Comments on: Why positive thinking won鈥檛 get you out of poverty /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/ A Critical Perspective On Development Economics Tue, 14 May 2024 14:54:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Magnicifent /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-24689 Tue, 14 May 2024 14:54:24 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-24689 Nice post thanks for sharring

Like

]]>
By: Why positive thinking won’t get you out of poverty – 黑料社区 – STUFF WE ALL LIKE /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-4965 Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:57:31 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-4965 […] This content was originally published here. […]

Like

]]>
By: The Science of (Not) Ending Global Poverty – Litty News /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-4650 Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:48:01 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-4650 […] in The Guardian in 2018, recognizing that RCTs in development ignore root causes of poverty, excessively narrow the size of the problem, and focus solely on behavioral issues, casting poverty as the problem of […]

Like

]]>
By: 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics: A Reading List – N. Emrah Ayd谋nonat /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-4213 Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:09:03 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-4213 […] Why positive thinking will not get you out of poverty Farwa Sial and Carolina Alves […]

Like

]]>
By: David Harold Chester /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-4211 Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:03:19 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-4211 Without positive thinking there is no way that poverty will be reduced and eventually eliminated. Political action is also a part of it, but the thinking part comes first. There are two stages to this, firstly we need to know on a scientific basis how our social system actually works, before trying to understand what more precise changes are necessary for poverty elimination, which is the second thinking stage. Lastly there is a need for a good national policy to be introduced.

In he following essay I show the first part and introduce you to my book about it.

Making Macroeconomics a Much More Exact Science

Today macroeconomics is treated as an inexact subject within the humanities, because at a first look it appears to be a very complex and easily confused matter. But this attitude does not give it fair justice–we should be trying to find a better way to approach and examine the topic, in a better way that avoids these problems of complexity and confusion. Suppose we ask ourselves the question: 鈥渉ow many different KINDS of financial transactions occur within our society?鈥 Then the simple and direct answer shows that that only a limited number of them are possible.

Although our sociological system comprises of many millions of participants, to answer this question properly we should be ready to consider the aggregates of all the various kinds of functions (no matter who performs them), and then to idealize these activities so that they fall into some more general terms, expressing the different types of sociological transactions into what becomes a relatively small number. Here, each activity is found to apply between a particular pair of agents or entities鈥攚ith each entity having its individual properties. Then to cover the whole sociological system of a country, the author finds that it takes only 19 kinds of flows of money for the mutual activity in the transfer of goods, services, access rights, taxes, credit, investment, use of valuable legal documents, etc. Also these flows pass between only 6 different representative agents or entities.

The analysis that led to this initially unexpected result was prepared by the author and it may be found in his working paper (on the internet) as SSRN 2865571 鈥淓instein鈥檚 Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modeling鈥. In this model these double flows of money verses goods, etc., are shown to pass between only 6 kinds of role-playing entities. Of course, there are a number of different configurations that are possible for this type of simplification, but if one tries to eliminate all the unnecessary complications and sticks to the more basic activities, then these particular quantities and flows provide the most concise result, and yet it is presentable in a fully comprehensive seamless manner that is suitable for further analysis.

Surprisingly, past representation of our sociological system by this kind of an interpretation model has not been properly examined nor even presented before. Previously, other partial versions have been modeled (using 4 entities, as by Professor Hudson), but they are inexact due to either their being over-simplified. Alternatively, in the case of econometrics, the representations are far too complicated and almost impossible to follow. These two reasons of over-simplification and over-complexity are why there is this non-scientific confusion by many economists and their failure to obtain a good understanding about how the whole system works.

The model being described here in this paper is unique, in being the first to include, along with some additional aspects, all the 3 factors of production, of Adam Smith’s 鈥淲ealth of Nations鈥 book of 1776. These factors of production are Land, Labor and Capital and along with their returns of Ground-Rent, Wages and Interest/Dividends, respectively. All of them are all included in this presentation diagram.

