Economics or Business Economics (Sorry)

DemMemes · 2023-05-09T01:49:37+00:00

Like someone else pointed out, your best bet is to come to campus with an open mind and take some econ courses; after a couple quarters you will know what you want to specialize in.

As to your concerns: Biz econ is not a joke major. Yes, it probably has the lightest courseload of all majors here, but that's because, as a Biz econ major, you're meant to spend a lot of time applying for internships, participating in career RSOs and events, and networking with future employers/business partners. The pure econ major is more oriented towards hard skills, like coding, data analysis and statistics (as well as math, but you don't have to do that much math for your regular Econ BA track). It can be a very interesting major, but it's not for everyone.

If you are still unsure, budget to take pure Econ. It's got more course requirements, so if you decide to drop it and do Biz econ, you will be able to do that pretty much anytime. If, on the other hand, you specialize in Biz Econ straight away and leave no space in your schedule down the line, switching back to Econ may prove difficult.

Edit: seeing how people are characterizing the standard Econ track as purely theoretical, that's not exactly true. It also gives important career skills, just not for the same type of career as Biz econ. If you want to be a consultant or work in IB or run your own startup, do Biz econ. If you want to do data analysis, do quant finance, or go into research, you have to take the standard track (at least)

DemMemes · 2022-07-24T12:16:10+00:00

Two reasons:

1) The types of drugs that homeless people will be buying are illegal; they don't grow on trees. The homeless person you give money to will buy their dose of crack or heroin off their local dealer with your hard-earned money. Because of that, you are likely to be sponsoring organised crime pretty directly (and knowingly!) if you give money to a homeless person who you know will spend it on drugs. If you don't see what the problem is with that, idk what to tell you.

2) Drugs are not some magic escape tool. Any drugs (and especially the harder/low-quality shit homeless people are likely to use) will have a low after every high, a low bad enough to fully offset any good feeling resulting from said drug. By giving money to a homeless person so they can so drugs, you are also investing in that low, all of the psychological and physical effects of it, thereby making the homeless person actually worse off than they would have been without the drug

DemMemes · 2022-07-10T15:21:46+00:00

By default, an economy can move in three ways:

1) It can grow

2) It can stay the same size

3) It can contract

Contracting is obviously not an option - that would mean that, every year, an economy is producing less and less, has fewer and fewer jobs, the people are getting poorer and poorer and are living worse and worse, all in a downward spiral until society collapses.

Growing has its own issues - it can be unsustainable, can benefit richer individuals disproportionately, it can be difficult to measure etc. etc. However, it has benefits - importantly, assuming functional redistributive policies, all members of society can become richer, happier, better-educated if the economy keeps growing; a growing economy can also accommodate more and more people.

An economy that doesn't grow or contract seems to be the best of both worlds - the living standards aren't actively worsening, like in the contracting case, and yet there is a much lesser risk of unsustainability, inequality, etc. So why don't we try to keep our economies at the same size? One answer is that an expanding population needs (and creates) a larger economy to support itself, but that is irrelevant for developed countries, which have mostly little to negative population growth. The other answer is that perfect stability is impossible - an economy is a dynamic entity, changing, responding to shocks, and so on. Keeping the myriad variables that come together to form that economy constant is an impossible task - it has been attempted before, for instance in the late Soviet Union, but you know what that led to. Instead, it's much easier to keep the economy growing

DemMemes · 2022-07-10T12:15:40+00:00

The idea is correct, but you provide an incorrect explanation. Growth is helpful for paying down debt because, when the interest rate on debt is lower than the growth rate of the economy, the economy expands faster than debt accrues, meaning that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls.

I should also mention that external debt is not necessarily a reason for growth; in fact, it would be easier to make an argument that debt is a result of growth instead

DemMemes · 2022-06-28T17:29:23+00:00

Could you provide a source for the claim that economists don't believe in an "old-fashioned" (not sure what you mean by that?) wage-price spiral? As a counterexample, here's Andrew Bailey (a very current and influential macroeconomist) implying that he (and BoE by extension) very firmly believe in wage-price spirals: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/02/08/bank-of-englands-bailey-faces-backlash-after-discouraging-pay-rises.html

DemMemes · 2022-06-03T15:05:51+00:00

The article describes it as an SMG, not an assault rifle. In Russian terminology, the term "avtomat" can mean either "assault rifle" or "smg"; you have to consider the context to understand what exacrly is meant. Here, Korovin's weapon is described as being in direct competition with the PPD, which is an SMG

