I'm an economics student. I hate when people look so surprised when I say that I don't really like finance and that it is not what economics is all about. I just wish the general public had more information about the field.
finance is still incredibly important, it should be regarded as a base tool. and as an undergrad i shrugged it off -- how hard can it be to take a second derivative of a call? bonds, arbitrage, stocks, annuities, assets liabilities are all fundamentals. you don't have to like call bull spread the VIX in order to bet that the acceleration of the uncertainty in the market is going to increase, but the underlying concepts of long/short, supply chain flows, derivatives are all super important. i just hard disagree with a lot of the perspectives given lmao. shrugging econometrics is an even worse sin, it just means that you're giving in to the non-science side of economics, which is rough. to single out behavioral economics - it might be less replicable relative to other disciplines - however, we get a singular example which is from a NYT best seller? this isn't a study, this isn't data, this is an information availability heuristic: given that 33% of total academic research is replicable - i'm not taking this as significant unless provided further data. i mean the important thing to realize is that money can be substituted for any utility measure, and if there is an instantiator for such an object which will produce the same utility gains, that the same underlying effects will govern. -- ie education provides passive benefit (education) * (1 + opportunity)^time, so like what's the benefit of education compared to cost or loss of time? like money is just a placeholder for value, any such quality which meets the value critereon (scarce, limited) as well as the market restrictions (network, full comp, oligop) will determine the same dynamics. like i bet you could make an economics calculus the same way there are state machines in which you could substitute value for money and market for the context.
turns out there's active research in applying specific situations into Finite State Machines, i think it could be generalized, that would be a cool paper. might try my hand probably fail, probably forget it -- but dibs UwU
Although Finance is not always related to economics the way we sometimes construe it, asset pricing is still an invaluable field which is very interesting on its own.
A possible problem with that is some people can claim to rate a particular economist very highly, but for drastically different reasons. For example, I am left-of-center politically, but I highly regard Adam Smith for his insights on productivity & labor being the source of national wealth, & his criticism of rent-seeking behaviors. Far too often, I find that right-of-center politically aligned people would also claim to admire Adam Smith, but the preferred policies of these same people tend to favor forms of autocracy & mercantilism. Thus, very different people can highly regard a famous economist for very different reasons.
@@brasscupholder6233 You shouldn't expect tier lists to be perfectly balanced, for instance, I am really passionate about monetary economics and I don't like seeing macro in d-tier. I just think it's interesting to listen to his point of view and his insights.
@@brasscupholder6233 wasnt adam smith's theory came up as to the response of rampant marcantilism? why would far right people admire adam smith? he opted for free trade instead.
Because ignorance of Marxism and Zionism is socially engineered in the United States. Zionism good, Marx evil is about as deep as it gets. We don't ever discuss it further.
@@matheus3905So there is no need to specifically have a subject as "marxists economics"... Marxian Theory is implied in political economy and all of the economy is behavioral and política. All.
Marxian economy is an integral part of both polical economy , economic history and development economics , I bet that if you went around applying its method without calling it Marxism you d make a very good impression
I disagree with your take on econometrics. In the past couple of years econometricians have been doing a lot of research in ML and data science, and how it can be applied to econometrics.
I also disagree with the ranking of econometrics because it provides an empirical dimension to all fields of economics. Without econometrics, economics is just story telling.
Good video, was surprised to agree with almost everything😎Was disappointed however that you didn’t open up marxism even a little on why its so bad. These are the questions emerging economics students want to know about!
Hi, i study economics and have watched your videos about the fields of economics. It was very beneficial. Thanks a lot. And i really want to know your opinion about agricultural economics. can you prepare a video about agricultural economics and its future aspects? Can you estimate this field in this order to which tier would it be ? Can students choose this fiel? Is it good or bad? Thanks for your attention in advance
Although I'm interested in business economics, I'd rate institutional economics (not mentioned), industrial organization, and macroeconomic theory as "S Tier". Although I'm left of center politically, I'll concede that Marxian economics is ideology rather than economics. Great video, though.
How difficult is it to pivot at a higher level in economics. I ask because I would be most interested in developmental and economic history. Would these potentially be complimentary? I just generally want to know how easy or difficult it would be to pivot or study both.
Could you make a video about why economics may be important to other fields? I tutor economics and have a lot of students taking intro econ courses as pre reqs for majors when it doesn't even make sense to me. Like why are social work majors taking macro econ and not micro as well? I can see micro and macro being relevant to the major and I think both are important together. Is it just a silly filler prerequisite?
Really cool and heplful this video! Just I'll say that I think you'd been very harsh over macro and finance. Anyways I liked the video a lot, so thanks for bringing up this material to youtube! Greets from Argentina.
Damn, can't believe Marx's theories of the tendency for the rate of profit to decline, socially necessary labour time, commodity fetishism and crises of overproduction were all garbage, hold on, I'm being handed a newspaper-
Disagreeing strongly with Marxist economics is fine, but I do wish you at least explained why in an objective way. UMass Amherst is probably the most prominent left leaning economics department in the country and according to the education department’s data on college scorecard, they have a significantly higher ROI based on median earnings of new graduates than other neoclassical departments in Massachusetts (at least in public universities). It’s at least worth engaging with the ideas as opposed to dismissing it as garbage without even explaining what’s in it.
New to the channel, was nodding along the entire time and enjoyed the ranking! But I got severely upset when you dunked on Marxist econ like that - uncalled for and wrong! - and then I subscribed begrudgingly
I would honestly categorize economics into macro, micro, game theory, and history. All of the subcategories in your video fall into these 4, some overlap. Macro - political, development, econometrics, finance Micro - labor, indust org., econometrics, finance Game theory - indust org., behavioral, political History - political, Marxist How would I rank them? S - micro A - macro B - game theory C - D - F - history
1. This is RED STATE economics, Utah economics, pure capitalist economics. Prof. Palsson doesn't tell you that, although calling his channel "market power" might be a bit of a clue. 2. What questions are taboo in capitalist economics? Asking where capital (i.e. wealth) actually comes from, and what is the influence of law on economics. 3. Asking where capital comes frome is sometimes called "capital theory." Oops, it's on the edge of marxian economics. The social justice conclusions of marxian economics derive from Marx's perhaps flawed notion that capital is the product of labor. I won't belabor that, Marx was probably wrong. Nevertheless, asking probing questions about the origins of capital/wealth is damned awkward around the wealthy, who fund anti-communist / anit-union / anti-labor ideology in Red America. "Oh, it all comes from innovation, everybody knows that." Well, maybe. But the exploitation and enslavement of labor isn't exactly innovative. And a nexus of capital like Facebook is primarily an innovation in the delivery of advertising, not much of a societal advancement. Not to mention all of the traditional print capital that digital media has destroyed, rendering its net contribution problematic. But there it is, this giant ball of capital called Facebook. Where did it really come from? This is a deeper question than cliometrics, or cliodynamics. Economics...*especially capitalist economics* ...can't pretend to know anything until and unless it can pose a viable account of where *capital,* of all things, comes from. 4. Economics and the law (*not* Judge Posner's awful "Law & Economics"), is really what Prof. Palsson means by Political Economy. All of the politics, upheaval, give and take, sturm und drang of social change must ultimately be translated into some sort of action item. We call that action item "the law." The ultimate problem with ALL of classical economics as people like Prof. Palsson receive its wisdom is that economics is a child of the law (Judge Posner, seeking to establish a form of "natural law" posits it the other way). Try to imagine the concept of a transaction in a society in which there is no legally established form of money, or accountability for holding up one's end of a bargain/enforcement of contracts, etc. In the beginning, the guy with the biggest sword lays down law, creating a regular and predictable superstructure within which an economy can then "self"-organize, primarily to his benefit, of course. And it all circles the drain from there. That's why behavioral economics is such a washout in the end. Behavior is so constrained by law that there is nothing "natural" about it. 5. So much of this vision of economics is driven by an underlying religious imperative (looking at you, Utah) to find "natural" or "God's" law operating in social systems driven mostly by human power relations. WHERE IS YOUR CYNICISM? Why do you think you can understand the world without it?
it's just extending rationality to include emotional aspects such as revenge, interpersonal lose lose gratification etc. it's a super necessary field when u look at games and decision theory.
