Die 3. Auflage der 'Militärgeschichte Westpreußens' erscheint am 10.07.2017 im Kopp Verlag.
Just got advertisement of Kopp Verlag here, according to Wikipedia a "German publisher... publishes books and an online news website notably in the field of right-wing esotericism, populism and extremism, as well as pseudoscience and conspiracy theories." Please bear, stop!
Who? Link?
Really good:
https://www.hs-schmalkalden.de/de/hochschule/fakultaeten/fakultaet-wirtschaftswissenschaften/personen/professorinnen.html?target=24134&module=TemplatePersondetails&config_id=3caa95f5fa9d6aa8664578a0f1769748&range_id=995de4ab303bcff914115aa9ba6c2747&username=hueschel&group_id=ed36e1611073d5818673c5b1e0d65028
and a hire for diversity: https://www.hs-schmalkalden.de/de/hochschule/fakultaeten/fakultaet-wirtschaftswissenschaften/personen/professorinnen.html?target=24134&module=TemplatePersondetails&config_id=3caa95f5fa9d6aa8664578a0f1769748&range_id=995de4ab303bcff914115aa9ba6c2747&username=richte18&group_id=ed36e1611073d5818673c5b1e0d65028
I don’t like Bofinger, but I looked over his 10 points and I mostly agree. Den Mindestlohn mit 3 strichen abzutun ist mir schon vor 15 Jahren im ersten Semester sauer aufgestoßen. Dass Mankiw davon immer noch nicht abweicht obwohl die Mehrheitsmeinung in der Literatur schon längst weiter ist, spricht Bände.
I had some pluralo friends back then. Rudi insulted them way before Twitter was a thing in the comment sections of blogspot.. Lang ist’s her. The thing is, many students drawn by pluralo ideas are no different in their mindset from your standard academic researchers (after all, the goal of research is to question the conventional wisdom and the status quo of knowledge!). But since most german undergrads don’t (did not?) have access to modern econ research, they are easy prey the pluralos.
My pluralo friends from back then all went on to get their phds and are pretty successful researchers, one just got his first top 5. But all blossomed as researchers only outside of Germany.Well, that is something that most of us realized long ago. Rudi was the one who started instead interacting a lot with them and giving them additional recognition. Good that he finally stops and goes the route that most of us have chosen years ago. It is not only a waste of time to argue with people like CK, but it makes these people more powerful. If we want to change the world for a better (as CK&Co claim to aim at), we should make sure that they do not have much influence as their solutions are not based on years of rigorous scientific work, but on "hey I just had an idea. If you disagree you do not want to make the world a better place. People will die, because you do not agree with me". If we really want to make the world a better place, we better study hard and look for good and feasable solutions. It is not that difficult. Every student learns about externalities and how to deal with them in Econ101.Rudi is completely right when he means he wants to reduce the senseless discussions with pluralists. A discussion with these social activists is like a fight against windmills. They only want to drive their political agenda and economics is considered to be just something to bend to these political ideals.
Mankiw behaved like a cheap cartoon of a 'neoclassic villain': He presented his right-wing partisan views as 'the mainstream' and expelled Bofinger from it because he believes otherwise. And Bofingers points weren't that troublesome at all (means can be accepted by modern open minded economists).
Mein Gott, laberst du eine gequirlte Kacke...
Btw: Has anyone seen the discussion with Mankiw today?
What I don't understand:
RR & Mankiw say the fact that banks can create loans out of thin air (with some limitations) is a minor technical detail. At the same time, they stick to the loanable funds nonsense (households have to save more, so banks can lend more, so firms can invest more). As I see it, you can't say the latter if you accept the first. Do they not differentiate between 'capital' as a (investment) good and 'capital' as money/credit? Do they (implicitly) assume that the economy is always at full capacity and therefore for being able to invest more you have to decrease consumption first? What is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition?!
Same question as several pages ago: Which German Volkswirt does private consulting and earns a lot of money? And who pays for that? Just asking for a friend.
He did not get tenure in Mannheim and went for early retirement at the age of <40 close to hometown- veey smart and earns tons of mobey via private consulting... I envy him!!
