NEW YORK: What happens when you put together a panel of four of the brightest minds in economics for a two-hour intellectual discussion? They ultimately disagree. A panel of Nobel Prize winning economists delivered their global perspective on economic theory and changes in the human sociological environment at a recent event sponsored by UBS.
UBS Nobel Laureates Forum
UBS is a Swiss-based bank with corporate facilities across the globe. It provides corporate and personal banking services to a wide range of financial clients.
The four distinguished Nobel Laureates in Economics Sir. Angus S. Deaton, Oliver S. Hart, James J. Heckman, Thomas J Sargent delivered an intellectually riveting discussion on the practical aspects of economics, its landscape and their expectations for congruence among world economies and their respective corporate engines. They prompted a number of thought-provoking questions. Many of them one would not consider, except for being in their presence, at this forum.
UBS Nobel Laureates forum on global perspective on economic theory and changes in the human sociological environment was a culmination of a combination of academic research, extensive study in mathematics and economics at renowned institutions like Cambridge, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) and Princeton University and insight from a unique working knowledge of the global financial industry.
Like the four seasons differ in temperature, foliage, fashion, etc., and whether you enjoy them all or prefer one particular one, the Nobel Laureates also compliment each other’s perspective quite well in terms of the things they did agree on.
For instance, the nature of economic theory’s vast, dynamically ever-evolving structure.
Global perspective on economic theory topics
The panel touched on a series of broad, but important and substantively interesting topics. The role of technology and the nature of the modern production environment as it relates to future demand and the part that it plays in the growth of developing countries. They shared their views on women’s presence in the field of economics as it changed over time to address the current limitations.
The theory of minimum wage or ideal living wage, was another subject. Along with it, the application for government intervention in the supply side matrix component of labor and the market demand for human production resources as it relates to public policy.
Specifically fiscal policy.
Technology, job security and the future
Kicking off the forum was the question of job automation and the growth of technology. The audience was posed with the following question: would future technology replace their parents job? Remarkably, the audience response was mostly no. Close to 80 percent of the attendees felt that technology could not replace their parents occupations.
Consider the professions: lawyer, architect, nurse, doctor, judge, police officer, fitness instructor, engineer. Where machines make dramatic headways replacing workers and boosting productivity in the manufacturing and the textile industry, professions that require creativity and feature roles with limited routine and a wide range of mobility are still less susceptible to machine replacement.
Specialization is a good thing.
It developed the working world as we know it. From as far back as the feudal system to the industrial revolution. Guilds determined the best practices to achieve a particular outcome through the development of standardized routine practices.
Later, during the 1800’s, political economist Max Weber’s works including essays on the concept of specialisation facilitated a greater understanding of the industrial revolution’s impact on government and its interaction with society. Not just the private sector.
Especially important, it is considered a leading work of its time.
The problem we face today is not specialization. It is open access communication of society’s needs. Communications that provide better and more lasting positive outcomes over a wider spectrum of individual cultures.
Declining poverty and changes in the global perspective on economic theory
A key discussion highlight was undoubtedly the reduction in global poverty. The number of individuals living under a dollar a day reduced drastically as globalization occurred. Estimaets are that global poverty was cut in half over the past 30 years. Less than 9 percent of the world’s population is considered in this category.
Even infant mortality rates saw a significant decline. Clearly, as a result of the improvements in the global economy that result from changes in the modern global perspective on economic theory and the subsequent changes in the human sociological environment.
Changes UBS played a major part in.
UBS philanthropy and poverty reduction vision focuses on health, education, and the protection of children. UBS makes a case for social change aimed at helping the less fortunate and the financially underprivileged. It is one of the globally recognised leaders in philanthropy.
Sponsored programs include National Child Protection Systems , Saving lives by giving light in Sub Saharan Africa and Every child counts in Asia & the Pacific. It has partnerships with University of Hong Kong, World Health Organisation and Yale University.
Through these partnerships, it has sponsored over 100 poverty reduction programs.
Describing production outcomes and costs
This leads to the question of self interest. Should we only play favorites. And, is economics simply a titillating discussion or is it tremendously ‘un-contrite’. Meaning is it the only way we solve global problems and improve society or are the discussions just a way around the problem. Giving rise to the free expression of somewhat bad choices on both ends of the production curve.
Namely a rationale for low productivity outcomes and a validation of overproduction costs. Maintaining price incurs waste. If you show the equation people with see the correlation. Low productivity wastes human resources. Over production wastes natural resources.
- Over production (OP) – waste (w) = Perfect Equilibrium (PE)
- Low Productivity (LP) + waste (w) = Perfect Equilibrium (PE)
Therefore, a discussion of the conservative nature of economics materialised, however, trickle-down economics remained unmentioned for some reason. Maybe it is a bit passe. Ironically, however, it results in a pool at the bottom and a cloud at the top, which is made up of the very same elements. Elements important to growth.