New answers tagged

2

Any labor may be considered as a 'bad' (service) for which you are compensated by the firm by paying you salary/wages. In modeling labor market, this is generally described in the opposite sense, i.e., consuming leisure. When you work you let go of leisure, which is a good. So that, technically, makes supplying labor (which is a service) as an economic bad.


0

I will argue that social harm is the opposite of social services that deliver so-called economic goods. Further there are two kinds of social harm. One kind of harm gives rise to a cause of action (COA) at law. This is the type of harm for which the law stands ready to provide a social remedy. Another kind of harm does not give rise to a cause of action at ...


2

Consider a game with private information such as a privately known willingness-to-pay or any other type. We usually model this as a game in which at first "Nature" draws the type and then players make their moves. Such games do not have proper subgames because a proper subgame never splits up an information set and Nature's first move connects the ...


2

Virtually same question was already addressed at quantitative finance stack by user Matthew Gunn. The answer there can be summed as: Financial economics is what economics calls finance. Finance is what finance calls finance. Less flippantly though, there's a long debate on whether finance is a subfield of economics, ... Prof. Milton Friedman famously ...


3

For most part different 'schools of thought' do not have different definitions of terms. New Keynesian definition of GDP is the same as Keynesian definition of GDP or Neoclassical definition of GDP or any other 'school of thought' that you can think of. Marginal utility also has the same definition across economics. This is because terminology is not about ...


Top 50 recent answers are included