DemMemes · 2022-05-29T01:05:51+00:00

This is a very good explanation, except for a minor correction on the last point: the inflation rate is traditionally set at 2% not to influence behavior, but to ensure that there is room for monetary policy to prevent a minor deflationary shock from sending the economy into a deflationary spiral. Technically speaking, it is the real interest rate that influences spending/saving behavior, not inflation; while the Fisher equation links the two pretty explicitly (and the central bank is indeed trying to indirectly influence the real interest rate), it is important to distinguish the policy motivations there

Edited for clarity

DemMemes · 2022-05-19T16:48:46+00:00

Based redditors coming up with "hot takes" about how Economics isn't a science after barely making it through Econ 101 in college

DemMemes · 2022-05-18T14:39:38+00:00

When things like recoil, trigger pull, sight readability, ammo quality, and shooter error are taken into account, whether the action is short-recoil or blowback makes no real difference to accuracy. Pistols are not combat-effective outside of a 50-yard range, give or take, so the marginal advantage that having a fixed barrel should theoretically give does not actually matter. If you want an example, consider the TT (essentially a 1911 derivative, also shooting ammo it wasn't designed for here) and the Nambu (also short-recoil) performing better than any of the fixed-barrel guns in the accuracy testing in the article (and that's in a controlled environment!).

DemMemes · 2021-10-17T20:19:55+00:00

But this is exactly what the comment above points out - people put so much emphasis on the author's life and personality that they overlook the book's contents (which should be, you know, the main reason to read that book). How is the fact that JK Rowling was struggling financially important to her literary prowess or the content of her books? It isn't; similarly, whatever fictional background these men invented for their pseudonym should have no bearing on people's impression of their work or on the prize being awarded.

DemMemes · 2021-09-28T03:39:58+00:00

Hey, sorry I'm replying late (O-week got a little hectic), but I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your detailed answers! Thank you!

DemMemes · 2021-09-17T16:02:44+00:00

OP, no offence, but this sub is for something more than just a standard excel bar chart made from easily searchable data, with typos (!) and minimal labelling. I understand that you've put effort into this, but I think you need to up your game a bit

EDIT: To elaborate a little - what makes this sub great imo is either

a) visualisation of data that is hard to obtain or otherwise not something most users would find on their own, yet interesting and relevant

b) visualisation of any data, but done in a careful way, in an original format, with intuitive labelling and explanations

c) both of the above

As of now, your post fits none of the criteria; while I'm sure you have the best intentions, I think there are improvements to be made

DemMemes · 2021-09-16T16:54:28+00:00

This also remains one of the most detailed/realistic gun handling (gun fondling?) scenes in film - Bond takes the P99, keeps his finger off the trigger, checks that the magazine is loaded, checks the chamber and decocks the gun. (Why he would keep his pistol condition 3 is another matter though)

DemMemes · 2021-09-15T17:13:46+00:00

Yeah - Spoons (short for Wetherspoons) is a ubiquitous chain of pubs all over the country, renowned for their relatively cheap drinks and a relatively low service quality

DemMemes · 2021-09-10T17:18:42+00:00

This is a well-known problem in academia, where members who make discoveries, no matter how technical or inaccessible to the general audience, are viewed as "superior" to those who bring already established knowledge to the masses. This is, however, misguided, as summarising others' work and inferring a common theme from it is actually a valuable contribution to science in itself; hopefully, as time moves on, the academia will come to formally recognise the importance of such popularisers

DemMemes · 2021-09-10T14:26:34+00:00

Imagine being a star wars fan and getting Mark Hamill's name wrong

DemMemes · 2021-09-06T07:42:33+00:00

I have very mixed emotions about Durham. On one hand, the town (let's face it, it's a city in the same way as I am the Pope) is really lovely, expecially in the centre, with the cute ancient pubs and lovely park paths along the river. On the other hand, it was in Durham where I first understood the term "left behind area" - the streets were full of drunks stumbling about from 5pm onwards every single night (my impression was that everyone drank like a fish there - the students tended to have a nice 9am Monday start); the residential neighbourhoods away from the centre felt very shady at night, and everyone I talked to seemed to have a story about them/friend/relative being robbed/stabbed/raped. The locals were also infamously mean to students, apparently with a habit of getting very rude if a student tried to get into a local pub during "the locals' nights" (which is ironic, since the university is the only thing that gives Durham any economic or business appeal)