@@echoexplore4190 I had a prof this semester who on many occasions would shit on behavioural economics and his argument was basically that he didn't believe that the study of irrational behaviour should be done within an economic class, as one of the main early assumptions we make as economic students is that people make rational decisions. He thought that the entire concept of behavioural economics should solely be taught within the psychology field.
You could have included monetary economics , public finance , international economics , growth economics I am genuinely interested to know about all these
@@nikita5917 Not necessarily, but they overlap heavily. Growth econ differs by focusing on growth more generally (ie. also for rich countries), while dev econ focuses mainly on how to get on the growth track from unindustrialized country to industrialized country. Also, dev econ has a larger focus on institutions, and on micro-oriented things like if it is better to hand out vouchers or cash to the poor.
What about financial economics ? You did mention finance which does not have any direct relation to economics and is focusing more on financial instruments and markets. However, financial economics is not finance and there is a clear distinction between them. Additionally, you have not told about the vital topics of financial economics, for example, efficient market hypothesis, which is still debatable issue. Furthermore, I think you overrate political economics and economic history , which are the least quantitative areas of economics and tends to be more humanities, and underrate econometrics, which brings necessary analytical and quantitative skills making it the most important class in a whole degree. Overall, it seems you have put more “PhD” topics of economics to the top and gave worse rankings to the more practical ones, which are fundamental of the understanding the economics itself. The only point where I absolutely agree is giving F to Marxist economics.
You are very correct. I am shock that this “economist” wasn’t even aware of the fact that modern finance is so separated from economics it became more of a business discipline than an economics discipline. If he were to mention anything about finance in this video it should be financial economics, which dive into asset pricing and corporate finance theories developed since 1950s
regarding your failing grades for Macro and Marxian: on Macro, yes, this has been falsely "dichotomized" with micro, as one with an in depth understanding of Econ will see the ever present mirroring between national/global economic trends and events and those of firms/individuals. public education (k-12 and academia) presents information and knowledge in a very fragmented way, so most students will not possess the training necessary to truly think "macro" (holistically, systematically, relation-ally) . in my estimation the FUNDAMENTAL GLITCH in economic thinking to date IS this false dichotomizing between micro-macro. Macro is critical in these dangerously globalized, militarized, politicized, materialistic times. on Marxian: before drawing conclusions, one might read Schumpeter's chapter on Marx before outright dismissing him. I have worked my share of shit jobs and Marxian alienation is a very real, a very disturbing experience. of course, Marxist theory had both its flaws in theory and disasters in reality, BUT Marx was a master philosopher/Sociologist/historian. his concept of Species Essence and alienation are critical (to those of us who have experienced shit jobs working for shit bosses. his concept of alienation applies to BOTH workers under monopoly corporate capitalism and state communism (the most dismal irony of the dismal science!) Veblen's emulation (working class prefers to emulate the rich, not fight them off) is a critical follow up, to understand Veblen is to see why class struggle failed (among many other reasons, such as the success of Capitalism to provide enough creature comforts to appease and placate the emulating poor.) But to read Marx is to learn to think historically, to analyze integration-ally, two critical abilities that are gravely lacking in many students. Economics is complex because the human psyche, survival, and social life are complex. If one's goal is to achieve the full comprehensive functional understanding, one must study all fields of econ, as well as other fields (anthro, psych, sociology, philosophy) and synthesize them. If your goal is to get an A on a test or pass the time, then your study is just a chore. You are only useful to one, yourself.
Sorry to disagree with all of you guys -- but Marx and Marxism is more akin to prophet and prophetic religion than it is to dispassionate analysis of human society. This, of course, is not an original insight on my part, it is the considered opinion of perceptive thinkers. Just to name one great work that explains the pernicious nature of Marxism -- Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism" does a brilliant job of exposing the utter bankruptcy of Marxist economics. Every society that adopted Communism -- that is, Marxism-Leninism -- as its ruling ideology turned out to be Procrustean in its implementation. You know the story of Procrustes -- he would make people lie on a bed, and cut off part of their leg if they were too tall, or, alternatively, stretch them out and lengthen them if they were too short. For the poor ordinary folk who lived in Communist nations, Marxism effectively functioned like Procrustes' bed. There supposedly was an "ideal" Marxian Utopia (analogous to "heaven" in some religions) that society had to "progress" towards -- and everyone and everything that did not fit that ideal had to undergo either 'lengthening' or 'shortening' in a brutal fashion. Pol Pot's Cambodia was the worst example of this egregious phenomenon, but Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or Castro's Cuba were not much better. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in Sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous Wolves... Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit... Therefore, by their fruits you will know them." Question: From the 1930s till today, what are the plainly visible "fruits" of Marxism-Communism? I rest my case.
You are insanely biased. Also, you don't understand what macro does. macroeconomists left the idea to predict the crisises. Instead they are studying how policies affect macro aggregates, so that CBs and ministries could work better
As a student studying agricultural econnomics I really hoped to see ag-econ or enviormental econ in this video... however it was really fun to see how some fields from tier S goes to B or C as the research trend changes
Great video, but seems like a somewhat narrow-minded approach to Marxist econ. I would argue Marxist economics isn't so much a field in its own right, but a lens in which all other fields of economics can be viewed.
Wow, man, just wow. With all due respect... You are an extremely well-educated person. I admire you. And yet, around minute 15 you suddenly turned such an ideologue for a moment... Of course, you can ridicule me for what I say but don't underestimate Marxian economics. Please just don't. And I am not trying to seem edgy or something like that, to the contrary! Marxian economics is, in essence, a combination of Economics History and Political Economy with Industrial Organization. And yes, I might be a bit biased here because my grandpa studied quite a lot of Marxian economics (he has a PhD in Agricultural Economics and Statistics), but that is the thing... He was born in 1940s in the Soviet Union, lost his family during the Second World War and was an orphan for some time until he was adopted by a poor Russian family. Living in the Soviet Union, he saw the great transformation of the economy, with tens of millions of poor people becoming middle class in just a couple of decades. He saw the problems of hunger, which terrorized Russia for centuries and were even present in 1930s, completely eliminated in the 1960s. He also saw how an agricultural country of Russia which had 20% literacy rates in 1920s could turn into an industrial superpower by 1950s, which launched the first satellite into space and even the first robot to the Moon and Venus. Most of these achievements would've been impossible if not for the works of great Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Armenian, and many other economists and planners. And yet in America, there is still this Red Terror mentality of ridiculing and minimizing Marxian economics out of habit and tradition. And yes, it might not be very lucrative these days, because private businesses are not generally interested in hiring Marxists, but trying to just ridicule the huge amounts of knowledge and calling it ''yellow snow'' is not what a wise person would say. If you (not you specifically but anyone) would just try to analyze history through the Marxian lens for a moment, that might not turn you into a communist, but that might provide A LOT of insights coming from dynamics which are usually overlooked by anti-Marxian ideologues.
@@quanta1197 Well, I just hoped someone will find my comment helpful. I did not intend to change anyone's opinion (that would be too difficult), only to share what I found necessary to be shared about the topic. So thanks a lot to you for your reply!
Not a marxist myself, but it truly felt reductive of him. Actually started watching him because he didn´t feel like a "the market moves alone fellas" kinda guy that you see coming from U.S. universities...
Behaviour Economics - B tier - great for thinking - helps with understanding - useful for policy. Development Economics - C tier - too political, not enough results, what has it really done? Maybe it can clean up it's act. Econometrics - S tier - drives current economic advancements - most useful - used to solve many problems regardless of complexity or perceived value. Economic History - B tier - great for learning - important foundation. Finance - A tier - runs the world - improves the life of nations and individuals - not S tier because it can be quite selfish. Industrial Organisation - B tier - you put it there and I don't know heaps about it. Future looks promising. Labour Economics - A tier -everything we do and see at the moment - endless use - Not S tier because of the bad politics dragging it down. Macroeconomics - A tier - gotta love looking at the big questions and answers - Not accurate enough for S Marxist - what you said Micro Theory - B tier - good for learning and thinking - can still be applied for results. Political Economy - D tier - don't know much about it but in it's current state sounds like it doesn't need to exist Seems like I'm not a very harsh marker.
For sure, I agree mostly with your statements. Not going to lie, this video really made a huge impression on this channel. Macro is integral to understanding anything, but I think as a research field he rated it quite low. So, in terms of importance I think that your tier list makes the most sense, but he was going off of what is worth researching. Regardless, I would say that you were more accurate.
I realize that you had to cut the video eventually, but if you had to put environmental and agricultural economics on the list, what tier would they be?
Yes. Remember that Capital analyzes capitalism, not socialism. No one has ever understood capitalism better than Marx. The entire school of Neoclassical economics (Marshall, Walras) which still dominates mainstream economics had to be created to defend capitalism because Marx's critique was so devastating. They had to invent the pseudo-scientific, unfalsifiable utility theory of value to prop up the capitalist system's theoretical justifications. Marx's work is the culmination of the classical school that Ricardo and Smith are also a part of. You can't call yourself an informed economist without having read Marx. Keynes' whole idea of effective demand comes from Marx.
Capital is a pretty heavy read. You wouldn't understand much if you read it directly. You should start with Engels's 25 Q&A pamphlet called "Principles of Communism", then Lenin's "Karl Marx" - a biography with a brief exposition of Marxism, then Marx's "Wage Labor and Capital", then "Value, Price and Profit." Reading the last two is very important before reading Capital.
Read about it. Best books on the issue is written by Stephanie Kelton and Rutger Bregman , The Deficit Myth and Utopia For Realist. This person clearly have bias against any forces and policies other than ‘Market power’ - typical neo-liberal, classical economist.
I love how you picked both the S and A tiers, but I will fight tooth and nail for everything you put in those C and D tiers 😭 I like how their uncertainty/vagueness leaves so much room for different possibilities!
I love your takes, couldn´t agree more. I love how economic history and development are up there vs the "hard facts" fields and it totally makes sense (not that "hard facts" fields are not important) because I think these fields allow us to ask the most important questions and they are incredibly helpful in coming up with answers for the big, structural issues like poverty and inequality
As an someone thinking of majoring in economics this channel has been an incredible resource. I had question that I thought you as someone who's gone through multiple tiers of economics education and is currently working as professor would be uniquely positioned to answer. Do you have any recommendations on things to take into account while choosing a school do your undergraduate in economics in ? Stuff like some specific ways in which we should compare economics programs and some other university features one should take into account while deciding on where you do your undergrad?
This is a little confusing to me. You have some on here that are more schools of economics (Marxist, Behavioral Economics, Political Economy) and others the rest that are branches. Since you have done both (I know it may be hard to distinguish in some cases but as the result there are a lot you are missing: Austrian, Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, Monetary Theory, MMT, Public Choice Theory, Neo-Institutional Economics, Old Institutional Economics, History of Economic Ideas) It was very interesting, just a little confusing that some of these were missing.
I think a full video on Marxist economics would be fantastic! Maybe the history of Marxist economics, or an overview of the viewpoints of modern Marxist economic thinkers, because it’s hard to figure out what people even mean when they refer to it. Thanks in advance, love the channel!
What about "Computerized Economics" AKA "AI:Economist" or "Economist Simulation within computer models". "2-minute papers" did a video on an AI:Economist modeling the "Best" Tax policy taxation given the constraint of Productivity & Equality.
A lot of those simulations fit under different sub-fields of economics. That application would fall under Public Economics. The AI: Economist is a cool experiment, but it's currently based on a really simplified economy. We'll have to see how it evolves.
Marx wasn’t perfect but he had lots of interesting theories and thoughts that to this day I don’t think we’ve grappled with, especially things presented in Capital.
The problem is that Karl Marx was DEAD way before the 20th century. (He died in 1883.) Think about the advances in every field of human activity since 1883... Unless you consider Marx as the prophet of your religion, and Das Kapital as your holy book, you have to admit -- Karl Marx is horribly dated. You certainly can get some insights into the economic conditions of Western Europe in the mid-19th century by reading Marx -- but that's about it. Any claims by the "Marxians" that there are hidden depths in Marxian economics should be treated exactly the same way as any other religious faith. It is pure 'belief,' it has nothing to do with objective analysis of human society.
For me the S tier would be : Micro, Macro, Econometrics, Economics history. Because if I already master this topics, most likely other topics would come easily
I'd like to see a video where you explain why Marxist economics sucks. As someone interested in capital accumulation, wealth inequality, worker exploitation and non-market alternative economic systems, I'd like to hear an economics professor go over why some of the ideas I might be interested in are actually a little asinine.
This is on my list. To make it good I'm need to read through a lot more work. It will take a while, but I believe the video will come. To clarify, I said in my Rules for Picking Classes that I think the questions are important but are answered better in other fields (e.g. political economy, labor economics, etc.).
@@MarketPowerYT Awesome! Thanks for the reply and clarification. Cheers from Australia!
3 года назад+8
The fact that you like economic history and despise marxism is beyond me. How do you want to understand economic history and also neglect a theory that literally shaped the 20th century? To all aspiring economists out there, letting your own biases shape your research/research questions is the wrong thing to do. If a professor or a senior student tells you to avoid a whole theory without proper justification saying "that's just garbage", I would advise you to take that with a pinch of salt. My tier list would be: S - Labour, econometrics, development; A- History, industrial org., finance; B- Macro, Micro, Behavioural; C: Political, Marxism (but not because "it's garbage")
How is macro on D tier even considering that thanks to our current knowledge countries could react faster than ever before to the pandemic? Come on! Haha Other than that, this is a great video. Keep up the great work.
Literally laughed out loud when you put finance in D tier... Shouldn't we use economics (one input could be average pay scale) to do this tier list. My favored line "I'm totally unbiased when I'm making these decisions here" 19:12
Average pay scale is a biased indicator based on perverse incentives and socially perceived value without actually being causally linked with overall impact to market quality or economic understanding. So no. Just because fancy people are fancy doesn't make them better. Finance has more to do with strategic gamesmanship than it does tactical practicality for systems change. Since it perpetuates more of the same, it's not able to get over itself. D tier is apropos.
Ha..ha.. Liked the way you dumped the most authentic critique of the stream of economics you talk of ie capitalist economy...into Tier F. Not unexpected. Marxist economics should be a major part of Political Economy, Economic History and Labour Economics...if justice is to be done. Remember Historical Materialism.
I don't know about pursuing Marxism as a thesis, but total ignorance towards Marxism is ridiculous. At minimum, you are ignoring the motivations and driving force of over a century of history and hundreds of millions of people. How can you flip a switch and ignore that?
Marxian Economics offers a totally different approach to economics. You should have perhaps elaborated why you put it in F instead of dismissing it out of hand. I assume the major thing being that the assumptions and methodology of mainstream economics are not accepted by Marxian Economics. But there are lots of places where the concerns of Marxian economics overlap with labour economics and development economics, I think there is value to be had from that
As a guy with an economics degree finance is something you will actually use in real life. If you have a 401K, financing a car, buying a house, heck even a bank account you will use finance. So, he might want to put that in A tier.
how can someone who got a phd in economics from yale not have a grasp on the broad state of the subfields and make so many false statements? like it’s concerning that you can’t determine the state of micro theory…or think that auction theory isn’t game theory…or not notice the stagnation in IO…or idk not very very clearly note that many of these subfields have extensive overlap…or very very clearly not have a grasp on the state of PE lit
Which of these fields of economics would a PhD/Postdoc who is analyzing public health spending data for different states in the US, likely fall under? Curious
If I want to build my quantitative skills, aside from taking more advanced econometric courses, would I be able to further build them through taking industrial organization? I was just curious haha since you mentioned that it’s the “engineering” of economics
The field of economics that one desire’s to study is based on both their reason for studying that field and their belief in its usefulness to that end. What is their reason for studying economics? Career advancement in some relevant related field? Existential inquiry? Sheer entertainment as one might read a romance or sci-fi novel? Intellectual curiosity? Impressing others at a dinner party with what you know? Improving conditions for humanity/ecosystem? This brings me to a sad personal conclusion: while so many suffer and have suffered due to "faulty economic thinking and acting,” the field seems today to serve all these functions EXCEPT improving conditions for humanity/ecosystem. Academia and the world of publishing have become just another entertainment industry (or a servant of the actual one) in and of itself, a very lucrative one. The fields that I choose first and foremost remedy THIS fact of the modern "use" of economics as a study and practice. Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class addresses this dismal fact of the dismal science best. The conspicuous consumption of education. Conspicuous knowing.
In economics do you learn about the times we have robbed other countries like oil, war, and so forth? Also do we only learn about economics of a capitalist society or do they educate you about other systems?
You seemed to mention that econometric developments would be improvements in the measurements necessary for causal inference. Difference in differences, regression discontinuity design, and other methods are more like analysis design aspects… but econometric developments can be in things like time series, spatial and financial econometrics which are areas where economics has made UNIQUE contributions to statistical and causal inference… volatility models like GARCH and spatial autoregressive models and vector auto regression were invented and advanced by econometricians and augmentations of these methods are huge in economic research that make economic analysis more compelling
When you literary place every subfield of economics requiring mathematics in the down tier. Like, I don’t know about this classification. Cambridge students usually do a lot of microeconomics and macroeconomics through their education and based on your classification it seems as if they study something pointless at uni. I actually consider microeconomics and macroeconomics as the most important fields of economics because they construct the abstraction that defines economics as a science the rest of the fields (except econometrics) are descriptive, where micro and macro are analytical and in my opinion science is about analysis. The ones that you have placed on the top tier are going to be very helpful if you’re looking for a job to apply economics the down tier however are the subjects that you’ll use in your academic studies
I think Public Economics could fit very well in Political Economy which explains things like what would be the optimal size of Government or its objectives. Also Taxation Theory could be cover by Labor Economics or if you want to see it in a agregate terms also Development Economics or Macroeconomics would be useful.
Thanks for the video. Love your channel. I more or less agree with your ranking except I would place Political Econ at C and Behavioral Economics at S tier ( I am a maths student minoring in econ and physics, and work of Xavier Gabaix seems interesting to me, like GUT in physics). btw, S means exemplary.
Interested in graduate school?
✅Get my FREE grad school application worksheet: marketpower.substack.com/p/gradschool-masterclass
I'm an economics student. I hate when people look so surprised when I say that I don't really like finance and that it is not what economics is all about. I just wish the general public had more information about the field.
finance is still incredibly important, it should be regarded as a base tool. and as an undergrad i shrugged it off -- how hard can it be to take a second derivative of a call? bonds, arbitrage, stocks, annuities, assets liabilities are all fundamentals.
you don't have to like call bull spread the VIX in order to bet that the acceleration of the uncertainty in the market is going to increase, but the underlying concepts of long/short, supply chain flows, derivatives are all super important.
i just hard disagree with a lot of the perspectives given lmao. shrugging econometrics is an even worse sin, it just means that you're giving in to the non-science side of economics, which is rough. to single out behavioral economics - it might be less replicable relative to other disciplines - however, we get a singular example which is from a NYT best seller? this isn't a study, this isn't data, this is an information availability heuristic: given that 33% of total academic research is replicable - i'm not taking this as significant unless provided further data.
i mean the important thing to realize is that money can be substituted for any utility measure, and if there is an instantiator for such an object which will produce the same utility gains, that the same underlying effects will govern. -- ie education provides passive benefit (education) * (1 + opportunity)^time, so like what's the benefit of education compared to cost or loss of time? like money is just a placeholder for value, any such quality which meets the value critereon (scarce, limited) as well as the market restrictions (network, full comp, oligop) will determine the same dynamics.
like i bet you could make an economics calculus the same way there are state machines in which you could substitute value for money and market for the context.
turns out there's active research in applying specific situations into Finite State Machines, i think it could be generalized, that would be a cool paper. might try my hand probably fail, probably forget it -- but dibs UwU
Although Finance is not always related to economics the way we sometimes construe it, asset pricing is still an invaluable field which is very interesting on its own.
Same, I don’t like financial theory that much. I find it complicated.
Did finance in undergrad and did development economics,,,,planning to do a PHD in development economics.
Really cool idea man !! You could also do an economist tier list, that would be interesting.
A possible problem with that is some people can claim to rate a particular economist very highly, but for drastically different reasons.
For example, I am left-of-center politically, but I highly regard Adam Smith for his insights on productivity & labor being the source of national wealth, & his criticism of rent-seeking behaviors.
Far too often, I find that right-of-center politically aligned people would also claim to admire Adam Smith, but the preferred policies of these same people tend to favor forms of autocracy & mercantilism.
Thus, very different people can highly regard a famous economist for very different reasons.
@@brasscupholder6233 You shouldn't expect tier lists to be perfectly balanced, for instance, I am really passionate about monetary economics and I don't like seeing macro in d-tier. I just think it's interesting to listen to his point of view and his insights.
@@brasscupholder6233 wasnt adam smith's theory came up as to the response of rampant marcantilism? why would far right people admire adam smith? he opted for free trade instead.
@@itbeat7899 lol that’s his political bias showing
@@brasscupholder6233Than it whorls be based on their economic achievements and how they propelled the field!
Environmental and agricultural economics: "Are we jokes to you?"
