Ask an Economist (Post #1005 and counting)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, not for my friend, whose wife had a child right after the first series. He passed the 2nd series, but studied alot.

Other than that, I dont know much. I emailed him though, so Ill PM you his response when/if I get it
 
Before you start you need spend to four years in a position where you're making investment related decisions. Then you need a CFA member who will sponsor you. That's the easy part. All three sections require a massive amount of dedicated study time as JH said. Once that's done you have to be amongst the 40% that pass #1 and #2 then be amongst the 50% that pass #3. The financial rewards are enormous and I mean huge.

As they say no pain, no gain.
 
JerichoHill, could you PM me as well?

P.S. Whomp I just picked up a copy of The Black Swan from my library. Will post my thoughts in your thread after reading it
 
What effects does transitioning from a Communist economic system to a Capitalistic/Free Market economic system (Such as the reunification of East and West Germany and the fall of the Iron Curtain) would have on a nation?
That question is the basis for more than one course and probably a couple of majors here at Berkeley.

A really useless short answer directed at the reuinification of Germany would be that West Germany invested in the trillions of dollars in East Germany, whose production capital (factories, mills, etc) were so out of date that the industries had to be rebuilt from scratch because they were not competitive on a world market. Basically its a painful process of re-industrialization. I guess.
 
Too bad short answers are often wrong. Don't believe in Occam's Razor; since most things in life are complicated, most problems will be complicated and thus more answers have to be complicated as well.
 
Hey, I was just wondering what kind of math economics majors end up learning? Would it be comparable to what, say a physics major would take? I imagine it would have a different emphasis. I'm just curious. Thanks.
 
Too bad short answers are often wrong. Don't believe in Occam's Razor; since most things in life are complicated, most problems will be complicated and thus more answers have to be complicated as well.
hence my caveat of "useless" :p
 
hence my caveat of "useless" :p

If it's useless, it fails as an answer, does it not? Answers are to discover truth. If it's useless, it doesn't discover truth, which implies: why did you say it in the first place? :p
 
Hey, I was just wondering what kind of math economics majors end up learning? Would it be comparable to what, say a physics major would take? I imagine it would have a different emphasis. I'm just curious. Thanks.

I assume Physics majors have to know a lot more math than econ majors. We (econ majors) are required to know math up to Differential Calculus level, and what we use is derivates, simple algebra, lots of graphs and different symbols.
But I haven´t had Econometrics or Mathematical Economics yet, so maybe there´s more.

I hate the math part of econ though, I like the philosophical part way more.
 
Homie's account is pretty accurate. The standard economics major is one to two semesters of calculus and one semester of basic statistics.

Economics BA's that are on the Ph.D-track have a bit more math:
-a full calculus sequence (3-4 semesters)
-Linear Algebra
-Differential Equations (if you want to specialize in macroeconomics or applied macro)
-Mathematical Statistics and Probability (should require multivariable calc as a prerequisite)
-Real Analysis or Abstract Algebra
-Econometrics and/or 'Math for Economists'

Or, from the econphd website:
You will need a number of math-related credits from your undergraduate studies. Graduate study in economics follows a theorem-proof approach and uses rigorous notation, so the adcoms pay a lot of attention to how comfortable you look to be with pure mathematics. Two or three terms of calculus, and often linear algebra, are deemed minimum preparation; similarly a semester of mathematical statistics. First-year graduate courses draw heavily on real analysis. Background in real analysis is highly valued and indeed almost expected of a strong applicant. Real analysis is usually the first "rigorous" mathematics course, where you have to work through all proofs and write some yourself. The course is supremely effective preparation for initial graduate courses. If you really want to delight the adcoms (you do), take metric spaces and functional analysis, too. When they see these and measure theory, perhaps even topology, they're rubbing their hands. Courses in differential equations are useful too, but if you have to choose in your final undergraduate years, the proof-based classes will always do more for you.


...but your basic run-of-the-mill economics major only requires one semester of calculus and one of statistics.

:coffee:
 
Yes, I forgot to mention Statistics. We had to learn to do all this stuff by hand (figure out standard deviations and tons of other stuff that I´ve forgotten by now) even though no one really does this by hand, it´s all done by computer programs. An economist puts in the data, out comes a number which the economist will use in his analysis or prediction.
 
Hmm well, it looks like PhD track for econ has a little less math than PhD track Physics. Im tempted to look into this further....maybe ill take an Econ course. I just wish I didnt have to take Micro before I could take Macro
 
...but your basic run-of-the-mill economics major only requires one semester of calculus and one of statistics.

:coffee:

Don't knock my second major mister!

Harumpf!
 
If it's useless, it fails as an answer, does it not? Answers are to discover truth. If it's useless, it doesn't discover truth, which implies: why did you say it in the first place? :p

Because it helped me think of something I learned in my globalization class a week ago (not exactly what i posted about though).

Because it shows how the kind of answer one can expect from such a question.

