I wish...
Once again, in the sinking clarity of 20/20 hindsight, I wish I'd started studying microeconomics earlier. Skimming the pages this afternoon to ready myself for the formidable task of catching up on 10 weeks worth of material, I had a brief panic attack.
Thankfully, as with these things, once I dug into the math, the equations took on some meaning, and the only thing left to lament is the lack of time to get them down pat. I was relieved to find that the exam isn't a hurdle, which means I've got at least 33/40 marks from earlier assessments and require at least 30/100 marks on the exam to pass the subject. With the work I covered today and yesterday, that may just be within reach.
You know it's bad when you start thinking about not failing the paper. That aside, I'm really enjoying the study. I'm going through it at a more hurried pace than I would have liked, but my feelings of animosity toward the lecturer and the subject have somewhat evaporated. This is a really interesting subject, once you understand the math. Why, I...I actually like microeconomics.
Since my brain is saturated with economics right now, I might as well share a few entertaining tidbits. One of the topics we're studying is uncertainty. In economics, uncertainty that can be quantified is called risk. But for all intents and purposes, both terms are used interchangeably.
Generally, when we think about reducing/avoiding risk or uncertainty, we usually associate it with the desire to achieve a more positive expected outcome. In economics, however, reducing/avoiding risk is strictly about reducing/avoiding uncertainty, in other words, increasing the certainty of an outcome.
This inevitably becomes a hotbed for cheeky conclusions. For instance, consider two skydivers. One has a parachute, one doesn't. They both jump. Who is taking on more risk?
At first glance, jumping off a plane without a parachute seems like risky behaviour. But in fact, the skydiver with the parachute is taking on more risk. There is a chance his parachute will work, there is a chance it might not. Conversely, the skydiver without the parachute has eliminated all risk - without a parachute, he will die with certainty. :)
Another case: I want to open a restaurant and I know that while operating, there will be a fire risk. What should I do to reduce/eliminate this risk?
a. Don't open a restaurant
b. Buy fire insurance
c. Install fire extinguishers
d. Burn the restaurant to the ground
They all count!
All right, wrapping things up, I'll leave you with a snippet from my econs textbook.
Thankfully, as with these things, once I dug into the math, the equations took on some meaning, and the only thing left to lament is the lack of time to get them down pat. I was relieved to find that the exam isn't a hurdle, which means I've got at least 33/40 marks from earlier assessments and require at least 30/100 marks on the exam to pass the subject. With the work I covered today and yesterday, that may just be within reach.
You know it's bad when you start thinking about not failing the paper. That aside, I'm really enjoying the study. I'm going through it at a more hurried pace than I would have liked, but my feelings of animosity toward the lecturer and the subject have somewhat evaporated. This is a really interesting subject, once you understand the math. Why, I...I actually like microeconomics.
Since my brain is saturated with economics right now, I might as well share a few entertaining tidbits. One of the topics we're studying is uncertainty. In economics, uncertainty that can be quantified is called risk. But for all intents and purposes, both terms are used interchangeably.
Generally, when we think about reducing/avoiding risk or uncertainty, we usually associate it with the desire to achieve a more positive expected outcome. In economics, however, reducing/avoiding risk is strictly about reducing/avoiding uncertainty, in other words, increasing the certainty of an outcome.
This inevitably becomes a hotbed for cheeky conclusions. For instance, consider two skydivers. One has a parachute, one doesn't. They both jump. Who is taking on more risk?
At first glance, jumping off a plane without a parachute seems like risky behaviour. But in fact, the skydiver with the parachute is taking on more risk. There is a chance his parachute will work, there is a chance it might not. Conversely, the skydiver without the parachute has eliminated all risk - without a parachute, he will die with certainty. :)
Another case: I want to open a restaurant and I know that while operating, there will be a fire risk. What should I do to reduce/eliminate this risk?
a. Don't open a restaurant
b. Buy fire insurance
c. Install fire extinguishers
d. Burn the restaurant to the ground
They all count!
All right, wrapping things up, I'll leave you with a snippet from my econs textbook.
The Tappet brothers (the hosts of National Public Radio's Car Talk) offers a risk-free investment. Their Capital Depreciation Fund guarantees a 50% return. You send them $100 and they send you back $50.Sigh. I want the exams to be over. Now.