I had to cut it off somewhere! The video is already my longest ever.
Still watched to the end though...
Ps. Thai fan over here. Keep doing good videos!
@@atimk2542 Hmm Thought Id met a fellow Ugandan on these youtube streets
Do you know if Agricultural Economics is in demand?
Ecological >>>> Environmental
How can you put political economy in A and Marxian economics in F ? Marx was one of the most influential political economists in 1800s !
THE most
Hr know jack shit, that's all
Because ignorance of Marxism and Zionism is socially engineered in the United States. Zionism good, Marx evil is about as deep as it gets. We don't ever discuss it further.
because political economy isn't restricted to a never-ending regurgitation of the Capital
@@matheus3905So there is no need to specifically have a subject as "marxists economics"... Marxian Theory is implied in political economy and all of the economy is behavioral and política. All.
Marxian economy is an integral part of both polical economy , economic history and development economics , I bet that if you went around applying its method without calling it Marxism you d make a very good impression
Many economists are scared to use the name "Marx", especially in the West. Mostly due to red-scare propaganda
Sure, just apply the class struggle as the driving force of history as well as historical materialism and you will be very, very, very scientific.
I disagree with your take on econometrics. In the past couple of years econometricians have been doing a lot of research in ML and data science, and how it can be applied to econometrics.
This pretty much made me stop listening.
I also disagree with the ranking of econometrics because it provides an empirical dimension to all fields of economics. Without econometrics, economics is just story telling.
Good video, was surprised to agree with almost everything😎Was disappointed however that you didn’t open up marxism even a little on why its so bad. These are the questions emerging economics students want to know about!
he has other videos explaining it. Basically it goes against a lot of stuff that economics builds on and its all over the place.
Hi, i study economics and have watched your videos about the fields of economics. It was very beneficial. Thanks a lot.
And i really want to know your opinion about agricultural economics.
can you prepare a video about agricultural economics and its future aspects? Can you estimate this field in this order to which tier would it be ?
Can students choose this fiel? Is it good or bad?
Thanks for your attention in advance
"I'm looking for a man in finance" -> D tier 😂
Although I'm interested in business economics, I'd rate institutional economics (not mentioned), industrial organization, and macroeconomic theory as "S Tier". Although I'm left of center politically, I'll concede that Marxian economics is ideology rather than economics. Great video, though.
How difficult is it to pivot at a higher level in economics. I ask because I would be most interested in developmental and economic history. Would these potentially be complimentary? I just generally want to know how easy or difficult it would be to pivot or study both.
Could you make a video about why economics may be important to other fields? I tutor economics and have a lot of students taking intro econ courses as pre reqs for majors when it doesn't even make sense to me. Like why are social work majors taking macro econ and not micro as well? I can see micro and macro being relevant to the major and I think both are important together. Is it just a silly filler prerequisite?
Such a good idea! I'll have to look into it.
S stands for sigma, A stans for alpha and B for beta.
Really cool and heplful this video! Just I'll say that I think you'd been very harsh over macro and finance. Anyways I liked the video a lot, so thanks for bringing up this material to youtube! Greets from Argentina.
im in behavioral economics and loving it, though im also a beginner right now ^^"
There are lot more that you missed which include, Buisness Economics,International Economics..
Damn, can't believe Marx's theories of the tendency for the rate of profit to decline, socially necessary labour time, commodity fetishism and crises of overproduction were all garbage, hold on, I'm being handed a newspaper-
Your tier list of economists ?
where is game theory, imo gt is top top tier
How to do research as an UG student, please a video on thisss?
Here's a whole playlist! ruclips.net/p/PLB5yp_Rd2wwkruCc43evJWnEehvYG8Erx
Wow thanks, btw you're helping us so much its unbelievable! ❤️
Disagreeing strongly with Marxist economics is fine, but I do wish you at least explained why in an objective way.
UMass Amherst is probably the most prominent left leaning economics department in the country and according to the education department’s data on college scorecard, they have a significantly higher ROI based on median earnings of new graduates than other neoclassical departments in Massachusetts (at least in public universities).
It’s at least worth engaging with the ideas as opposed to dismissing it as garbage without even explaining what’s in it.
The opposite of neoclassical is not Marxist economics that literally just regarded as a pseudo science, its new Keynesianism that is the opposite
New to the channel, was nodding along the entire time and enjoyed the ranking! But I got severely upset when you dunked on Marxist econ like that - uncalled for and wrong! - and then I subscribed begrudgingly
I had a real belly laugh when you place finance in D tier.
I would honestly categorize economics into macro, micro, game theory, and history.
All of the subcategories in your video fall into these 4, some overlap.
Macro - political, development, econometrics, finance
Micro - labor, indust org., econometrics, finance
Game theory - indust org., behavioral, political
History - political, Marxist
How would I rank them?
S - micro
A - macro
B - game theory
C -
D -
F - history
1. This is RED STATE economics, Utah economics, pure capitalist economics. Prof. Palsson doesn't tell you that, although calling his channel "market power" might be a bit of a clue.
2. What questions are taboo in capitalist economics? Asking where capital (i.e. wealth) actually comes from, and what is the influence of law on economics.
3. Asking where capital comes frome is sometimes called "capital theory." Oops, it's on the edge of marxian economics. The social justice conclusions of marxian economics derive from Marx's perhaps flawed notion that capital is the product of labor. I won't belabor that, Marx was probably wrong. Nevertheless, asking probing questions about the origins of capital/wealth is damned awkward around the wealthy, who fund anti-communist / anit-union / anti-labor ideology in Red America. "Oh, it all comes from innovation, everybody knows that." Well, maybe. But the exploitation and enslavement of labor isn't exactly innovative. And a nexus of capital like Facebook is primarily an innovation in the delivery of advertising, not much of a societal advancement. Not to mention all of the traditional print capital that digital media has destroyed, rendering its net contribution problematic. But there it is, this giant ball of capital called Facebook. Where did it really come from? This is a deeper question than cliometrics, or cliodynamics. Economics...*especially capitalist economics* ...can't pretend to know anything until and unless it can pose a viable account of where *capital,* of all things, comes from.
4. Economics and the law (*not* Judge Posner's awful "Law & Economics"), is really what Prof. Palsson means by Political Economy. All of the politics, upheaval, give and take, sturm und drang of social change must ultimately be translated into some sort of action item. We call that action item "the law." The ultimate problem with ALL of classical economics as people like Prof. Palsson receive its wisdom is that economics is a child of the law (Judge Posner, seeking to establish a form of "natural law" posits it the other way). Try to imagine the concept of a transaction in a society in which there is no legally established form of money, or accountability for holding up one's end of a bargain/enforcement of contracts, etc. In the beginning, the guy with the biggest sword lays down law, creating a regular and predictable superstructure within which an economy can then "self"-organize, primarily to his benefit, of course. And it all circles the drain from there. That's why behavioral economics is such a washout in the end. Behavior is so constrained by law that there is nothing "natural" about it.
5. So much of this vision of economics is driven by an underlying religious imperative (looking at you, Utah) to find "natural" or "God's" law operating in social systems driven mostly by human power relations.
WHERE IS YOUR CYNICISM? Why do you think you can understand the world without it?
I had a prof say: There's no such thing as behavioral economics, because that would imply that there is economics that happens outside of behavior.
it's just extending rationality to include emotional aspects such as revenge, interpersonal lose lose gratification etc. it's a super necessary field when u look at games and decision theory.
