DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moodys Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations. But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. Schlock economics was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obamas plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a dark age of macroeconomics.As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate"how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that:a)There is limited impact of ethics and politics on economic thoughtb)There is sudden impact of ethics and politics on economic thoughtc)There is discernable impact of ethics and politics on economic thoughtd)There is negligible impact of ethics and politics on economic thoughtCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Needed a Document for Explain the role of managerial economist in business economic? Related: Role & Social Responsibilities - Introduction to Business Economics, Business Economics & Finance

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moodys Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations. But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. Schlock economics was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obamas plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a dark age of macroeconomics.As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say" but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.Q.According to the information given in the passage:I. Scientists and economists are similar.II. Scientists and economists are not similar.III. Scientists are more accurate than economists.IV. Scientists are less disputative that economists.a)I, II & IIIb)II, III & IVc)I, III & IVd)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moodys Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations. But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. Schlock economics was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obamas plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a dark age of macroeconomics.As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say" but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.Q.Economics is closer to:a)Scienceb)Politicsc)Both (A) and (B)d)Neither (A) nor (B)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

define economic Related: Scanner Chapter -1 & 2- Introduction (Macro Economics)?

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moodys Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations. But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. Schlock economics was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obamas plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a dark age of macroeconomics.As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate" how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.Q.The tone and attitude of the author of the passage cansaid to be:a)Unforgiving criticismb)Implied criticismc)Trenchant criticismd)Both (A) and (C)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.DISMAL may not be the most desirable of modifiers, but economists love it when people call their discipline a science. They consider themselves the most rigorous of social scientists. Yet whereas their peers in the natural sciences can edit genes and spot new planets, economists cannot reliably predict, let alone prevent, recessions or other economic events. Indeed, some claim that economics is based not so much on empirical observation and rational analysis as on ideology.In October Russell Roberts, a research fellow at Stanford Universitys Hoover Institution, tweeted that if told an economists view on one issue, he could confidently predict his or her position on any number of other questions. Prominent bloggers on economics have since furiously defended the profession, citing cases when economists changed their minds in response to new facts, rather than hewing stubbornly to dogma. Adam Ozimek, an economist at Moodys Analytics, pointed to Narayana Kocherlakota, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 2009 to 2015, who flipped from hawkishness to dovishness when reality failed to affirm his warnings of a looming surge in inflation. Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason, published a list of issues on which his opinion has shifted (he is no longer sure that income from capital is best left untaxed). Paul Krugman, an economist and New York Times columnist, chimed in. He changed his view on the minimum wage after research found that increases up to a certain point reduced employment only marginally (this newspaper had a similar change of heart).Economists, to be fair, are constrained in ways that many scientists are not. They cannot brew up endless recessions in test tubes to work out what causes what, for instance. Yet the same restriction applies to many hard sciences, too: geologists did not need to recreate the Earth in the lab to get a handle on plate tectonics. The essence of science is agreeing on a shared approach for generating widely accepted knowledge. Science, wrote Paul Romer, an economist, in a paper published last year, leads to broad consensus. Politics does not.Nor, it seems, does economics. In a paper on macroeconomics published in 2006, Gregory Mankiw of Harvard University declared: A new consensus has emerged about the best way to understand economic fluctuations. But after the financial crisis prompted a wrenching recession, disagreement about the causes and cures raged. Schlock economics was how Robert Lucas, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, described Barack Obamas plan for a big stimulus to revive the American economy. Mr Krugman, another Nobel-winner, reckoned Mr Lucas and his sort were responsible for a dark age of macroeconomics.As Mr Roberts suggested, economists tend to fall into rival camps defined by distinct beliefs. Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank, and Jonathan Haidt of New York University recently asked a group of academic economists both moral questions (is it fairer to divide resources equally, or according to effort?) and questions about economics. They found a high correlation between the economists views on ethics and on economics. The correlation was not limited to matters of debate"how much governments should intervene to reduce inequality, say"but also encompassed more empirical questions, such as how fiscal austerity affects economies on the ropes. Another study found that, in supposedly empirical research, right-leaning economists discerned more economically damaging effects from increases in taxes than left-leaning ones.That is worrying. Yet is it unusual, compared with other fields? Gunnar Myrdal, yet another Nobel-winning economist, once argued that scientists of all sorts rely on preconceptions. "Questions must be asked before answers can be given," he quipped. A survey conducted in 2003 among practitioners of six social sciences found that economics was no more political than the other fields, just more finely balanced ideologically: left-leaning economists outnumbered right-leaning ones by three to one, compared with a ratio of 30:1 in anthropology.Q.A suitable title for the passage is:a)All sizzle and no steakb)A chilles heelc)All in your headd)All at seaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

what is the type of Indian economy Related: Types of Economies: Economics?

India ke pahle Pradhanmantri Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

can u provide books notes in Hindi? Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

please provide this material in Hindi Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

