who is interested in Economy ? help me ![:D]

I have some problems that I cant understand about this wide study. First, who can tell me what tates mean and preferences mean ?I probably dont understand this much.Of course i understand what are those meaning but i mean what are their meaning in this case.It means the products will depend on the demand? Is it like when the consumers change their fashion so the producers also change basing on the consumers fashion ?Im not sure so I have to ask u to help me! this is my ex :
In 1980, most of poeple liked to wear long pants with the large size. So, the clothes producers would produce a lot of long and large pants to satisfy the consumers so that they can get more profit from it. But if the consumers would change thier thought( at another time , 1999 for ex), the producer also had to change thier product to adapt their consumers. Is it like that ? Please tell me ! I need ur help.
BN
its very important for me ! please answer me immediately guys!!


When u receive a kindness; remember it, when u do a kindnes, forget it.

What do you want? You want the best Vietnamese words for taste or preference as used in Economics or what? If so, it is "sở thích". Demand for a good depends upon its price, other things held constant. However, demand shifts outward and to the right, or inward and to the left depending on whether other determinants than the price of that good change, such as expectations, preference or taste, among others. That''''s what I learnt from the book, and if I am wrong, please excuse me since I''''ve never taken any economics class.
<P><STRONG>[blue]Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!</FONT></STRONG></P>
Được captor_of_sin sửa chữa / chuyển vào 15:17 ngày 20/09/2003

An age old post. What''s the point of replying to it. None would read (exception: me )
Anyway, if you only read books and have never taken an econ class, it''s pretty smart of you to get the mechanism right though absolutely basic it is.

Tiền bất kiến cổ nhân
Hậu bất kiến lai giả
Niệm thiên địa chi du du
Độc sảng nhiên nhi lệ hạ

Sorry for irritating you with the **** I created in response to the old post! Since you''re the dictator here and you dictate anything you think goes against the rules or what the hell is created as rules or regulations for this forum, you can delete any of the posts I created that you think is ****ty. Go ahead! I have no problem. I learn from it and will not let it happen again. Deep down, I think it''s easier to have my posts deleted with a message to my Inbox explaining the reason than taking any criticism like that! Just go ahead. Everybody knows you''re kindda boss here. Do as you deem right! I have no problem, nor I do have any intention of undermining this forum. I put the message there just because I saw a post posted but given no answer, no attention, etc. That''s all! I didn''t mean to piss this up or irrirate you, or maybe I was ignorant of the impacts of such a post on persons like you?
 
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

hey, what''s the problem? Got issues with being gently advised? Meant no offense, dude. even praised you a bit, didn''t I. replying to somebody in need is always appreciated, it''s just that the person who wrote the post wouldn''t be able to read it and except her and me, who knows her, none would bother reading.

Tiền bất kiến cổ nhân
Hậu bất kiến lai giả
Niệm thiên địa chi du du
Độc sảng nhiên nhi lệ hạ

Calm down Guys !!! I think this is a good topic although nobody paid attention for it. You should think how to make it better rather than giving it more argument or quarrel. Alot of people who is interested in Economic is very appreciated your contribution.. In this English Club forum has various meaningful topic but there are not specific topic which we can focus on the specialised subject.Therefore if you think your English is good or your economical knowledge is eru***e, let prove us your ability by post some Economic new or something concern with Economic.
And two of you, Guys, let conciliate each other
<DIV><DIV><DIV><DIV><MARQUEE banner><FONT color=red size=6><B><IMG src="http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/bnifiles/dance.gif"> God bless you <IMG src="http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/bnifiles/duck1.gif"> Good luck to you<IMG src="http://www.webdeveloper.com/animations/bnifiles/dolph.gif"> <FONT color=#000000>&</FONT></FONT></B></MARQUEE><P>&</P><URL><MARQUEE behavior=alternate><P align=center><IMG src="http://www.smiles2send.com/imgs/page_imgs/rar0502/ily.gif">&</P></B></FONT></MARQUEE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>

