 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Plotinus wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | I'd love to understand this better. Can you tell me where the 9 came from? |
In both cases we calculate the number of pairs out of ten in which at least one person of the two has nonzero money. (We can assume that the other person can provide a service for money if he/she has no money.) In the first case this is the number of distinct pairs among ten people. In the second case it is the number of pairs in which one member is the person with the 100 dollars. Since there are nine other people there are nine pairs. |
Thanks. I just needed to hear it twice I guess.
Now, you said before about weaker and stronger economies based on the number of possible transactions. I won't pretend to know much about economics, but doesn't the size of the transaction mean anything? Also, how about round 2 - after that one guy in scenario 2 spends an amount of money at any number of the possible 9 transactions he can make, then as many as all 10 people have money to do another round of transactions (which is sort of useless I guess, comparison-wise, because the same is true in scenario 1).
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Plotinus
Growing Lion
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 892
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Plotinus wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | I'd love to understand this better. Can you tell me where the 9 came from? |
In both cases we calculate the number of pairs out of ten in which at least one person of the two has nonzero money. (We can assume that the other person can provide a service for money if he/she has no money.) In the first case this is the number of distinct pairs among ten people. In the second case it is the number of pairs in which one member is the person with the 100 dollars. Since there are nine other people there are nine pairs. |
Thanks. I just needed to hear it twice I guess.
Now, you said before about weaker and stronger economies based on the number of possible transactions. I won't pretend to know much about economics, but doesn't the size of the transaction mean anything? Also, how about round 2 - after that one guy in scenario 2 spends an amount of money at any number of the possible 9 transactions he can make, then as many as all 10 people have money to do another round of transactions (which is sort of useless I guess, comparison-wise, because the same is true in scenario 1). |
Your comments are absolutely right. The transaction size is important, but it requires are more complex model to deal with this. Also, there is a round 2. etc. The basic principle though is that any dynamic system which is close to its boundary constraints will have often have less volatility than when it is far from its boundary. The model is close to its boundary when the Gini index is high. This corresponds to a limiting degenerate distribution for wealth.
It is important not to oversimplify things too much obviously. The amount of activity in the economy is dependent upon much more than the ability to make transactions. The other big issue is incentives. As the Gini index goes up you get close to the boundary and the ability to make transactions goes down. The result is a less dynamic economy. However, if the Gini index is too low there may be few incentives for people to make financial transactions. So that also leads to a less dynamic economy. One study I read about suggested that a Gini index of 25% is optimal. However, this is low on the standards of most countries. That would suggest that most countries have more disparity in wealth than they should.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1369
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
America hasn't always been a corporate welfare state. Once upon a time you guys believed in free market economics and capitalism. |
True..then the Robber Barons, the Depression, and FDR's New Deal resulted in a "modern" era of gov't intervention...will all it's "good" and "evils".
However, you understand in "those days" the poor were much poorer, the rich were much richer (or about the same) and most folks were subsistance farmers....now, the poor are much better off (in living conditions that I've already outlined), the middle class is larger and more fluid...the rich (or rather, wealthy) are about the same.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
The wiki quote |
I followed the footnote, the 2 quotes come from the same source...one directly quoted in the wiki and one from the source document...but the wiki source is the source of both quotes, so it's really 1 source you quoted twice....
The problem with the study is that the N or sample population was 1000 economists...only 264 responded...so they were a self selecting sample...that isn't a random sample and the N became polluted....it skews the data...that's why the ratio of Dem to Rep (self-reported) becomes significant...
in this case, I actually know what I'm talking about...it happened to me in my own social science MS program...
| P1234567890 wrote: |
And that's BEFORE Bush's economic policies really got going. Things are even more unequal now. |
now as one that is trying to climb that ladder...I understand the problem...the difference is that I think gov't intervention is NOT the solution to that particular problem. Luck, my efforts and abilities are the solution...gov't prohibitions from protectionist behavior is OK (anti-descrimination laws for example)....gov't financial redistribution = teh eeeeeevil. 
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Quoting economists is NOT socialist dogma! |
It is if they're socialists 
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1369
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
semi-related to what we're talking about....this from an article from Glenn Beck...I'm not a huge fan of him, but occassionally he has an interesting point:
"$14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy
And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made."
"Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact." by 2019 when it's expected that the Social Security pool will become insolvent...
He states the numbers in terms of time, since $53 Trilllion is incomprehensible to most of us...
"A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 32 years. A trillion seconds is 32,000 years. And 53 trillion seconds? 1.7 million years."
and you wonder why I'm against expanding social welfare programs? I'll never see 'em for one. The Dems promise universal health care...with a mandate (that'll be a tax)...and because of my income level, I'm sure I'll have cost shares, co-pays, etc, etc...because I'll be well above the cut-off...(God willing ) so I pay even more so some shmuck can have for free...no thanks.
oops..forgot to link to source.
_________________
Link to intro post of "who I am"
"Review for Doubting Christians"
Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastor2022
Moderator
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 718
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WOW!!! 53 TRILLION??? And to think...I'll be on SS in about 4-7 years. Glad I have something else to fall back on.
_________________
Faith is the confident obedience to the Word of God in spite of circumstances or consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
The problem with the study is that the N or sample population was 1000 economists...only 264 responded...so they were a self selecting sample...that isn't a random sample and the N became polluted....it skews the data...that's why the ratio of Dem to Rep (self-reported) becomes significant... |
Here you are absolutely right. This certainly does skew the sample, which means that it is no longer random.
(It does show that the conservative economists are pricks, though, since they were less likely to respond.)
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
I followed the footnote, the 2 quotes come from the same source...one directly quoted in the wiki and one from the source document...but the wiki source is the source of both quotes, so it's really 1 source you quoted twice.... |
Are you sure about that?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1369
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