sir economy ka basic kahan se padhen Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Homo economicus bases his choices on a consideration of his own personal “utility function.” Economic man is also amoral, ignoring all social values unless adhering to them gives him utility. Some believe such assumptions about humans are not only empirically inaccurate but also unethical.Economists criticize the role of Homo economicus as the principal actor in understanding macroeconomics and economic forecasting. They stress uncertainty and bounded rationality in the making of economic decisions, rather than relying on the rational man who is fully informed of all circumstances impinging on his decisions. They argue that perfect knowledge never exists, which means that all economic activity implies risk.Empirical studies by Amos Tversky questioned the assumption that investors are rational. In 1995, Tversky demonstrated the tendency of investors to make risk-averse choices in gains, and risk-seeking choices in losses. The investors appeared as very risk-averse for small losses but indifferent for a small chance of a very large loss. This violates economic rationality as usually understood. Further research on this subject, showing other deviations from conventionally defined economic rationality, is being done in the growing field of experimental or behavioral economics.Other critics of the Homo economicus model of humanity, such as Bruno Frey, point to the excessive emphasis on extrinsic motivation (rewards and punishments from the social environment) as opposed to intrinsic motivation, For example, it is difficult if not impossible to understand how Homo economicus would be a hero in war or would get inherent pleasure from craftsmanship. Frey and others argue that too much emphasis on rewards and punishments can “crowd out” (discourage) intrinsic motivation: paying a boy for doing household tasks may push him from doing those tasks “to help the family” to doing them simply for the reward.Yet others, especially sociologists, argue that the model ignores an extremely important question, i.e., the origins of tastes and the parameters of the utility function. The exogeneity of tastes (preferences) in the Homo economicus model is the major distinction from Homo sociologicus, in which tastes are taken as partially or even totally determined by the societal environment.Q.According to the second paragraph, which of the following is the reason why some economists criticize the Homo economicus model?a)Homo economicus understands neither macroeco nomics nor economic forecasting because he does not have perfect information.b)The economic decision making of Homo economicus can never be fully rational because he can never possess complete information.c)The Homo economicus model incorrectly assumes that man is rational, which are sults in a flawed understanding of macroeconomics and forecasting.d)Homo economicus though being rational cannot act rationally because of the certain conditions arising out of a lack of access to information.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

what are the types of mixed economy Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

what is coercive subsidization , regulations and monopolistic monetary system Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

Needed a Document for Indian modern? Related: Types of Economies - Economics, UPSC, IAS?

per capital consumptiomnm Related: Economic Growth & Development - Economics, UPSC, IAS

Read the following passage and answer on the basis of the same : The subject-matter of economics is divided into two major branches—Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Microeconomics studies the economic behaviour of individual economic units and individual economic variables, whereas macroeconomics deals with the functioning of the economy as a whole. Macroeconomics dealswith the broad economic aggregates or bigger issues, such as full employment, unemployment, full capacity, under capacity production, inflation or deflation, etc. Macroeconomics is concerned with the theory of national income, employment, aggregate consumption, savings and investment, general price level, economic growth, etc. Whereas, microeconomics is concerned with the theory of product pricing, factor pricing and consumer behaviour, etc.Positive economics is the branch of economics that concerns the description and explanation of economic phenomena. It focuses on facts and cause and effect behavioural relationships and includes the development and testing of economic theories. Positive economics is objective and facts based. Whereas normative economics is a part of economics that expresses value or normative judgments about economic fairness or what the outcome of the economy or goals of public policy ought to be. Normative economics is subjective and value based.For example, the statement, “government-provided healthcare increases public expenditures” is a positive economic statement and the statement, “government should provide basic healthcare to all citizens” is a normative economic statement.Assertion (A): "The minimum wage should be raised by 20%". Given statement is an example of a normative economics statement.Reason (R): Normative economics is subjective and value based.a)Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true.b)Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are false.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Who divided the economic into micro and macro economics?

Read the following passage and answer on the basis of the same :The subject-matter of economics is divided into two major branches—Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Microeconomics studies the economic behaviour of individual economic units and individual economic variables, whereas macroeconomics deals with the functioning of the economy as a whole. Macroeconomics dealswith the broad economic aggregates or bigger issues, such as full employment, unemployment, full capacity, under capacity production, inflation or deflation, etc. Macroeconomics is concerned with the theory of national income, employment, aggregate consumption, savings and investment, general price level, economic growth, etc. Whereas, microeconomics is concerned with the theory of product pricing, factor pricing and consumer behaviour, etc.Positive economics is the branch of economics that concerns the description and explanation of economic phenomena. It focuses on facts and cause and effect behavioural relationships and includes the development and testing of economic theories. Positive economics is objective and facts based. Whereas normative economics is a part of economics that expresses value or normative judgments about economic fairness or what the outcome of the economy or goals of public policy ought to be. Normative economics is subjective and value based.For example, the statement, “government-provided healthcare increases public expenditures” is a positive economic statement and the statement, “government should provide basic healthcare to all citizens” is a normative economic statement.Q. Macroeconomics is concerned with the theory of national income, employment, aggregate consumption, savings and investment, general price level, economic growth.a)Trueb)FalseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Read the following passage and answer on the basis of the same : The subject-matter of economics is divided into two major branches—Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Microeconomics studies the economic behaviour of individual economic units and individual economic variables, whereas macroeconomics deals with the functioning of the economy as a whole. Macroeconomics dealswith the broad economic aggregates or bigger issues, such as full employment, unemployment, full capacity, under capacity production, inflation or deflation, etc. Macroeconomics is concerned with the theory of national income, employment, aggregate consumption, savings and investment, general price level, economic growth, etc. Whereas, microeconomics is concerned with the theory of product pricing, factor pricing and consumer behaviour, etc.Positive economics is the branch of economics that concerns the description and explanation of economic phenomena. It focuses on facts and cause and effect behavioural relationships and includes the development and testing of economic theories. Positive economics is objective and facts based. Whereas normative economics is a part of economics that expresses value or normative judgments about economic fairness or what the outcome of the economy or goals of public policy ought to be. Normative economics is subjective and value based.For example, the statement, “government-provided healthcare increases public expenditures” is a positive economic statement and the statement, “government should provide basic healthcare to all citizens” is a normative economic statement.Q. What do you mean by Positive Economics?a)traditional economicsb)branch economicsc)only (a)d)both (a) and (b)Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?