(Economics鈥 historians will recall, as originally explained by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the prescribed independent functions of landlords and capitalists. The former persons rent and speculate in land values whilst the latter are owners of the durable capital goods in industry, which may be hired out. Regrettably these different functions were deliberately combined for political reasons, by John Bates Clark and company about 1900, resulting in the neglect of their different influences on our sociological system.)

The diagram of this model is in my paper (noted above). A mention of the related teaching process is also provided in my short working SSRN 2600103 鈥淎 Mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics鈥. With this model in its different forms, the various parts and activities of the Big Picture of our sociological system can be properly identified and defined. Subsequently by analysis, the way our sociological system works can then be properly calculated and illustrated.

This analysis is introduced by the mathematics and logic that was devised by Nobel Laureate Wassiley W. Leontief, when he invented the important “Input-Output” matrix methodology (that he applied it to the production sector only). This short-hand method of modeling the whole system replaces the above-mentioned block-and-flow diagram. It enables one to really get to grips with what is going-on within our sociological system. Subsequently it will be found that it is the topology of the matrix which actually provides the key to this. The logic and math is not hard and is suitable for high-school students, who have been shown the basic properties of square matrices.

By this technique it is comparatively easy to introduce a change to a preset sociological system that is theoretically in equilibrium (even though we know that this ideal is never actually attained–it being a convenient way to begin the study). This change will then create an imbalance and we need to regain equilibrium again. Thus, sudden changes or policy decisions may be simulated and the effects of them determined, which will point the way to what policy is best. In my book about it, (see below) 3 changes associated with taxation are investigated in hand-worked numerical examples. In fact when I first worked it out, the irrefutable logical results were a surprise, even to me!

Developments of these ideas about making our subject more truly scientific (thereby avoiding the past pseudo-science being taught at universities), may be found in my recent book: 鈥淐onsequential Macroeconomics鈥擱ationalizing About How Our Social System Works鈥. Please write to me at chesterdh@hotmail.com for a free e-copy of this 310 page book and for additional information.

Like

]]>
By: India鈥檚 economy is in crisis 鈥 and adulation for Abhijit Banerjee鈥檚 systems received鈥檛 resolve it - All Latest News at One place | Hotnews9 /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-3935 Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:25:41 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-3935 […] of curiosity on a slim build of questions that after it comes to continually have to originate withperson desire: why originate nurses snatch to no longer come? Most usually the questions asked are about the […]

Like

]]>
By: India鈥檚 economy is in crisis 鈥 and adulation for Abhijit Banerjee鈥檚 methods won鈥檛 solve it - Uttarakhand Today /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-3934 Wed, 23 Oct 2019 04:15:49 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-3934 […] randomised controlled trials focus on a narrow set of questions that almost always have to do with individual choice: why do nurses choose not to come? Most often the questions asked are about the supposed faults of […]

Like

]]>
By: Impoverished Economics? Unpacking the Economics Nobel Prize – Breaking Worldwide News /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-3890 Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:22:58 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-3890 […] simple interventions such as combating teacher absenteeism, through cash transfers, and through stimulating positive thinking among the people living in poverty. Sound good so […]

Like

]]>
By: Explainer: What鈥檚 unique about Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo鈥檚 method 鈥 and why it is criticised - Scroll.in - CLICK NOW /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-3870 Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:49:02 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-3870 […] As economists Farwa Sial and Carolina Alves write: […]

Like

]]>
By: Explainer: What鈥檚 routine about Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo鈥檚 formula 鈥 and why it's criticised - All Latest News at One place | Hotnews9 /2018/11/09/why-positive-thinking-wont-get-you-out-of-poverty/comment-page-1/#comment-3869 Tue, 15 Oct 2019 18:26:12 +0000 http://developingeconomics.org/?p=3668#comment-3869 […] As economists Farwa Sial and Carolina Alves write: […]

Like

]]>