They (not implicitly) assume that the economy is always at full capacity and therefore for being able to invest more you have to decrease consumption. Thats what the I=S-Curve says, isn't it? Mankiw made this point when he tolds Bofinger that he explains loanable funds with the IS-Curve. To invest you need resources which costly. You get it by decreasing consumption or leisure.
Btw: Has anyone seen the discussion with Mankiw today?
What I don't understand:
RR & Mankiw say the fact that banks can create loans out of thin air (with some limitations) is a minor technical detail. At the same time, they stick to the loanable funds nonsense (households have to save more, so banks can lend more, so firms can invest more). As I see it, you can't say the latter if you accept the first. Do they not differentiate between 'capital' as a (investment) good and 'capital' as money/credit? Do they (implicitly) assume that the economy is always at full capacity and therefore for being able to invest more you have to decrease consumption first? What is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition?!
They (not implicitly) assume that the economy is always at full capacity and therefore for being able to invest more you have to decrease consumption. Thats what the I=S-Curve says, isn't it? Mankiw made this point when he tolds Bofinger that he explains loanable funds with the IS-Curve. To invest you need resources which costly. You get it by decreasing consumption or leisure.
Btw: Has anyone seen the discussion with Mankiw today?
What I don't understand:
RR & Mankiw say the fact that banks can create loans out of thin air (with some limitations) is a minor technical detail. At the same time, they stick to the loanable funds nonsense (households have to save more, so banks can lend more, so firms can invest more). As I see it, you can't say the latter if you accept the first. Do they not differentiate between 'capital' as a (investment) good and 'capital' as money/credit? Do they (implicitly) assume that the economy is always at full capacity and therefore for being able to invest more you have to decrease consumption first? What is only a necessary, but not a sufficient condition?!
So just a logical consequence of the assumption? This reasoning is very doubtable:
- The economy is seldom/not all the time at 'full capacity' (depends on your definition), a short-time investment shock can be accomodated by overtime and/or stocks.
- If households consume less, turnover and profits of firms go down & stocks go up as a direct consequence. Why should they invest more in this situation? All firm surveys regarding investment behaviour clearly indicate that they won't.
- A silly argument would be, that now firms can get more loans from banks - money, that they would have if the households would not have reduced consumption spending in the first place.
So they are still thinking about the economy as medieval farm, where Old McDonald has to decide whether to eat or sow his wheat?
So just a logical consequence of the assumption? This reasoning is very doubtable:
Theoretical Economics is about extracting the logical consequences of assumptions. That's internal validity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- The economy is seldom/not all the time at 'full capacity' (depends on your definition), a short-time investment shock can be accomodated by overtime and/or stocks.
As insinde IS-LM the supply is super-elastic any investment shock can be accomodate.
- If households consume less, turnover and profits of firms go down & stocks go up as a direct consequence. Why should they invest more in this situation?
Inside the model, because the interest rate fall. In reality, I don't know, but is this interrelated to the loans from thin air argument?
- A silly argument would be, that now firms can get more loans from banks - money, that they would have if the households would not have reduced consumption spending in the first place.
So they are still thinking about the economy as medieval farm, where Old McDonald has to decide whether to eat or sow his wheat?
They do and the question is about supply elasticity and so on, but as long you use IS-LM, IS-TR or anything similiar thats the result. And in reality you can't buy anything with money if there is no supply of your needs. Take a look at the vaccines...
Thx for the fruitfull discussion btw!
I also suspected the interest rate to be the saviour of the day. But the empirical support here is very weak (according to firm surveys): firms react stronger to current/expected turnover/profits regarding investment behaviour and interest rate is of lower importance.
The effect of (more) household saving on banks loan rates is unclear. I can recommend this paper in this respect:
http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-4-Lindner.pdf
For the corner from which this paper comes, it's reasoning is quite convincing.
Also thanks, a civilized ejmr discusion without smearing and insults :-)
I also suspected the interest rate to be the saviour of the day. But the empirical support here is very weak (according to firm surveys): firms react stronger to current/expected turnover/profits regarding investment behaviour and interest rate is of lower importance.