And because it offers one way, one paradigm of history to which to begin to find out a real "answer"
 
Homie said:
Yes, I forgot to mention Statistics. We had to learn to do all this stuff by hand (figure out standard deviations and tons of other stuff that I´ve forgotten by now) even though no one really does this by hand, it´s all done by computer programs. An economist puts in the data, out comes a number which the economist will use in his analysis or prediction.

Yeah, somewhere in that mess of math courses you get some exposure to Stata, SAS or SPSS, which can do all the statistics for you.


Don't knock my second major mister!

Harumpf!

You take your finance/economics major and money. I'm gonna have tenure. :smug:

Repeat to myself: I will not spam Jericho's thread. I will not spam Jericho's thread...
 
P.S. Whomp I just picked up a copy of The Black Swan from my library. Will post my thoughts in your thread after reading it
Cool. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. He spoke to a group of traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchanage recently. Like everyone else who's in finance, economics, a Nobel Laureate or European they were not to happy with his presentation. He definitely knows how to get under people's skin. I think he makes some good points though. I think we're experiencing another what I'd deem to be a "black swan" event.

To give everyone a little background...there's a market where municipalities, student loan groups and closed end mutual funds went to borrow money short term (rate recalculated every 7 to 28 days) called the auction rate market.

It was a good deal for borrowers since they could issue cheaper debt than if they issued a 20 or 30 year bond. They're typically borrowing off a short term rate (say LIBOR). Buyers, like corporations (IE Microsoft has ~10% of their cash in these) and wealthy investors, liked them because they are very safe, were available every 7 to 28 days and had a bit of extra return over comparable short term maturities. This market worked flawlessly for 20 years and grew to $360 billion market....until last week.

A few auctions failed at Lehman Bros last week (meaning not enough buyers and Lehman did not want to not clear the rest of the bids by holding the paper on their balance sheet). This little pebble has turned into a tidal wave. From Tuesday on virtually every auction failed across the country since on financial instituion wants another illiquid asset on the balance sheet.

For borrowers they had to pay a penalty rate to the investors (lenders). The highest quality borrowers paid an extra 0.2-0.3% however some borrowers like the Ports Authority of New York saw their cost of funds go from 4% to 20%. They ordinarily were paying around ~$60k a week for this debt and last week paid over $330k. This forces them to retire this issue and borrow at higher long term rates now. The problem for the buyer in many of these is don't have a market to sell the investment since there weren't any buyers. It's not a safety issue but a lack of a liquidity for them. They intended for these to be 7 to 28 day maturities. Now they are not.

You will hear more about this over the coming weeks and months. Some borrowers will have to retire their cheap money borrowings and float longer maturities. The highest quality borrowers (closed end mutual funds) won't need to do anyting since their cost only went up 0.2-0.3%. That means the investor will have to hold these securities without a chance to find a buyer for them. This will not be pretty folks.

There's other implications to the debt markets if the closed end mutual funds were to unwind this short term debt. With the short term money they are buying higher yielding long term tax free/taxable bonds, bank participations, preferred stocks etc etc etc. On a billion dollar fund they may have borrowed $250-333 million to buy more long term bonds. If for some reason the short term debt they're borrowing on gets unwound it will be really ugly for the long term debt their putting back to the market.

JH--heard much about this?
 
...but your basic run-of-the-mill economics major only requires one semester of calculus and one of statistics.

:coffee:

I'm taking more than that as a Finance major. :crazyeye:

One "Finite Mathematics," one statistics, one calculus, and one econometrics. :wallbash:

I'm preferring the math needed to apply to financial problems.

But then again, I think the Economics majors here have to do all of that and more.
 
The math in economics gets very hairy when you get into PhD programs at top universities. I can be honest and say that I understand how such math works (general method of moments, markov chains, monte carlo sims), but I will still get lost in specific greek equations to this day. Thankfully, I don't have to remember how to code these things by hand thanks to Mr. Computer.

In my 8+ years studying economics, I probably have 3.5 years of math courses.

Whompers...I've caught wind of that foul stench. I was never that confident in the current debt markets so I have personally little direct exposure. It's going to affect folks who need/want to sell in the short-term moreso than folks who have a longer-term horizon, at least I assume that.
 
JerichoHill, do you have an idea about what the economic affects would be if the US government drastically reduced military spending and military size? I'm guessing if this were to happen it would be over one presidential cycle so... say 50% reduction in Defense spending over 4-8 years?
 
Well, assuming that the US budget is also reduced by the defense cuts, it would result in a less expansionary fiscal policy.

But given that we're always having such budgets, it'd be harder to gauge (I would think) the effects on this current economy.

What I would say is that it would decrease money supply, and even after Helicopter Ben swooped in and threw cash on the streets, that might not necessarily be a good thing.

This is also assuming that taxes and tax revenue remain about the same (though it wouldn't, since it'd mean laying off people directly and indirectly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom