Comments on: Transitioning from microeconomics (ECON 211) to macroeconomics (ECON 212) http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/ What is seen and what is unseen. Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:23:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DaeJonae White http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/comment-page-1/#comment-17555 DaeJonae White Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:36:02 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/#comment-17555 When it comes to trying to determine what is the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics it is quite simple. Microeconomics deals with an individual decision making. Macroeconomics looks at the economy as a whole. Micro trys to determine how these decisions will effect supply and demand of goods. Macro looks at the economy; unemployment, interest rates, inflation, etc. It is hard for me to determine which one is better because they both determine two different things in our economy. In my opinion, I find micro to be easier to understand than macro. When it comes to trying to determine what is the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics it is quite simple. Microeconomics deals with an individual decision making. Macroeconomics looks at the economy as a whole. Micro trys to determine how these decisions will effect supply and demand of goods. Macro looks at the economy; unemployment, interest rates, inflation, etc. It is hard for me to determine which one is better because they both determine two different things in our economy. In my opinion, I find micro to be easier to understand than macro.

]]> By: Nadjah George http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/comment-page-1/#comment-17535 Nadjah George Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:36:40 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/#comment-17535 Micro and Macro are one in a difference. Macroeconomics is on a much broader scale at analazing things. In Microeconomice we talked about Honda verses Toyota verses Ford. On the other hand, in Macroeconomics we would just discuss the demand for cars in general. Macroeconomics in my opinion require more analytical skills than Microeconomics. I dont quite find either of them interesting but I do see the diffence in them and how we can use them to make economic decesions. I also see how it can influence the decisions we make in different economies. Micro and Macro are one in a difference. Macroeconomics is on a much broader scale at analazing things. In Microeconomice we talked about Honda verses Toyota verses Ford. On the other hand, in Macroeconomics we would just discuss the demand for cars in general. Macroeconomics in my opinion require more analytical skills than Microeconomics. I dont quite find either of them interesting but I do see the diffence in them and how we can use them to make economic decesions. I also see how it can influence the decisions we make in different economies.

]]> By: Clif Barnett http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/comment-page-1/#comment-17393 Clif Barnett Sat, 11 Jul 2009 10:49:25 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/#comment-17393 Dr. Coats and Dr. Turner’s analogy of 211 and 212 seems to be very clear, and as expected. While knowing that the study and understanding the mechanics and theories of economics is important, it has only been in recent years that I have actually found the study of economics to be “interesting.” As did I expect by the course descriptions (micro and macro) implications, we would be moving from studying the more elemental aspects to studying the more general aspects of economies as a whole. Dr. Coats has a way of putting thing in perspective while using layman’s terms. And, I don’t find the material particularly exciting; however, I do find it very interesting. Dr. Coats and Dr. Turner’s analogy of 211 and 212 seems to be very clear, and as expected. While knowing that the study and understanding the mechanics and theories of economics is important, it has only been in recent years that I have actually found the study of economics to be “interesting.” As did I expect by the course descriptions (micro and macro) implications, we would be moving from studying the more elemental aspects to studying the more general aspects of economies as a whole. Dr. Coats has a way of putting thing in perspective while using layman’s terms. And, I don’t find the material particularly exciting; however, I do find it very interesting.

]]> By: chad http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/comment-page-1/#comment-12317 chad Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:01:01 +0000 http://www.nicholls.edu/bastiatsbastions/2008/06/30/transitioning-from-microeconomics-econ-211-to-macroeconomics-econ-212/#comment-12317 MC's preview sounds about right to me, but I'll add just a couple of tidbits. Not to put words in JC's mouth, but when I am asked this or a similar question, I suspect students are often asking about the "apparatus" that will be used in Econ 212 class. That is, they are really asking how "hard" the class is, or what sort of "technical skills" they will need to be successful, or more pointedly, wondering if they'll have to continue to shift around curves on a graph. Much like Econ 211, Econ 212 is primary done by using graphical analysis (shifting around curves), a good amount of logical thinking, a pinch of algebra, and a bunch of definitions. If you haven't figured out the graphical analysis part (shifting around curves), you'll find Econ 212 will be a struggle (just as Econ 211 must have been). If you are strong with graphical analysis, you'll find portions of Econ 212 will likely come easily. One difference I have noticed is that some (not all) students find Econ 212 a bit more abstract than Econ 211. To borrow MC's example, everyone understands what an apple is, and what the price of an apple is. In Econ 211, it is easy to wrap your brain around the idea that the price of apples has risen, and how this might impact (or not impact) your life. But as Dr. Coats suggested, in Econ 212, we will lump all goods produced into something called GDP, and the average level of overall prices into something called a price level. How does an increase in the price level impact your life? It does, but some students don't find it as tangible. However, do not fret! To combat this issue, we'll spend a (painful?) amount of time in class helping you understand what goes into the definitions and calculations of macroeconomics variables. (GDP, price levels, unemployment rates, etc). It is not hard, nor very interesting, but you can't understand Econ 212 without fully understanding these variables. If you are reading this (and you'll get this speech in class), make an investment in understanding the macroeconomics variables. It will pay off. If you get a strong grasp of the "language", you'll find Econ 212 to be largely "more of the same". Oh, and you will learn more than you care to about the Fed (not the Feds) and this guy named Ben Bernanke. --CT (Dr. Turner) MC’s preview sounds about right to me, but I’ll add just a couple of tidbits.

Not to put words in JC’s mouth, but when I am asked this or a similar question, I suspect students are often asking about the “apparatus” that will be used in Econ 212 class. That is, they are really asking how “hard” the class is, or what sort of “technical skills” they will need to be successful, or more pointedly, wondering if they’ll have to continue to shift around curves on a graph.

Much like Econ 211, Econ 212 is primary done by using graphical analysis (shifting around curves), a good amount of logical thinking, a pinch of algebra, and a bunch of definitions.

If you haven’t figured out the graphical analysis part (shifting around curves), you’ll find Econ 212 will be a struggle (just as Econ 211 must have been). If you are strong with graphical analysis, you’ll find portions of Econ 212 will likely come easily.

One difference I have noticed is that some (not all) students find Econ 212 a bit more abstract than Econ 211.

To borrow MC’s example, everyone understands what an apple is, and what the price of an apple is. In Econ 211, it is easy to wrap your brain around the idea that the price of apples has risen, and how this might impact (or not impact) your life. But as Dr. Coats suggested, in Econ 212, we will lump all goods produced into something called GDP, and the average level of overall prices into something called a price level. How does an increase in the price level impact your life? It does, but some students don’t find it as tangible.

However, do not fret! To combat this issue, we’ll spend a (painful?) amount of time in class helping you understand what goes into the definitions and calculations of macroeconomics variables. (GDP, price levels, unemployment rates, etc). It is not hard, nor very interesting, but you can’t understand Econ 212 without fully understanding these variables. If you are reading this (and you’ll get this speech in class), make an investment in understanding the macroeconomics variables. It will pay off.

If you get a strong grasp of the “language”, you’ll find Econ 212 to be largely “more of the same”.

Oh, and you will learn more than you care to about the Fed (not the Feds) and this guy named Ben Bernanke.

–CT (Dr. Turner)

]]>