The effect of (more) household saving on banks loan rates is unclear. I can recommend this paper in this respect:
http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-4-Lindner.pdf
For the corner from which this paper comes, it's reasoning is quite convincing.
Also thanks, a civilized ejmr discusion without smearing and insults :-)
Smearing and insults are ingredients at twitter and "social media". This forum is to inform and discuss.
Totally agree and there is also simultanious causalty looking at savings and interest rate and so on and the literature is hughe. But the question is what to put in intruductionary courses. And yes, I think e.g. IS-LM or the like take way to much space, as it is often THE MODEL. But anyway to show the effects and channel to stimulate the economy with fiscal or monetary policy in recessions it serves its purpose. And some times it is only used for this purpose, e.g. in the Arnold Macrointroduction it is about 1 of 6th or the like of the whole Macro I/II curriculum.
I also suspected the interest rate to be the saviour of the day. But the empirical support here is very weak (according to firm surveys): firms react stronger to current/expected turnover/profits regarding investment behaviour and interest rate is of lower importance.
The effect of (more) household saving on banks loan rates is unclear. I can recommend this paper in this respect:
http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/WEA-WER-4-Lindner.pdf
For the corner from which this paper comes, it's reasoning is quite convincing.
Also thanks, a civilized ejmr discusion without smearing and insults :-)
Same question as several pages ago: Which German Volkswirt does private consulting and earns a lot of money? And who pays for that? Just asking for a friend.
He did not get tenure in Mannheim and went for early retirement at the age of <40 close to hometown- veey smart and earns tons of mobey via private consulting... I envy him!!
The EU pays s**tloads.
If you really think this is true, you obviously never consulted in the private sector.
Same question as several pages ago: Which German Volkswirt does private consulting and earns a lot of money? And who pays for that? Just asking for a friend.He did not get tenure in Mannheim and went for early retirement at the age of <40 close to hometown- veey smart and earns tons of mobey via private consulting... I envy him!!
The EU pays s**tloads.
How long do you typically have to wait to hear back after you‘ve applied for an AP position on Germany (outside the job market). Have applied in September and haven’t heard anything since. Should I ask if there are any news or is this perceived as too offensive or whatever?
Hey guys, I know this forum is usually for academia only.
However, what do you think about getting a PhD in Econ just for the private sector? Useful or wasted time and I am just fine with a masters?
I'm not interested in academia anymore since I don't want to deal with all the academic bureaucracy of today or submit myself to politically correct research.
Thanks a lot.
Allensbach the new Schmalkalden or more like the new harvardjust checked schmalkalden...one of the guys there has published better than at least 80% or probably even 90% of the profs at German Universities. how did he end up there?
Better than 80-90%? Not really
I don't think >80% is far off. But it's the wrong benchmark. To understand why somebody is placed where they are, you need to compare them to people who have been appointed recently rather than 20 years ago.
Hey guys, I know this forum is usually for academia only.
However, what do you think about getting a PhD in Econ just for the private sector? Useful or wasted time and I am just fine with a masters?
I'm not interested in academia anymore since I don't want to deal with all the academic bureaucracy of today or submit myself to politically correct research.
Thanks a lot.
depends on your specialization. If you opt for finance, digitization, IO or health and work empirically you'll definitely benefit from making a PhD. If you go for labor or other fields that are useless for the private sector you'll probably regret it.
Sorry, but you approach it from the wrong direction. Don't think about which PhD specializations could be helpful for the private sector. Think about where in the private sector you want to go. Because for 50+% of the jobs the PhD is a net (financial) loss. Consulting, Finance, Data Science: PhD can be helpful, but depends. Everything else (HR, Controlling, Strategy, Business Analytics, Logistics,...): PhD not helpful.
Hey guys, I know this forum is usually for academia only.
However, what do you think about getting a PhD in Econ just for the private sector? Useful or wasted time and I am just fine with a masters?
I'm not interested in academia anymore since I don't want to deal with all the academic bureaucracy of today or submit myself to politically correct research.
Thanks a lot.depends on your specialization. If you opt for finance, digitization, IO or health and work empirically you'll definitely benefit from making a PhD. If you go for labor or other fields that are useless for the private sector you'll probably regret it.