Originally Posted by !! Shawn
I disagree that an education in Economics has any relevance what so ever. Unlike most people, I had the advantage of many years of daily involvement in the market BEFORE I took my first class in economics.
It gave me the perspective to compare what was being taught with what actually takes place. I was appalled by some of the crap I the professor was trying to pass off as factual.
I am very happy that my parents got me involved in the stock market when I was in elementary school, if I had waited until after my education in economics, I would be so confused, because the market does not react in the rational model based fashion that an education in economics would lead you to believe.
It is why so many people are confused and terrified by the stock market.
They don't understand why a stock would plunge on good news, or why a stock might rally to extraordinary highs on no news at all. Nothing you learn in the classroom will prepare you for this. Nothing your professor teaches you will help you understand the counter-intuitive nature of investing.
The only class that is even mildly useful is an accounting class to help you better understand how balance sheets are put together.
This is what the stock market boils down too, group psychology; to win you have to beat the group. For you to make money, someone else has to lose money.
Stocks move because of emotion. People sell on emotion, people buy on emotion. Unless you carefully lay out a multi-year value investing strategy, the real value of a stock is of only marginal importance for the purpose of risk management.
The stocks are just pieces in the game. Investing is a game of chess. You against the other investors.
So to sum of that rant, an education in economics is more harmful than helpful. People are more likely to panic if the market does something they do not expect when their "education" tells them it shouldn't.
You disagree because you had a very important variable intercede. That is experience. You can't tell me, after reading the posts and listening to most people rant about the economy, that a basic education in how the beast works isn't in order.
I don't know what the nature of your "economics' education was, but the first thing I was taught is there is no constants, and that the economy is and always has been unpredictable. It was made clear that the best thing we can take from the course is a foundation to formulate our own plans. And that the terminology is across the boards, so knowing it wont hurt. Another important fact lectured to us was that the more you know, the more you have to admit you don't know. That put into perspective I have to speculate we are on the same page, debating another book. "sounds just like the economy" I know damn good and well there isn't a text book in the world that can properly outline economy. If there were, hell there would be no problem now would there. I only argue that the average American, the voting American, the INVESTING American should know the framework. You know the true difference between liberal and conservative. Socialist and Capitalist.
And the fact that they as consumers drive the economy. To not subject themself to the "psychology" of the different business cycles. That is my point. To me an argument against seems silly.