THE THEORY OF INVESTMENT
Introduction: Capital versus Investment
What is investment? Strictly speaking, investment is the change in capital stock during a period. Consequently, unlike capital, investment is a flow term and not a stock term. This means that while capital is measured at a point in time, while investment can only be measured over a period of time. If we ask "what is capital right now?", we might get an answer along the lines of $10 trillion. But if we ask "what is investment right now?", this cannot be answered. The quantity of a flow always depends on the period in consideration. Thus, we can answer "what is investment this month?" (and might be told it is $10 million) or "what is investment this year?" (and might be told $1 billion).
We can calculate the investment flow in a period as the difference between the capital stock at the end of the period and the capital stock at the beginning of the period. Thus, the investment flow at time period t can be defined as:
It = Kt - Kt-1
where Kt is the stock of capital at the end of period t and Kt-1 is the stock of capital at the end of period t-1 (and thus at the beginning of period t).
How is the the theory of investment different from the theory of capital? If all capital is circulating capital, so that it is completely used up within a period, then no capital built up during the previous period can be brought over into next period. In this special case, the theory of capital and the theory of investment become one and the same thing.
With fixed capital, the story is different -- and more complicated as there seems to be two decisions that must be addressed: the amount of capital and the amount of investment. These are different decisions. One is about the desired level of capital stock. The other is about the desired rate of investment flow. The decisions governing one will inevitably affect the other, but it is not necessarily the case that one is reducible to the other.
 
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

There are effectively two ways of thinking about investment. At the risk of annoying some people, we shall refer to these as the "Hayekian" and "Keynesian" perspectives. The Hayekian perspective conceives of investment as the adjustment to equilibrium and thus the optimal amount of investment is effectively a decision on the optimal speed of adjustment. A firm may decide it needs a factory (the "capital stock" decision), but its decision on how fast to build it, how much to spend each month building it, etc. -- effectively, the "investment" decision -- is a separate consideration.
Naturally, the capital decision influences the investment decision: a firm which has $10 billion of capital and decides that it needs $15 billion of capital, therefore requires investment of $5 billion. But if this adjustment can be done "instantly", then there is really no actual investment decision to speak of. We just change the capital stock automatically. The capital decision governs everything.
However, if for some reason, instant adjustment is not possible, then the investment story begins to matter. How do we distribute this $5 billion adjustment? Do we invest in an even flow over time, e.g. $1 billion this week, another $1 billion next week, and so on? Or do we invest in descending increments, e.g. invest $1 billion this week, $500 million next week, $300 million the week after that, etc. and approach the $5 billion mark asymptotically? Or should we invest in ascending increments, e.g. $10 million this week, $100 million next week, etc.? Delivery costs, changing prices of suppliers, fluctuating interest rates and financing costs, and other such considerations, make some adjustment processes more desirable than others. These different patterns of "approaching" the desired $5 billion adjustment in capital stock and the considerations that enter into determining which adjustment pattern to follow is what lies at the heart of the Hayekian approach to investment theory.
The Hayekian approach is shown heuristically in Figure 1, where we start at capital stock K0 and then, at t*, we suddenly change our desired capital stock from K0 to K*. Figure 1 depicts four alternative investment paths from K0 towards K*. Path I represents "instant" adjustment type of investment (i.e. all investment happens at once at t* and no more investment afterwards). Path IÂ represents an "even flow" adjustment path, with investment happening at a steady rate after t* until K* is reached. Path IÂ Â is the asymptotic investment path (gradually declining investment), while path IÂ Â Â depicts a gradually increasing investment path. All paths, except for the first instant one, imply that "investment" flows will be happening during the periods that follow t*. Properly speaking, then, investment theory in the Hayekian perspective is concerned with analyzing and comparing paths such as IÂ , IÂ Â and IÂ Â Â .
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

