Area 51 » Science

148

followers

This proposal is now in the Beta phase — example questions are locked!

82 Example Questions

active newest votes

up vote 11 down vote

added by user4113 Jan 28 '14 at 18:56

up vote 10 down vote

added by Jason Nichols Nov 6 '13 at 21:35

up vote 10 down vote

added by Jason Nichols Nov 6 '13 at 21:36

up vote 10 down vote

added by Jason Nichols Nov 6 '13 at 21:36

@Jason Nichols - did you mean how is economic inequality is being measured or how does the interaction between economic inequality and the costs of good and services is being measured? – dof1985 Nov 21 '13 at 14:09

Specifically I was thinking along the lines of causative relations between GINI and cost of goods for things like higher education. The NPV of an education goes up based off the likelihood and magnitude of an earnings differential. – Jason Nichols Nov 21 '13 at 16:09

Also, Veblen goods – Jason Nichols Nov 21 '13 at 16:13

In that case it is a great and very interesting question. However it wasn't so cleared to me that that was your intention – dof1985 Nov 23 '13 at 10:59

Do you have any suggestions on how to edit it to make it more clear? This is a work in progress for me, and I want to make the community succeed. – Jason Nichols Nov 24 '13 at 2:54

show 1 more improvement suggestion

up vote 10 down vote

added by Tijesunimi Nov 12 '13 at 9:15

up vote 10 down vote

added by Caias Ward Nov 12 '13 at 23:32

up vote 10 down vote

added by JoeTaxpayer Nov 18 '13 at 1:33

I have the impression that questions of the form "What is [phrase already on Wikipedia]" don't belong on Stack Exchange sites. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 6 '14 at 16:07

I agree with you 100%. Currently, Money.SE still accepts a stream of "Wikipedia says xxxx, can you explain it better/more/why?" I'd be happy for a site to shut those down as OT. – JoeTaxpayer Mar 7 '14 at 0:20

up vote 10 down vote

added by jmbejara Nov 21 '13 at 7:51

up vote 10 down vote

added by dof1985 Nov 21 '13 at 14:07

up vote 10 down vote

added by zelliott Dec 15 '13 at 2:16

up vote 10 down vote

added by zelliott Dec 15 '13 at 2:22

up vote 10 down vote

added by raphw Dec 28 '13 at 23:19

up vote 10 down vote

added by dwjohnston Jan 22 '14 at 2:08

up vote 10 down vote

added by jonrsharpe Feb 1 '14 at 9:26

up vote 10 down vote

added by Charlie Feb 5 '14 at 15:09

up vote 10 down vote

added by kmccoy, edited by Chad Feb 24 '14 at 22:41

	This question is fully Economics and may be unrelated with politics. It is related with International Economics. – Huseyin Feb 22 '14 at 19:14
	I edited teh question to remove the political topic. – Chad Feb 24 '14 at 22:42

up vote 10 down vote

added by Chad Feb 21 '14 at 19:40

First, I would be surprised if you found a single economist that has not, at this point in time, written something about the bailout. What would the potential answers even look like? A laundry list of links to various econ blogs? In addition, since the second half of your post deals with a counterfactual, it's unlikely that it would, ultimately, lead to any meaningful economic analysis--just plenty of hot air... – Steve S Feb 27 '14 at 15:23

The question is defined well-enough, except maybe we might want to clarify who an "economist" is. Some bloggers seem to take that title without any formal training. We might want to ask if there has been anything published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject. On the point that the question is dealing with "counterfactuals," economists do this all the time. As a matter of fact, this is usually the very point of economic analysis. – jmbejara Feb 27 '14 at 22:18

@jmbejara - What i was really looking for but the title is limited in the number of characters... a real question is not. – Chad Feb 27 '14 at 22:20

up vote 10 down vote

added by Huseyin Feb 26 '14 at 7:59

This question must be tagged as econometrics,unit root – Huseyin Feb 26 '14 at 8:00

This is the type of question that I think will attract the high quality professional experts. – Chad Feb 27 '14 at 22:27

The vast majority of the example questions are related to macroeconomics. Most of them are low quality and politically charged. However, this question is one of the few that I think will attract actual economists. Relevant, interesting, and above 101-level classes. – Fael May 22 '14 at 8:52

up vote 10 down vote

added by Dan C Feb 26 '14 at 17:37

Are you fishing for people to do a Lit Review for you? Sounds more like the basis for a Paper than a question. – Tony Mar 7 '14 at 16:31

up vote 10 down vote

added by Soccerman Feb 28 '14 at 13:24

	Fascinating question, but good answers are too easy to find for it to be a good question on Stack Exchange: "Economists often assume the models of rational choice theory and bounded rationality to formalize and predict the behavior of individuals and firms." – BobStein-VisiBone Mar 6 '14 at 15:55
	There are other reasons to use rational models, prediction with rational behaviour is probably not a very good one. – Soccerman Mar 7 '14 at 8:56
	Useful question but the use of the rational agent assumption is kinda tautological (at least in my experience). While I'm not downvoting since this is important, I also wouldn't want to see too much "emphasis" on this sort of thing (though it well might just be me and the "upbringing" I've had in terms of economics). – Maroon May 16 '14 at 18:51

up vote 10 down vote

added by Charlie Mar 3 '14 at 18:29

up vote 10 down vote

added by Kenny LJ Mar 11 '14 at 17:36

up vote 10 down vote

added by Kenny LJ Mar 28 '14 at 23:39

up vote 10 down vote

added by Ubiquitous May 20 '14 at 15:32

up vote 9 down vote

added by Jason Nichols Nov 6 '13 at 21:37

up vote 9 down vote

added by Caias Ward Nov 7 '13 at 15:12

up vote 9 down vote

added by Codename Doitnows Nov 14 '13 at 12:28

If you're going to close vote, please add a comment so the OP can improve. – Jason Nichols Nov 24 '13 at 2:55

Perhaps the question could be restated as "What factors have an effect on the rise and fall of capital stock?" Is this correct? – jmbejara Mar 2 '14 at 23:37