Economics courses do not teach how the economy works.

As Marx said, other issues intrude to affect price, like preference and desire. But in general and overall, prices reflect the labor in them. And I think you're misrepresenting "oil that comes out of the ground". There's more to the story that you haven't told.

 

The "story"... the value of something is the amount we're prepared to pay for it, period.

 

If you could defend libcommieism you would, and not make gibberish constantly. Why be here at all if you have nothing rational to say?

 

actually labor is 10-15% of for example a cars price. Surprise, wrong again but hey don't let that stop you, you should stay a typical liberal all your life.

 

That's not the whole story though. If a producer cannot make a profit on top of paying all other costs of production, the commodity would not be produced. In that case there won't be a price at all, yet any products left in inventory and unsold because of not being profitable will still have a value, and the value will be what the market would bear, which may result in a loss or be sold at cost. So what is "cost" in that case? It's the labor cost plus overhead which mostly reflects the cost of labor for the overhead too. So its labor plus labor plus labor....etc..... all adding up to "cost".

 

Kode isn't a liberal. He's a socialist.

 

If people or government on their behalf don't want to pay the cost of production, then whatever it is won't be created. That's true of any economic system.

The cost is labor, materials, storage, etc. A lot of products are sold at a loss because their value is less than the cost of production. Sometimes government or charities subsidize part or all of the cost and sometimes businesses make a mistake.

 

Where have you been?

 

OK.

 

That's true, he admitted being so in another thread.
It's one thing to be a socialist, but another to impose it upon everyone.

 

I can live with it when they believe in democracy and will tolerate being tossed out of office when people get tired of them. It's when they do what they've done in Venezuela I object.

 

What they've done in Venezuela was great until the US did it's little deed. Actually a very big deed covering decades and going deep into interference in the economy and politics of Venezuela. Do some research and find out what your government wants to hide from you about Venezuela by way of intense propaganda. Look into Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who recently returned from a trip to Venezuela. Look into American lawyer, Eva Golinger, who spent 3 years studying the US role in the development of the Venezuelan crisis. She used the FOIA to access government data. Here's a link. And I have more links where that one came from.

 

I can live with it at the local level of government, but State and/or Federal level is something else.

 

They undermined their democracy to cling to power. Democratic socialists like those in northern Europe don't behave that way.

Nothing justifies what they've done. Nothing.

They destroyed their economy with excessive spending when it was obvious oil prices wouldn't continue at more than $100-per-barrel oil.

 

It makes me nervous when it's at a national level.

 

Ok so you're blinded by the propaganda and you have no intention finding out what propaganda has been stuffed into your brain. Good luck.

I can't understand incurious people when an opportunity is put under their noses. Burrow into your brainwashing and have a nice sleep.

 

I'm "blinded" by having taught senior high school girls for more than three decades and my experience of seeing some of them hit on by older guys.

Yes, there are teen girls who can handle it, but most aren't ready emotionally.

You're supporting an amoral character for Senator.

 

See above. What Venezuela did was not okay because it radically expanded government spending in response to higher oil prices and then failed to reduce spending when prices fell and they could no longer afford the programs it initiated.

You're blaming the U.S. for Venezuela's economic mismanagement.

I suspect you also blame the U.S. for Venezuela's government undermining democracy in an effort to cling to power. As I said, "Nothing justifies what they've done. Nothing."

The rest of your post cited above is an ad hom attack.

 

liberals can't cut back after people become dependent on their welfare programs.

 

It's getting to the point even conservatives have a hard time cutting programs, in this country and abroad. Greece, for example, was wrecked by conservatives--not that liberals wouldn't have wrecked things, perhaps even more quickly, if they had been given the chance.

Norway took a lot of the money it received from North Sea oil and put it in a sovereign wealth fund. I don't know how they did it. Now, a country of 5m has $1t in their rainy day fund. This is one generation's gift to future Norwegians.

 

They aren't fools, they get paid.
It's their students who are the fools.

I don't know where he learned economics, Cambridge I expect. Same place he teaches it.
He's good at cliquing. I'll give him that.

What use was your university degree except to prepare you to teach the same thing in university. A self sustaining clique.
I don't want to teach economics in university, so no point studying it there.

Now, if Bill Gates is giving lessons, I'm all ears. School of life > Trinity College. I'll call your university degree and raise you one mansion.

 

University econ students are fools. Hohhhh-Kayyyyy.

Egads.

 

Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes were probably more important than Friedman, but there's no doubt Milton Friedman made a huge contribution to modern economics with his book (with Anna Schwartz), A Monetary History of the United States. Bernanke saved us 2008 and attributed his policies to Friedman.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Monetary_History_of_the_United_States

It's a bit disappointing to see you make so many fine comments about Friedman and spoil them with your bogus association of liberals with communism. Friedman was a proponent of the negative income tax and a guaranteed annual income. He had some misgivings about those programs in later life, but he would never confuse liberals an communists.

 

It's what we call a non degree.
It has no practical application.

Like philosophy. An entirely academic pursuit.

So an economics degree is worthless outside the fields of academia, politics or journalism.
A soft subject.
Given the price of education, I wouldn't recommend this one and certainly as an employer, I would be unimpressed to see this on you CV.

Outside of that, like philosophy and show business it's an interesting subject. Human behaviour. Trend spotting.

Academics like to argue the relative superiority of their own schools of thought. Austrian vs whoever.
Politicians like to argue that the indisputable science of economics supports their sending plans. And political journalists like to write about those spending plans.

None of which is socially productive or in any way useful outside of their specific cliques.

What best teaches you how the economy works?
Being a productive part of it.

School of life.

 

why bogus?? You forgot to say?? Our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb?? Hilary and Bernie endorsed each other thus they are libcommies.

Norman Thomas ( socialist presidential candidate)
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.