Economic sciences are a composition of :

- Mathematics ( foundation) : Used in Micro (Risk, Insurance , Contracts etc) and Macroeconomics ( Tax models , Fiscality, Capital Markets etc)

- Statictics, Econometrics : Finance ( Pricing models) and Asset Management ( Index creation or Portfolio management)

- History, Sociology : Interpret economic behaviours of the past/present

There is no way one could master Economic sciences without a serious training (Master Degree at least) and of course practise them on a daily basis on a professional level.

Even the most heavy trained guys (Scholars with PHD) refrain to speak out of their field of competence : ex Microeconomics vs Macroeconomics or more simply an experienced Trader in Credit Derivatives would need some training before passing to Commodity Trading, even if he is really competent.


Internet is a wonderful world , copying and pasting has created self claimed scholars and specialists

I agree broadly with that comment ,,except that I think it is essential that people should be able to comment on what is placed in front of them, And so , we can find a CEO of a major bank commenting on growth forecasts and a Chancellor or Treasurer of a country commenting on what information that is placed before him by his departmental staff .
But in general terms , the economic computer models are now so complex, that you need to have pages and pages of accompanying notes , in order to be able to assess what is being churned out .
Sometimes , I wonder if simple observations are not more accurate .
I should also mention that many boards of central banks have business people who are not economists on the boards making decisions of great economic importance .

Rich,

What do you think about the point concerning educational spending

"The research shows that measures of diversity make strong predictions about future GDP growth. The index seems to explain 73% of the variance of incomes across countries. Mr Hausmann recommends investments in Thailand, Belarus and Moldova—countries with stong ratings on his index but comparatively lagging GDP performance.

Equally the reseach has interesting perscriptive value. Ethan Zuckerman notes that Mr Hausmann also points out that investment in education is a weaker predictor of economic growth than the complexity measure. The comparison of Ghana, which had invested heavily in education, and Thailand which hasn't, is interesing. Thailand does well in the complexity index and Ghana doesn't. Thailand "has moved from producing jute and sugar to becoming a major manufacturing centre". Ghana hasn't. Our Economics focus cites other work by Mr Hausmann on this topic. The research makes clear that a country can only shift into new more technical products and services along a ladder of existing products through the evolution its productive knowledge in a virtuous circle."

It would appear to be support for the slower DR policy movement of not investing as strongly in the educational sector as one would at first envision. Any thoughts?

I am quite happy to reply to the question about Ghana and Thailand ,,a country that I know very well . Thailand has a huge private investment in education that Ghana does not have and also sends thousands of students to univerities abroad ,So it is nottrue to say that there is not much investment in education in Thailand. Secondly , in Thailand much of the new industry is from foreign investment so that cars from Japanese and Korean companies are made there as well as spare parts and Wilson makes sporting equipment there .and so on .
Now in Ghana , which is bordered by the Ivory Coast and Togo and then Nigeria .the problems are great mainly because there are over 20 dialects ,but it is still regarded as the most democratic African country though it is corrupt at various levels ,The industry is limited because the surrounding markets for almost everything are small and so there is no foreign investment . I have a son living there who makes regular reports .
You simply can not compare Ghana with Thailand ...two totally different situations .

- True , in all banks or organizations (IMF, BIS) you have actually dedicated department research teams, so the guys have to make it hard (annotations and many charts) to show that they passed lot of time on the study

- Few years ago I worked on Indexes ( Government and Inflation Linked Bonds) with many suppliers : FTSE, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Merryl Linch etc. The most fantastic thing, is none of them had the same definition for a basic thing like Market Value : each of them had their own tunning , instead of using Bid/Ask one would use Mid = (Bid+ Ask ) / 2, or will add or retrieve the cash from the Index without giving you a VALID explanation . It was even worst for analytics like Modified Duration , Macaulay Duration, etc each of them had their own soupe;

- Current economic/ computer models are really complex, many researchers have a scientific background (Astrophysics or other like the founder of Diamond Notch based in NYC), so they add too much irrelevant stuff to the field. Quantitative info is indeed needed but too much is really not adapted ( may be it is for screwing people even more lol ).

Rich, I don't think the statements said that "there is not much investment in education in Thailand" but that Thailand as a State, under-invested in comparison with the State approach in Ghana. I get your point about Private education spending. But isn't that also what happens in DR with many middle class and upper class parents sending their children to private institutions of learning?

And could you please comment on:

"The research makes clear that a country can only shift into new more technical products and services along a ladder of existing products through the evolution its productive knowledge in a virtuous circle."

Nehesy, i am in full agreement with you, regarding your assessment of what makes for an economist. beyond normal textbook theory, one has to learn complex mathematical models,and regression analysis, and econometrics, in order to establish basic realities,such as correlations, and, possibly, causation. besides, you have to stick with it, on a daily basis, or you lose the touch. also, you have to have a feel for it, in your gut. some guys have all the fundamentals, but cannopt see things coming, by reflexive assessment of certain trends. economics is not always a science, but a black art. it is against that backdrop that i am trying to explain to Atabey that he is not an economist, despite the fact that he claimed, at one point, to have a degree in economics. a person who confuses 400% with 200% cannot begin to hallucinate that he is an economist.

Dready,

Let it rest already For God's sake, you again want to start up stuff

I HAVE NEVER STATED I HAD A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS. NEVER. So stop trying to spin that BIG LIE on DT.


I'm having a nice chat with Rich. He went to LSE and has ACTUAL knowledge of some of these places and ideas. Now please be good and try not to spoil things. BTW, please read where I FULLY Acknowledge that GDP IS NOT THE END OF DISCUSSION. But I HAD ALREADY STATED AS MUCH BEFORE you opened this Personal Thread Challenge.


Peace out brodellllllllllllllllllllll Dread

Dread,

My little experience told me that you're right, in which type of organisation did you practised your economist skills ?

Nehesy, i used to be a project analyst, doing feasibility studies of investment projects. it was the duty of guys like myself to determine if an investment would make money, or if you should keep the investment money in your bank, instead.