Such great learning, as always. I do think sometimes econ oversimplifies the complex and other times overcomplicates the simple things 😁 but it is a very useful science
This is very helpful and interesting, thanks! though I wanted to like the video, the like count was already 777 and I don't wanna change that to 778 lol
In Modelling, When you mention simplifying assumptions, where do the assumptions come from? From my understanding, if these assumptions come from similarity in behaviour(in molecules or between organisms), they would be patterns.
An "actor" is a participant in an economic situation. It can be an individual making goods/spending money, it can be corporations, small businesses, it can be governments.
I love your project but you are stretching. You are talking about the most superficial layer of economics and the truth is that modern economic models rest of very specific assumptions which, when stated fully, make no sense. It is unclear if you are fully informed. E.g., monetarism forms the base of some branches of mainstream economics but monetarism rests on an assumption of perfect foresight of monetary income over every agent's lifetime. This is necessary for the math and the metaphysics but it makes no sense. Furthermore, they would be computing this in utilities and thus one would have to understand the future stock of goods upon which their forecast of income rest. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and it is high time the profession move on. If the premises are wrong then so are the conclusions. These are not simplifications but silly myth and you are unknowingly perpetuating it. I'd like an hour with Bill Gates to explain the issue, to stop you from doing future damage. In sum, by focusing on mathematical economics, you are ignoring a huge body of literature and are, in my view, merely repeating the errors of superficial academic minds. The truth is that only a tiny fraction of the economics profession is represented by the views you shared -- it just happens to be the most influential minority. That minority, you will find, form an ideology which is either derived from the model or the model from the ideology (it is unclear which way causation moves). Thus, in my view, you are doing damage by repeating the old line when, in 2017, it is time for sanity to prevail. We cannot continue along the mathematical line due to its contradictions and absurdities. And there are better models waiting in the wings. Thus, please stop hurting the public. Good luck.
I know the current model is flawed; that’s why I’m watching to tutorial here; to figure out what the status quo is. With the concepts and vocabulary here, I’ll be able to research alternative views in the field. I’m just here to learn the framework and language at play. Thanks though for flagging your concerns.
love how you related the subjects like this! i wish they would do it in school, makes learning so much more meaningful
tell me the models I can't understand this man
The quality bump in the videos lately is INSANE!! Thanks for taking the time to make them as always.
"all models are wrong, but some are useful"
emile heskey never say this but can say that no model is absolutely right, but some are useful
its a quote by George E. P. Box
butch im heskey and u dont wanna mess wit me
tell me the models I can't understand this man
@@ikranfatxi4015 kuwee baadan fahmin?
4:18 Ceteris paribus - can also be translated as meaning "all things held fixed", meaning the other factors outside the model are unchanging.
The sheer breadth of knowledge he has to point out gas law and economics side by side to draw parallels!!
Such great learning, as always. I do think sometimes econ oversimplifies the complex and other times overcomplicates the simple things 😁 but it is a very useful science
guy man p
Good job Sal! Keep up the good work!
I love how sal khan explain complicated stuff very simply
thanks for your learning teacher
Very informative
Very nice Introduction!
economic models might also provide a good subtopic for your upcoming course on Cybernetics.
nobody talking bout how straight he can draw those lines??? just me???? aite
There’s a “shape tool’ in his app that helps him draw any geometric shapes.
Love your videos, super easy to understand.
This is very helpful and interesting, thanks! though I wanted to like the video, the like count was already 777 and I don't wanna change that to 778 lol
Lol
As i keep telling my new economists, ceteris paribus!
keep it up sir!!!!!!!
Can you tell me which program use for writing ???
Yes
Very informitive
In Modelling, When you mention simplifying assumptions, where do the assumptions come from?
From my understanding, if these assumptions come from similarity in behaviour(in molecules or between organisms), they would be patterns.
Why not have mandatory accounting in the schools?
Where is the data on the depreciation of durable consumer goods?
Question: in this wideo what is a definition of an "actors" (for sure not a film actors)
An "actor" is a participant in an economic situation. It can be an individual making goods/spending money, it can be corporations, small businesses, it can be governments.
How to create your own economic model?
khan academy
Khan academy what software you use in making this videos
Mice deserve better than what we do to them.
Can we talk about the little mouse right there? 🐁
that mouse is so cute
The fruit fly 💀
I love your project but you are stretching. You are talking about the most superficial layer of economics and the truth is that modern economic models rest of very specific assumptions which, when stated fully, make no sense. It is unclear if you are fully informed. E.g., monetarism forms the base of some branches of mainstream economics but monetarism rests on an assumption of perfect foresight of monetary income over every agent's lifetime. This is necessary for the math and the metaphysics but it makes no sense. Furthermore, they would be computing this in utilities and thus one would have to understand the future stock of goods upon which their forecast of income rest. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous and it is high time the profession move on. If the premises are wrong then so are the conclusions. These are not simplifications but silly myth and you are unknowingly perpetuating it. I'd like an hour with Bill Gates to explain the issue, to stop you from doing future damage. In sum, by focusing on mathematical economics, you are ignoring a huge body of literature and are, in my view, merely repeating the errors of superficial academic minds. The truth is that only a tiny fraction of the economics profession is represented by the views you shared -- it just happens to be the most influential minority. That minority, you will find, form an ideology which is either derived from the model or the model from the ideology (it is unclear which way causation moves). Thus, in my view, you are doing damage by repeating the old line when, in 2017, it is time for sanity to prevail. We cannot continue along the mathematical line due to its contradictions and absurdities. And there are better models waiting in the wings. Thus, please stop hurting the public. Good luck.
Data is for beginners
For masters in subject ...
Don't listen this gay...
Unsubscribe
because you give water not substance
IKAR IRIS what?
Can you mention the new models?
HypothesisI With all that passion, why don’t you build a better mousetrap?
I know the current model is flawed; that’s why I’m watching to tutorial here; to figure out what the status quo is. With the concepts and vocabulary here, I’ll be able to research alternative views in the field. I’m just here to learn the framework and language at play. Thanks though for flagging your concerns.
This is not economics, it's not even talking about economics.