@@echoexplore4190 I had a prof this semester who on many occasions would shit on behavioural economics and his argument was basically that he didn't believe that the study of irrational behaviour should be done within an economic class, as one of the main early assumptions we make as economic students is that people make rational decisions. He thought that the entire concept of behavioural economics should solely be taught within the psychology field.
Therefore, couldn't we say that everything is behavioral economics?
@@buffmordecai1498but that's already been disproven.... People aren't rational
What a shitty argument
That's like saying that number theory in math shouldn't exist, because that would imply that there is math without numbers.
You could have included monetary economics , public finance , international economics , growth economics I am genuinely interested to know about all these
@@nikita5917 Not necessarily, but they overlap heavily.
Growth econ differs by focusing on growth more generally (ie. also for rich countries), while dev econ focuses mainly on how to get on the growth track from unindustrialized country to industrialized country.
Also, dev econ has a larger focus on institutions, and on micro-oriented things like if it is better to hand out vouchers or cash to the poor.
Do you have book recommendations based of the tiers/topics?
This is a great question. I'll have to think about a video to do here.
Your dismissal of Marxian is a disgrace. You don't understand whatever you're talking about and your B-tier rank for Econometrics is evidence of this.
Could you explain further?
What about financial economics ? You did mention finance which does not have any direct relation to economics and is focusing more on financial instruments and markets. However, financial economics is not finance and there is a clear distinction between them. Additionally, you have not told about the vital topics of financial economics, for example, efficient market hypothesis, which is still debatable issue. Furthermore, I think you overrate political economics and economic history , which are the least quantitative areas of economics and tends to be more humanities, and underrate econometrics, which brings necessary analytical and quantitative skills making it the most important class in a whole degree. Overall, it seems you have put more “PhD” topics of economics to the top and gave worse rankings to the more practical ones, which are fundamental of the understanding the economics itself. The only point where I absolutely agree is giving F to Marxist economics.
You are very correct. I am shock that this “economist” wasn’t even aware of the fact that modern finance is so separated from economics it became more of a business discipline than an economics discipline. If he were to mention anything about finance in this video it should be financial economics, which dive into asset pricing and corporate finance theories developed since 1950s
regarding your failing grades for Macro and Marxian:
on Macro, yes, this has been falsely "dichotomized" with micro, as one with an in depth understanding of Econ will see the ever present mirroring between national/global economic trends and events and those of firms/individuals. public education (k-12 and academia) presents information and knowledge in a very fragmented way, so most students will not possess the training necessary to truly think "macro" (holistically, systematically, relation-ally) . in my estimation the FUNDAMENTAL GLITCH in economic thinking to date IS this false dichotomizing between micro-macro. Macro is critical in these dangerously globalized, militarized, politicized, materialistic times.
on Marxian: before drawing conclusions, one might read Schumpeter's chapter on Marx before outright dismissing him. I have worked my share of shit jobs and Marxian alienation is a very real, a very disturbing experience. of course, Marxist theory had both its flaws in theory and disasters in reality, BUT Marx was a master philosopher/Sociologist/historian. his concept of Species Essence and alienation are critical (to those of us who have experienced shit jobs working for shit bosses. his concept of alienation applies to BOTH workers under monopoly corporate capitalism and state communism (the most dismal irony of the dismal science!) Veblen's emulation (working class prefers to emulate the rich, not fight them off) is a critical follow up, to understand Veblen is to see why class struggle failed (among many other reasons, such as the success of Capitalism to provide enough creature comforts to appease and placate the emulating poor.) But to read Marx is to learn to think historically, to analyze integration-ally, two critical abilities that are gravely lacking in many students.
Economics is complex because the human psyche, survival, and social life are complex. If one's goal is to achieve the full comprehensive functional understanding, one must study all fields of econ, as well as other fields (anthro, psych, sociology, philosophy) and synthesize them. If your goal is to get an A on a test or pass the time, then your study is just a chore. You are only useful to one, yourself.
The way how he dropped Marxian Economics speaks the volume of his arrogance.
Sorry to disagree with all of you guys -- but Marx and Marxism is more akin to prophet and prophetic religion than it is to dispassionate analysis of human society. This, of course, is not an original insight on my part, it is the considered opinion of perceptive thinkers. Just to name one great work that explains the pernicious nature of Marxism -- Karl Popper's "The Poverty of Historicism" does a brilliant job of exposing the utter bankruptcy of Marxist economics.
Every society that adopted Communism -- that is, Marxism-Leninism -- as its ruling ideology turned out to be Procrustean in its implementation. You know the story of Procrustes -- he would make people lie on a bed, and cut off part of their leg if they were too tall, or, alternatively, stretch them out and lengthen them if they were too short. For the poor ordinary folk who lived in Communist nations, Marxism effectively functioned like Procrustes' bed. There supposedly was an "ideal" Marxian Utopia (analogous to "heaven" in some religions) that society had to "progress" towards -- and everyone and everything that did not fit that ideal had to undergo either 'lengthening' or 'shortening' in a brutal fashion. Pol Pot's Cambodia was the worst example of this egregious phenomenon, but Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or Castro's Cuba were not much better.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in Sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous Wolves... Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit... Therefore, by their fruits you will know them." Question: From the 1930s till today, what are the plainly visible "fruits" of Marxism-Communism? I rest my case.
Please create economist tier list and their theories how they age with time💪🏻.
You are insanely biased. Also, you don't understand what macro does. macroeconomists left the idea to predict the crisises. Instead they are studying how policies affect macro aggregates, so that CBs and ministries could work better
Imo S tier is Finance, econometrics, and macro. Everything else is below B for me
As a student studying agricultural econnomics I really hoped to see ag-econ or enviormental econ in this video... however it was really fun to see how some fields from tier S goes to B or C as the research trend changes
Really concentrated economics degree with great job opportunity
I feel agricultural economics is quite wide in terms of the issues you can work on and it's the backbone of development economics
Hey! Can you please do a playlist capturing all your “how to do research” videos? This would allow us to consult them later easily.
The D in macro crashed my heart. I heard Blanchard and Krugman cried when they knew this.
Great video, but seems like a somewhat narrow-minded approach to Marxist econ. I would argue Marxist economics isn't so much a field in its own right, but a lens in which all other fields of economics can be viewed.
"totally unbiased when making my decisions here"
lmao
Wow, man, just wow. With all due respect... You are an extremely well-educated person. I admire you. And yet, around minute 15 you suddenly turned such an ideologue for a moment...
Of course, you can ridicule me for what I say but don't underestimate Marxian economics. Please just don't. And I am not trying to seem edgy or something like that, to the contrary!
Marxian economics is, in essence, a combination of Economics History and Political Economy with Industrial Organization.
And yes, I might be a bit biased here because my grandpa studied quite a lot of Marxian economics (he has a PhD in Agricultural Economics and Statistics), but that is the thing... He was born in 1940s in the Soviet Union, lost his family during the Second World War and was an orphan for some time until he was adopted by a poor Russian family.
Living in the Soviet Union, he saw the great transformation of the economy, with tens of millions of poor people becoming middle class in just a couple of decades. He saw the problems of hunger, which terrorized Russia for centuries and were even present in 1930s, completely eliminated in the 1960s. He also saw how an agricultural country of Russia which had 20% literacy rates in 1920s could turn into an industrial superpower by 1950s, which launched the first satellite into space and even the first robot to the Moon and Venus. Most of these achievements would've been impossible if not for the works of great Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Armenian, and many other economists and planners. And yet in America, there is still this Red Terror mentality of ridiculing and minimizing Marxian economics out of habit and tradition.