The "Keynesian" approach places far less emphasis on the "adjustment" nature of investment. Instead, they have a more "behavioral" take on the investment decision. Namely, the Keynesian approach argues that investment is simply what capitalists "do". Every period, workers consume and capitalists "invest" as a matter of course. This leads Keynesians to underplay the capital stock decision. This does not mean that Keynesians ignore the fact that investment is defined as a change in capital stock. Rather, they believe that the main decision is the investment decision; the capital stock just "follows" from the investment patterns rather than being an important thing that needs to be "optimally" decided upon beforehand. Thus, when businesses make investment decisions, they do not have an "optimal capital stock" in the back of their mind. They are more concerned as to what is the optimal amount of investment for some particular period. For Keynesians, then, optimal investment not about "optimal adjustment" but rather about "optimal behavior".
In economics, the "Keynesian" perspective has a longer history than the "Hayekian" one precisely because so many of the early economists, from Turgot (1766) onwards, concentrated on circulating capital rather than fixed capital. With circulating capital, the question of the "optimal capital stock" cannot come up; there is only the "optimal investment" decision (i.e. capital per period). The first theory of investment we consider here, Irving Fisher''s (1930) theory, follows these lines. Fisher''s theory was originally conceived as a theory of capital, but as he assumes all capital is circulating, then it is just as proper to conceive of it as a theory of investment.
John Maynard Keynes (1936) followed suit. Or, rather, in his theory, Keynes made much of the investment decision but was quiet about the underlying fixed capital. As such, Keynesian macroeconomics swept the issue of the changing capital stocks under the rug -- where it stayed until it was dug up by growth theorists many years later. Modern Neo-Keynesian and Post Keynesian theorists have attempted to insert capital stocks into Keynesian theory in order to obtain a "more complete" macroeconomic theory, but have generally adhered to Keynes''s strategy of placing the investment decision as the centrepiece and subordinating capital stock considerations to it.
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!

Fixed capital, and thus the optimal capital stock, was an important feature in the work of John Bates Clark (1899), Frank Ramsey (1928) and Frank H. Knight (1936, 1946). Or, propertly speaking, these theorists embraced the idea of a "permanent fund" of capital in the economy, and thus were naturally led to ask questions about its optimal "size". This was effectively what Neoclassical theorists such as Dale W. Jorgensen (1963) picked up in their theories. However, while elaborate on the determination of the optimal capital stock, these theories tended to skimp on the determination of the adjustment towards it, i.e. on investment.
The great intermediate figure was Friedrich A. von Hayek (1941), who juggled with the concepts of fixed and circulating capital by conceiving of an optimal stock of fixed capital and of investment as the optimal adjustment towards it (an idea that Knut Wicksell (1898, 1901) had also toyed with). This was the notion picked up in later years by Abba Lerner (1944, 1953), Friedrich Lutz and Vera Lutz  (1951), Trygve Haavelmo (1960) and the marginal adjustment cost theorists (Eisner and Strotz, Lucas, Treadway, Gould, etc.) The modern Neoclassical theory of investment stems largely from this tra***ion.
In what follows, we shall go through a few points in each of these types of theories. We should point out now that our emphasis in on theories of the investment decision, in its more "production"-theoretic sense rather than a macroeconomic one. We are not concerned here with the theory of interest rates, in which investment theory plays an important role, as that would entangle us in the details of the monetary theories of Wicksell, Robertson, Ohlin, Hayek, Keynes and others. We treat this elsewhere.
The "Keynesian" approach places far less emphasis on the "adjustment" nature of investment. Instead, they have a more "behavioral" take on the investment decision. Namely, the Keynesian approach argues that investment is simply what capitalists "do". Every period, workers consume and capitalists "invest" as a matter of course. This leads Keynesians to underplay the capital stock decision. This does not mean that Keynesians ignore the fact that investment is defined as a change in capital stock. Rather, they believe that the main decision is the investment decision; the capital stock just "follows" from the investment patterns rather than being an important thing that needs to be "optimally" decided upon beforehand. Thus, when businesses make investment decisions, they do not have an "optimal capital stock" in the back of their mind. They are more concerned as to what is the optimal amount of investment for some particular period. For Keynesians, then, optimal investment not about "optimal adjustment" but rather about "optimal behavior".
Right decision, to be true to myself, and FOREVER HATE YOU!