sO, the government has now the capability of tracking our spending habits through our debit cards, grocery cards, gas cards, etc. All in the name of 'homeland security'

I have talked to my coworkers and friends, and they seem to think that new oil supplies found by Louisiana will make them 'safer' from high oil prices. They also said that they don't care how much gas costs, they are still taking that long drive vacation this summer.

So, I guess the economic researchers will know this, and advise the oil companies to up the price, cuz the silly consumer will pay anything to get out of the cage for a week, and the rest of them will hide their heads in the sand until they pay $5 for a gallon of milk- and wonder ..........what causes inflation????????

What they probably meant is economic models. Economists refers to a shock when a certain constant or variable is suddenly changed. With economic models you can then predict what will happen. So what the article most likely meant is the economist testing a sudden rise in oil prices (exogene shock) and predicting what will happen.

There is really nothing conspiracy like with economic/econometric models. They are used to forecast the outcome everytime the government or big firms outweigh certain policies.

Blobber



[edit on 7-4-2005 by Blobber]

The article makes it sound like these so called "experts" are using the public as sheep. We are their research subjects and they control how we live our lives and what we do with our money.

They raise the cost of milk to see how our lifestyles are going to change.

Pure Evil.... Doubt thats how it works though

I have heard of this type of theory before and its one on the better arguments against peak oil. That is, supplies are fine but the oil companies, who in turn are working for the NWO, are manipulating the price.

In my opinion they are working for the NWO but not in that sense. The peak oil crisis seems to be real and they do look out for their profits and long-term survival with respect to wealth and power, but the level of control it would take to cause a shock, observe its effects and repeat the "experiment" to learn how to do it properly is beyond them in my opinion.

To apply knowledge you need to gain it by testing. Beginning the process itself would cause unknown results due to the unpredictability (and uncontrollable nature) of human behaviour as well as geopolitical effects that can be merely influenced at best.

Economics is only scientific in the sense it can look back and explain why things happened in the economy. It can't explain what is coming with certainty, especially when an important commodity like energy goes into depletion. IMO


[edit on 4/9/2005 by Gools]

Originally posted by Gools
Economics is only scientific in the sense it can look back and explain why things happened in the economy. It can't explain what is coming with certainty, especially when an important commodity like energy goes into depletion. IMO


[edit on 4/9/2005 by Gools]

Well the economic predictions are quite accurate -the model that is. However sometimes it depends also on variables which cannot be predicted fairly well, that's why often scenarios are being made. For example what if a war in Iran starts and what if not, or what if oilprices are between 50 and 60. However calculating the supply of oil needs the help of other scientific fields, i.e. geology etc.

Certain human behaviour however has been calculated very well (in the model), e.g. how much they spend, on what, at which interest rates, in which period and where.

This is by the way one of the reasons why companies must keep a good administration: i.e. accounting and data keeping. With these the variables can be calculated. That's why I am sceptical why the "experts in the article" need to use the people to test their shocks. The data is already freely available and you only have to make a model.


Blobber




[edit on 14-4-2005 by Blobber]