And yes, it might not be very lucrative these days, because private businesses are not generally interested in hiring Marxists, but trying to just ridicule the huge amounts of knowledge and calling it ''yellow snow'' is not what a wise person would say.
If you (not you specifically but anyone) would just try to analyze history through the Marxian lens for a moment, that might not turn you into a communist, but that might provide A LOT of insights coming from dynamics which are usually overlooked by anti-Marxian ideologues.
Well said
I agree with ur point but this is his opinion and isn't gonna change anything lmao
@@quanta1197 Well, I just hoped someone will find my comment helpful. I did not intend to change anyone's opinion (that would be too difficult), only to share what I found necessary to be shared about the topic. So thanks a lot to you for your reply!
Not a marxist myself, but it truly felt reductive of him. Actually started watching him because he didn´t feel like a "the market moves alone fellas" kinda guy that you see coming from U.S. universities...
Your dismissal of marxist economics without providing any logical argument is a beautiful microcosm of the arrogance of neoliberal economics.
Behaviour Economics - B tier - great for thinking - helps with understanding - useful for policy.
Development Economics - C tier - too political, not enough results, what has it really done? Maybe it can clean up it's act.
Econometrics - S tier - drives current economic advancements - most useful - used to solve many problems regardless of complexity or perceived value.
Economic History - B tier - great for learning - important foundation.
Finance - A tier - runs the world - improves the life of nations and individuals - not S tier because it can be quite selfish.
Industrial Organisation - B tier - you put it there and I don't know heaps about it. Future looks promising.
Labour Economics - A tier -everything we do and see at the moment - endless use - Not S tier because of the bad politics dragging it down.
Macroeconomics - A tier - gotta love looking at the big questions and answers - Not accurate enough for S
Marxist - what you said
Micro Theory - B tier - good for learning and thinking - can still be applied for results.
Political Economy - D tier - don't know much about it but in it's current state sounds like it doesn't need to exist
Seems like I'm not a very harsh marker.
@@elfulan0 Thank you
What happened to your channel man?
@@josephbrennan370 adpocalypse + fake copyright claims
For sure, I agree mostly with your statements. Not going to lie, this video really made a huge impression on this channel. Macro is integral to understanding anything, but I think as a research field he rated it quite low. So, in terms of importance I think that your tier list makes the most sense, but he was going off of what is worth researching. Regardless, I would say that you were more accurate.
@@Apuryo Thankyou for taking the time to analyse my list. The academic vs industry differences coming out.
The students really said “why are we richer than other countries??” lol have u ever heard of colonisation?
😭😭😭😭
the united states also started out as a colony
Right!? And he says he's into history 🤡
You missed some like Game Theory and Monetary Economics.
The way how he dropped Marxian Economics speaks the volume of his arrogance.
Could you explain why Finance is D tier? except that it is the common misconception about economists?
I realize that you had to cut the video eventually, but if you had to put environmental and agricultural economics on the list, what tier would they be?
What is the difference between behavioural economics and neuromarketing?
Is reading capital by Karl Marx a good idea?
i am also curious about this. everyone is talking about marxism but im not sure everyone (including myself) understands what it really is
As a school of philosophy or for its historic value, yes. For the economics, no.
Yes. Remember that Capital analyzes capitalism, not socialism. No one has ever understood capitalism better than Marx. The entire school of Neoclassical economics (Marshall, Walras) which still dominates mainstream economics had to be created to defend capitalism because Marx's critique was so devastating. They had to invent the pseudo-scientific, unfalsifiable utility theory of value to prop up the capitalist system's theoretical justifications. Marx's work is the culmination of the classical school that Ricardo and Smith are also a part of. You can't call yourself an informed economist without having read Marx. Keynes' whole idea of effective demand comes from Marx.
Capital is a pretty heavy read. You wouldn't understand much if you read it directly. You should start with Engels's 25 Q&A pamphlet called "Principles of Communism", then Lenin's "Karl Marx" - a biography with a brief exposition of Marxism, then Marx's "Wage Labor and Capital", then "Value, Price and Profit."
Reading the last two is very important before reading Capital.
Can you do a video on modern monetary theory? I keep hearing about this in the news, but I'm not sure if it has any legitimacy or not.
Read about it. Best books on the issue is written by Stephanie Kelton and Rutger Bregman , The Deficit Myth and Utopia For Realist.
This person clearly have bias against any forces and policies other than ‘Market power’ - typical neo-liberal, classical economist.
Where would you recommend a budding economist go to research these different fields?
Love the video!
I love how you picked both the S and A tiers, but I will fight tooth and nail for everything you put in those C and D tiers 😭 I like how their uncertainty/vagueness leaves so much room for different possibilities!
I'd love to hear your argument on why you think marxist economy is that bad ? Thank you!
I love your takes, couldn´t agree more. I love how economic history and development are up there vs the "hard facts" fields and it totally makes sense (not that "hard facts" fields are not important) because I think these fields allow us to ask the most important questions and they are incredibly helpful in coming up with answers for the big, structural issues like poverty and inequality
I like macro :(
As an someone thinking of majoring in economics this channel has been an incredible resource. I had question that I thought you as someone who's gone through multiple tiers of economics education and is currently working as professor would be uniquely positioned to answer. Do you have any recommendations on things to take into account while choosing a school do your undergraduate in economics in ? Stuff like some specific ways in which we should compare economics programs and some other university features one should take into account while deciding on where you do your undergrad?
This is a little confusing to me. You have some on here that are more schools of economics (Marxist, Behavioral Economics, Political Economy) and others the rest that are branches. Since you have done both (I know it may be hard to distinguish in some cases but as the result there are a lot you are missing: Austrian, Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, Monetary Theory, MMT, Public Choice Theory, Neo-Institutional Economics, Old Institutional Economics, History of Economic Ideas)
It was very interesting, just a little confusing that some of these were missing.
I think a full video on Marxist economics would be fantastic! Maybe the history of Marxist economics, or an overview of the viewpoints of modern Marxist economic thinkers, because it’s hard to figure out what people even mean when they refer to it. Thanks in advance, love the channel!
What about "Computerized Economics" AKA "AI:Economist" or "Economist Simulation within computer models". "2-minute papers" did a video on an AI:Economist modeling the "Best" Tax policy taxation given the constraint of Productivity & Equality.
A lot of those simulations fit under different sub-fields of economics. That application would fall under Public Economics. The AI: Economist is a cool experiment, but it's currently based on a really simplified economy. We'll have to see how it evolves.
Marx wasn’t perfect but he had lots of interesting theories and thoughts that to this day I don’t think we’ve grappled with, especially things presented in Capital.
The problem is that Karl Marx was DEAD way before the 20th century. (He died in 1883.) Think about the advances in every field of human activity since 1883... Unless you consider Marx as the prophet of your religion, and Das Kapital as your holy book, you have to admit -- Karl Marx is horribly dated. You certainly can get some insights into the economic conditions of Western Europe in the mid-19th century by reading Marx -- but that's about it. Any claims by the "Marxians" that there are hidden depths in Marxian economics should be treated exactly the same way as any other religious faith. It is pure 'belief,' it has nothing to do with objective analysis of human society.
