Economics Degree Career

it depends what you mean by efficiency aswell, it could be production/worker/hour? it could be the efficiency to allocate resources to their best use/to create the most economic benefit/to allow those who need resources the most to have them.

economics definitely is a science, hence why it falls under the category of "social sciences".

Macro-economics is a small part of economics simply because Micro-economics is much larger. There is only so much you can do with Unemployment, Economic Growth, Inflation etc.

The psychology of the reasons for transactions etc? that does not fall under economics because it falls under marketing. That is basically what a large part of marketing is. Marketing is not part of economics, it is closer to business studies as a subject.

do you not notice something?

theres 3 people on here arguing against you. what more do you want me to say? repeat why I think your wrong? thats not going to lead anywhere.

i mean take 5. yes i read thread. but still what does IB have to do with OUR argument. our argument went way beyond OP, it is about what is economics, and efficiency versus fairness. you literally mentioned IB out of the blue even though my post was clearly about fairness and efficiency. i never said economics is not about fairness. i just said the 2 are different. our personal argument has nothing to do with IB. but even more, what do I have anything to do with it? you said: "Not so you can get a degree in Investment Banking and **** everybody else, and if you think thats the case then i pity you very much indeed. okay?!

i am clueless as to how you got the idea i think that, and how you didn just drop it when i said "how is IB related to our argument", because that clearly tells you that im not interested in discussing it.

i mean come on. i could do this for every other (1.-4.) point you made.

How are they against me? they disagreed with a point I made. Why you seem to count greg and agree with him is beyond me, just shows how stupid you are.

My argument did have something to do with IB. The reason I joined this argument is to do with a certain poster's idea of being an IB. You joined later, hence so why you have any say in what we talk about I don't know. If you didn't want to talk about it then you shouldn't have joined.

behavioural economics?

and ok, poor phrasing on my part. i equated "whole point" with most important. which is what i meant, atm macro is more important, it is what led to the crisis not micro, nor "omg we need fairness".

post#45 = danyy111's first post
post#47 = Fynch101's first post

who joined later?

oh im sorry, let me point it out to you: "Wow your still going on, what are you on about...." - thats a pretty clear statement against you.

"No, no, no. Efficiency and equity (fairness) are different concepts." thats exactly what i said.

who cares if they are just arguing certain points, they are still arguing against you. you asked me: "ok, yet you give no reason why?" me pointing out that im not the only having an issue with your argument(s) is pretty obvious that your wrong.

also, you are starting to ramble. you are getting rude. you are giving worse and worse arguments ("How are they against me? they disagreed with a point I made." disagreeing with you =/= against you in your mind?)

seriously, you have issues.

You joined the argument that I was taking part in later than when I joined. Understand that?
Yeah, its pretty clear, but its written by a guy who came out with even worse statements than you. I am obviously right okay? Against implies something much stronger than a disagreement with one point. Your last post about the recent recession just proves how smart you are. Go read a book or something. Or just do something else. Maybe a degree in david beckham might be better for you. Bye.

why not say that then, rather then "you joined later". thats a bit vague you know. plus "argument that i was taking part in" - this is an internet forum. i never knew people arent allowed to enter into conversation with certain people.

against, arguing against - same thing to me.

oh i very much agree finance caused the crisis. whats your point?

you still havnt answered my question, asked a long time ago if you study economics. well I do (which btw several people on here can confirm) so unless you can reply to that dont make ignorant statements like that.

does it matter whether micro is bigger or not? since when was size an indication of importance?

When did I say you weren't allowed to join the argument? I am saying, the original discussion I had was with someone else. Then you joined and started jibber jabbering.

Finance did not cause the crisis. what does that even mean 'I agree that finance caused the crisis'? A lack of decent risk management caused the crisis. Not just 'finance'.

I am not impressed that you study economics. It was pretty obvious, why else would you be arguing like this, and why else would I? Of course I study economics, I am also a trader in my spare time. Impressed? Didn't think so.

Course it doesn't matter if micro is bigger than macro, you're the one who disputed this to begin with, picking at everything I said like a personal vendetta. It was pathetic.

omg! youre a trader! how could i question the most intelligent people on earth! i bow before your awesomeness.

so you realise I am right? thanks

so you realise I am right? thanks

no i realise you are a douche and not worth arguing with.

So you're sore loser. Already knew that.

What careers are you planning to go into after finishing your Economics degree?
Are the types of careers that you can go into after doing Economics worth the thousands of pounds debt that doing the degree involves

I just wondered because I am planning to do an Economics degree and have been trying to research the careers it leads to but it is not very clear

Are they well paid?
Thanks

Is economics boring? Heard that it really is!

It's not called the dismal science for nothing.

It's not called the dismal science for nothing.