Reddit reviews Economic Growth (The MIT Press)

I have you listed as a "friend" because generally I pay some heed to the ideas you express in your posts, that being said your comment reads like a shotgun blast of irrelevancies.

To start off I lived in SK for two years and never experienced any hatred of Americans... so I guess I'll take my anecdote over yours.

>Past a certain point does it even matter?

To the extent we're on a rock that will be consumed by the sun in X billion years, maybe not. To the extent it helps us understand alternative policies' consequences for the billions of humans in developing countries during the mean time - of course it bloody matters.

>The whole socialism vs capitalism or more or less efficient is a red herring.

Socialism and capitalism weren't even on the table; how is this anything other than your own red herring? Efficiency matters for reasons which I assume are obvious.

>different from each other drawing comparisons or trying to find similarities between them is probably a waste of time

I read this as "examining how economic growth occurs or does not occur is a waste of time," is this accurate? Why have social science at all? "There's too many variables, fuck it!" You need some Barro & Sala-i-Martin.

>Starting a business is never a rational decision at least by economic standards

I would love to see your model!

>I'm good with math

U Wot Mate?

I'll bash your fookin head in, I sware on me mum I wiill.

Barro and Sala-i-Martin might actually be best read first.

The standard grad school text these days for dynamic macro is Ljungqvist & Sargent's Recursive Macroeconomic Theory. You won't need to go through the whole thing necessarily, but to be able to tackle the Woodford book, I would think chapters 1-4, 7-8, 12-13, 16-17 and 24-26 would be quite helpful.

There's also Simon & Blume's Mathematics for Economists, which is a good reference book should you need it. For example, the discussion and motivation of Lagrange multipliers and the Kuhn-Tucker optimization conditions is very good.

One noteable omission from both of those books which you will likely encounter at some point is continuous-time optimization/optimal control. This topic is often covered in the appendices of various grad-level macro textbooks, but perhaps the best I've come across is Chapter 7 of Daron Acemoglu's Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. The appendix to Barro & Sala-i-Martin's Economic Growth also has some pretty good coverage.

By the way, if you hunt around, all of these textbooks can be found online for "free".

The link works just fine for me. Here it is again: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/04/is-chinese-growth-overstated.html

Note that one of the authors is Sala-i-Martin, one of the leading authorities on growth (the guy coauthored one of the best textbooks on the subject)

>Some groups might do well while others don't. If we are good across the board with only John Citizen and his five cousins not doing well, sure than perhaps we could say "the economy" is doing well.

You need to show me some indication that you've read at least the Bernanke piece and skimmed the Jones Klenow piece. I refuse to converse unless you show me some indication that you can ask some intelligent and interesting questions about the material that you were shown.

You have posted question after question on inequality piketty, etc and I have even responded to some of the threads. However, what I have not seen from you is any indication of good faith effort. Unless I see that and you start asking more intelligent/interesting questions about the material presented, our conversation is finished.

>Shouldn't we rather discuss which parts of the population do well and which don't?

We do. All the time. People are tearing their goddamn hair out over ADH. Economics has always concerned itself with winners and losers.

Again, you need to show me some evidence that you have digested some material and show me that you aren't here simply to preen, because, frankly, that's all I've seen you do.