For me the S tier would be : Micro, Macro, Econometrics, Economics history. Because if I already master this topics, most likely other topics would come easily
I'd like to see a video where you explain why Marxist economics sucks.
As someone interested in capital accumulation, wealth inequality, worker exploitation and non-market alternative economic systems, I'd like to hear an economics professor go over why some of the ideas I might be interested in are actually a little asinine.
This is on my list. To make it good I'm need to read through a lot more work. It will take a while, but I believe the video will come. To clarify, I said in my Rules for Picking Classes that I think the questions are important but are answered better in other fields (e.g. political economy, labor economics, etc.).
@@MarketPowerYT Awesome! Thanks for the reply and clarification. Cheers from Australia!
The fact that you like economic history and despise marxism is beyond me. How do you want to understand economic history and also neglect a theory that literally shaped the 20th century?
To all aspiring economists out there, letting your own biases shape your research/research questions is the wrong thing to do. If a professor or a senior student tells you to avoid a whole theory without proper justification saying "that's just garbage", I would advise you to take that with a pinch of salt.
My tier list would be: S - Labour, econometrics, development; A- History, industrial org., finance; B- Macro, Micro, Behavioural; C: Political, Marxism (but not because "it's garbage")
How is macro on D tier even considering that thanks to our current knowledge countries could react faster than ever before to the pandemic? Come on! Haha
Other than that, this is a great video. Keep up the great work.
Literally laughed out loud when you put finance in D tier... Shouldn't we use economics (one input could be average pay scale) to do this tier list.
My favored line "I'm totally unbiased when I'm making these decisions here" 19:12
he was joking lol
Average pay scale is a biased indicator based on perverse incentives and socially perceived value without actually being causally linked with overall impact to market quality or economic understanding. So no. Just because fancy people are fancy doesn't make them better. Finance has more to do with strategic gamesmanship than it does tactical practicality for systems change. Since it perpetuates more of the same, it's not able to get over itself. D tier is apropos.
Ha..ha..
Liked the way you dumped the most authentic critique of the stream of economics you talk of ie capitalist economy...into Tier F.
Not unexpected.
Marxist economics should be a major part of Political Economy, Economic History and Labour Economics...if justice is to be done. Remember Historical Materialism.
Congratulations on getting to 10k subscribers ...
Almost there! Probably won't hit it until New Years Eve.
I don't know about pursuing Marxism as a thesis, but total ignorance towards Marxism is ridiculous. At minimum, you are ignoring the motivations and driving force of over a century of history and hundreds of millions of people. How can you flip a switch and ignore that?
Marxian Economics offers a totally different approach to economics. You should have perhaps elaborated why you put it in F instead of dismissing it out of hand. I assume the major thing being that the assumptions and methodology of mainstream economics are not accepted by Marxian Economics. But there are lots of places where the concerns of Marxian economics overlap with labour economics and development economics, I think there is value to be had from that
Suggest some good economic journal?
As a guy with an economics degree finance is something you will actually use in real life. If you have a 401K, financing a car, buying a house, heck even a bank account you will use finance. So, he might want to put that in A tier.
This video is F-tier for skimming alternative theories and being basically a 1950s McCarthyist propaganda shill.
I love this idea!
how can someone who got a phd in economics from yale not have a grasp on the broad state of the subfields and make so many false statements? like it’s concerning that you can’t determine the state of micro theory…or think that auction theory isn’t game theory…or not notice the stagnation in IO…or idk not very very clearly note that many of these subfields have extensive overlap…or very very clearly not have a grasp on the state of PE lit
Which of these fields of economics would a PhD/Postdoc who is analyzing public health spending data for different states in the US, likely fall under? Curious
Marxist economics is not really an economics? That is pretty ideological statement.
Sir, is major in environmental economics worthy?
If I want to build my quantitative skills, aside from taking more advanced econometric courses, would I be able to further build them through taking industrial organization? I was just curious haha since you mentioned that it’s the “engineering” of economics
Reading Fast and Slow right now, I love it. Hoping to take behavioral next semester. Happy Holidays!
Please upload a video on how to do a research study in economics.
Yes
The field of economics that one desire’s to study is based on both their reason for studying that field and their belief in its usefulness to that end. What is their reason for studying economics? Career advancement in some relevant related field? Existential inquiry? Sheer entertainment as one might read a romance or sci-fi novel? Intellectual curiosity? Impressing others at a dinner party with what you know? Improving conditions for humanity/ecosystem?
This brings me to a sad personal conclusion: while so many suffer and have suffered due to "faulty economic thinking and acting,” the field seems today to serve all these functions EXCEPT improving conditions for humanity/ecosystem. Academia and the world of publishing have become just another entertainment industry (or a servant of the actual one) in and of itself, a very lucrative one.
The fields that I choose first and foremost remedy THIS fact of the modern "use" of economics as a study and practice. Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class addresses this dismal fact of the dismal science best. The conspicuous consumption of education. Conspicuous knowing.
Why is 'finance' above the theory that coined the term 'capitalism'... noooo 😂
I liked how you dumped Marxist Economics to the bottom 😅😅😅😅😅
need an update on this every year
Development economics should be the most important
In economics do you learn about the times we have robbed other countries like oil, war, and so forth? Also do we only learn about economics of a capitalist society or do they educate you about other systems?
Idk man after taking DE classes it just seems like more social justice crap.
I love your channel
You seemed to mention that econometric developments would be improvements in the measurements necessary for causal inference. Difference in differences, regression discontinuity design, and other methods are more like analysis design aspects… but econometric developments can be in things like time series, spatial and financial econometrics which are areas where economics has made UNIQUE contributions to statistical and causal inference… volatility models like GARCH and spatial autoregressive models and vector auto regression were invented and advanced by econometricians and augmentations of these methods are huge in economic research that make economic analysis more compelling
When you literary place every subfield of economics requiring mathematics in the down tier. Like, I don’t know about this classification. Cambridge students usually do a lot of microeconomics and macroeconomics through their education and based on your classification it seems as if they study something pointless at uni. I actually consider microeconomics and macroeconomics as the most important fields of economics because they construct the abstraction that defines economics as a science the rest of the fields (except econometrics) are descriptive, where micro and macro are analytical and in my opinion science is about analysis. The ones that you have placed on the top tier are going to be very helpful if you’re looking for a job to apply economics the down tier however are the subjects that you’ll use in your academic studies
Are you at Cambridge?
Great video! I’m an econ undergrad and I was just thinking about what I should focus on
You forgot ecological economics
I was hoping for a little more objectivity. Dislike
You forgot public economics
I think Public Economics could fit very well in Political Economy which explains things like what would be the optimal size of Government or its objectives.
Also Taxation Theory could be cover by Labor Economics or if you want to see it in a agregate terms also Development Economics or Macroeconomics would be useful.
Yeah but still, public finance, taxation theory, monetary and fiscal policy, welfare are more of public economics subjects
What are your thoughts on Austrian economics?
Unbiased.... Your profile..
I feel like go straight to the point maybe ...
I LOVE economic history. It's one of the reasons I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell's books. He covers a lot of history!
ruclips.net/video/kQxXPjiW1k0/видео.html
Agreed. Thomas Sowell is an incredibly smart man who I have much respect for
Thanks for the video. Love your channel. I more or less agree with your ranking except I would place Political Econ at C and Behavioral Economics at S tier ( I am a maths student minoring in econ and physics, and work of Xavier Gabaix seems interesting to me, like GUT in physics). btw, S means exemplary.