the edge of pedantry, but so far and usually, your willingness to demonstrate that you don't know everything has kept your capering just north of condescension. You have surprised me. So, polish those shortcomings, fake them if you have to, and occasionally set them out where all of us can see them. It's fun to watch a brain work, even when its shoelaces are tied together and its pants are falling down. (Not that your brain ever evidences such vaudevillian vulnerabilities, of course.)
posted by Opus Dark at 1:45 PM on May 7, 2004
Ethereal Bligh, IMO, it's your spontaneity which saves you from being insufferable. Please feed it. Take care of it. Exercise it. Keep the bottom of its cage well lined with lecture notes.
Continue to avoid ornamental recitation and Googlified ooze - those belong to blogs, undergraduates, and the chronically pre-literate. MetaFilter is where informed ad-lib comes to see how it looks on TV.
You did well here, and here too. You dance on the edge of pedantry, but so far and usually, your willingness to demonstrate that you don't know everything has kept your capering just north of condescension. You have surprised me. So, polish those shortcomings, fake them if you have to, and occasionally set them out where all of us can see them. It's fun to watch a brain work, even when its shoelaces are tied together and its pants are falling down. (Not that your brain ever evidences such vaudevillian vulnerabilities, of course.)
posted by Opus Dark at 1:45 PM on May 7, 2004
When you're right, you're right, namespan. I blame the preview function - it should auto-delete pretentious drivel. Now go away and let my arthritic, painfully spontaneous comment peel off the wall and blow away.
posted by Opus Dark at 9:13 PM on May 8, 2004
posted by Opus Dark at 9:13 PM on May 8, 2004
I can't think of a way to ask the following question without the potential that it could offend you EB; I hope our previous comment exchanges have been enough to convince you that I ask this question with the utmost respect:
Out of curiosity are you employed by anyone at the moment? I ask this because you seem to have an awful lot of spare time available to you to read all of these threads and make your comments.
posted by snarfodox at 11:46 PM on May 8, 2004
Out of curiosity are you employed by anyone at the moment? I ask this because you seem to have an awful lot of spare time available to you to read all of these threads and make your comments.
posted by snarfodox at 11:46 PM on May 8, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by wendell at 8:52 PM on May 6, 2004