Growth happened after the dictatorship and when market reforms were introduced

Thank you for sharing your journey with us. Wishing you the best. Please keep us updated

@@EconWithDrA Thank you!

Reading good books, Listening to my podcast, and following my content on instagram

Thank you @hellomy_. I’ll make sure to continue to share. I’m heading to a conference soon, so that should be fun

Glad to have you here. Hope you enjoy the content. Would love to hear your thoughts on it

@@EconWithDrA I really did, am watching from Nigeria and am a masters student of Economics. About to begin my thesis. I have learnt alot already. I would also love to come to do my phd in the US

Yes. Please do email me

So proud of her!

That is true.

Love it. I love the short research reviews

@EconWithDrA Same but they stay too Ivy they need to expand their horizons

Glad college paid off for you too!

What do you do?

I’m a sub contractor for ADT. I manage and install security systems and CCTV for residential and commercial accounts.

شكراً

Enjoy. Would love to hear your thoughts on it. Share it with all your friends!!

Thanks for your comment. It’s obvious you have put some thought behind your opinions. What isn’t clear though is what you want to save the people from?

@@EconWithDrA To save people from the cult of Walrasian equilibrium. How many neoclassicals or new Keynesians publicly predicted the crash in 2008? How many predicted the crash in 1929? None that I know of. The only people who publicly predicted 2008 were either financial practitioners (dealers and traders) or non-equilibrium economists. The public statements of prominent, prestigious neoclassicals and new keynesians, from all the "right" universities, before the 2008 crash are embarrassing to read now (which is why no one in the cult brings it up). If your astronomical model cannot predict an eclipse, then you're astronomical model is falsified. Full stop; don't need to hear any "explanations" for why the theory was right but reality was wrong. If your DSGE model didn't see 2008 coming (as even fraudster Greenspan admitted before Congress: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYS6d6iFfMqhfdk&ab_channel=AssociatedPress admitted), then your DSGE model is false. Full stop. No hemming and hawing. No explanations. No patching it up. It's wrong. Nothing else to say. I'm trying to save people from spending a lot of time (in countries with inexpensive universities) or a lot of money (in neoliberal hell that is the English-speaking world) to learn nonsense. Why would you learn Ptolemy, when you have Kepler and Newton? Why would you learn about blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm when you have the germ theory of disease, cell biology, and DNA to learn? Why would you learn about phlogiston when you can learn chemistry? Why would you learn about a failed economics model, full of physics equation-envy, that failed to predict the biggest crisis in capitalism of the last fifty years? Every time you are close to being bamboozled by the prestige of the universities and government posts of equilibrium economists, remind yourself about calculus. For hundreds of years all the most prestigious professors in all the prestigious universities were opposed to the foundational ideas of calculus, but not because it was bad mathematics. They opposed it because it went against their theology. It's rather convoluted how the theologians came to think "indivisibles" and "infinitesimals" were a threat to their idea of social order. But that's what they believed. Just like equilibrium economists today, they were not interested in observable facts and data. They care only about their theory. Here's a concrete example. In 1998 one of those marginalist, equilibrium high priests, Alan Blinder, published Asking About Prices (with three others, including one who has become a sort-of dissident when it comes to Fed interest rate policy). Page 225: "Unfortunately for neoclassical economic theory, however, most of the rest report [firms they surveyed] DECLINING marginal cost [emphasis in the original]. Only 11 percent claim to have the upward-sloping marginal cost schedules that populated economics textbooks." Well, isn't that interesting? This means if you are teaching from the usual economics textbooks then you are teaching a "theory" that is accurate for only 11 percent of reality. Of course, Alan Blinder never talks about this today. He made a significant discovery that falsified one of his fundamental tenets, but never changed the theory. Can you imagine a chemist or physicist making a fundamental discovery and NOT making a big deal about it, not changing how they teach and what they teach? Of course not because chemistry and physics are science based on observable reality. Equilibrium economics is based on the utopian yearnings of ideologues. There's a joke about neoclassical economists. If you wanted to learn about horses, what would you do? Obviously, you'd go outside, find some horses, and observe them. What would a neoclassical economist do? He'd sit in a chair and say, "If I were a horse, what would I do?" The Blinder story is but one. You can go further back to Stigler in 1957. It's more subtle and anyone reading this who hasn't gone past undergraduate economics won't get it. But you should. In his article Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated (1957), Stigler mathematically demonstrated the slope of the demand curve for a competitive firm equals the slope of the market demand curve. But this is not what they teach undergraduates. They don't even teach it to graduate students because it's heretical to the neoclassical cult. In other words, even a different high priest of the cult, Stigler, in 1957 knew neoclassical theory is bullshit. But he taught it anyway. You have a doctorate in economics. I'd bet money, and give you three to one odds, you've never seen the Stigler article and never heard of the Blinder book. Why would you have seen it? Why would the high priests of the cult that trained you show you material that would make you question their dogma? These are but two examples. I can easily come up with three or four others, but it's not necessary. The point is demonstrated. Blinder discovered a fundamental tenet of equilibrium, neoclassical, economic theory is bullshit. He even published a book about it. Stigler also proved one of the tenets of neoclassical economic was false. But they kept teaching it. They were fraudsters. If you teach it, so are you.

I am not sure about that. Most receive tax refunds and are subsidized.

What's wrong?

I enjoyed it.

Yes. June 3-7th.

Thank you! That is good to know. I appreciate you watching and commenting to let me know. What content do you like?

Oh I like that! Going to borrow that from you.

Thank you, Parker!

Thank you!

Thank you! 🙏🏽