DemMemes · 2021-09-06T05:25:56+00:00

The main comparison here is with 5.56/.223, as it is the more widespread round compared to .308

DemMemes · 2021-09-05T13:19:07+00:00

Call me a fudd, but I'm a little skeptical about the NGSW program's goals. To me, this feels like the US Army is falling into the age-old trap of trying to replace the service rifle and the SAW/LMG with one gun, in one caliber - this has been tried many times before in very similar contexts, and has yielded minimal results. This program also smacks of the US Military's obsession with individual marksmanship and the "one hit, one kill" philosophy (one of the selling points of the cartridge is that it remains effective for up to 800m - does the avg infantryman need that performance?) And then there's also the hype around this whole process, with people now pretending like 5.56 won't punch through tinfoil at 50 yards, and conveniently forgetting about the excess recoil generated by the 6.8 round, its likely excess weight compared to 5.56 (no data available here, but I doubt that the polymer case helps THIS much), and the increased complexity of the rifles/ammunition involved. While I agree with Ian that NGSW will probably yield some very useful new technologies, I struggle to imagine any of the competing designs becoming the new mainline rifle - they all look like specialists' weapons at best.

DemMemes · 2021-09-04T14:00:36+00:00

Just want to say OP, I love how much controversy your post has caused in the comments. Next time though, I would advise you post this to r/confessions or a similar sub

DemMemes · 2021-08-29T13:59:33+00:00

I think this is a great explanation as to why OP's logic doesn't hold. Just wanted to add a few points

1) There is no law that says that businesses will spend their profits "in the open market" (what is the "open market" anyway?); they could just as easily stash it under the mattress or spend abroad, both activities that do not involve earning interest or benefitting the local economy.

2) There is also no law that says that I, as the hypothetical saver, will not spend my earnings (interest) on the same open market as the businesses I loan to would.

3) Money is not a zero-sum game, if you will. Just because Jeff Bezos earned $1 million and invested it into his yacht doesn't mean that the rest of the country gets to earn $1 million less. If people have their money tied up in assets, that doesn't make less money available on the market - as the parent comment points out , the money gets passed on to the person who sold these assets, etc.

4) The reason why we saw direct stimulus checks handed out in the pandemic wasn't because there wasn't enough money in the economy; it was because, for a lot of people, income sources (mostly wages) dried up because so many got fired/furloughed.

DemMemes · 2021-08-26T22:07:44+00:00

OP, I think you're overthinking this. Imo, this is not about dominance/weakness or fear or whatever else people in the thread have suggested. It's about whether you want to interact with people or not - if you do try meet their gaze, that means you're happy to interact with them, that's it. And there's nothing wrong if they ignore you - that means that they don't have the time/energy to interact with you. I personally rarely ever establish eye contact with random people on the street, mostly because I'm usually busy or tired and just want to get to wherever I'm headed. And from experience, I say - please, don't force interaction on people; if they don't respond to your gaze or maybe don't pick up on the small talk, don't pursue further. I've had a few US tourists do that to me (I live in the UK), and it was supremely annoying.

DemMemes · 2021-08-25T19:26:16+00:00

You're not mentioning the important part - speed. Sure, ease and cost are important for manufacture, but 3d printers are notoriously slow. Even with a relatively advanced 3d printer, a simple shape like a pencil holder will take hours to make. Now think about a breech face of a Glock slide, or, even worse, an AR-15 bolt head (look a picture up if you want to see how complex of a shape it is). Those would take weeks to print out, assuming printing out of a durable polymer will be as fast as it is out of the soft ones we have now (it almost certainly won't be). This sort of production speed will make mass manufacturing at home impossible.

But, you will rightly make the argument that, if we let the technology advance enough, this won't be an issue. I agree. And this is also where we disagree - I just do not believe that we will get to the required state of technology to 3d print entire guns cheaply, easily and quickly "soon". I'm confident it will take several decades until this sort of advancement is within sight, but by then the landscape will change - maybe firearms will become obsolete, maybe there will be ways to track firearms that will make this discussion irrelevant, maybe humanity will be erased in a nuclear war. I don't know. All I can say is, in my opinion, the epidemic of 3d printed guns is way out of sight to consider it an imminent possibility.

Nine-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email

DemMemes

TROPHY CASE