For example, in 1987, the lack of liquidity caused the stock market blow and there was a great change in the credit market since the Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) almost collapsed in 1998 (Huang and Wang 2009)....
Economists have, for example, been well agreed among themselves that the operations of the merchant are of specific interest for the economic perspective on social phenomena; but at this point their unanimity abruptly breaks down. For some, the merchant is engaged in economic activity because he deals in material goods; for others, because his operations involve the use of money; for still others, because these operations hinge on acts of exchange. Some writers see the merchant as an economic agent be-cause his activities are allegedly motivated by selfishness or marked by a peculiar shrewdness in calculating the pros and cons of his dealings. Others see his relevance for economics in that his wares are to some extent related to the maintenance of human life; others, in that they pertain to human “welfare.” Still others classify mercantile pursuits as economic because they involve the judicious disposition of scarce means, while others again find their economic character in their reflection of human motives that permit of measurement. And the list could be still further extended.
Consider, for example, the notion of “cost” and how it is often misnamed by economists. The cost of a specific action to a decision maker is the next best opportunity he gives up when he chooses that course of action over all others. The cost of a certain action is always related to another course of action that has not been taken. But if the other course of action has not been taken, then there is no record of it in the market. Thus, at best, what economists call the “cost of production,” or the money outlay of a firm in producing an object, may represent the value of the next best application of these resources to the other market participants; but whether or not these expenses also measure the opportunity cost forgone by the firm’s decision maker is another question. A firm may be making a money rate of return of 20 percent on its financial investment at one point in time and be quite satisfied. At another point in time a money return of 22 percent may not be enough to keep that firm in the industry if it discovers an opportunity for making greater profits still. Clearly the connection between recorded, or accounting, costs and those costs that influence human choice may be so tenuous that statistical laws founded on the former will reveal very little about human action itself.
If, however, one considers the most important task of applied economics to be the discovery of the type of institutional structure that provides for the greatest coordination of individual plans and efforts, then the subjective character of the discipline is brought to the forefront. Here the goal of science is to aid men not in maximizing or minimizing some statistical average, but in eliminating or lessening the frustrations that occur when the plans of one individual come into conflict with those of another: For example, it is not the physical existence of capital on which the prosperity of society’s members depends but rather the position these goods play in the plans of acting individuals. One need not go so far as some members of the subjectivist school and argue that statistical investigations are of absolutely no value in the derivation of economic laws. It is sufficient to insist that the meaning of such measurements be constantly checked against the underlying human plans and purposes that they allegedly represent.
Modern economists are generally quite comfortable with some variant of Robbins’s definition of economics as a discipline concerned with the allocation of scarce means among alternative ends where the means themselves are capable of a variety of applications. What they are apparently less willing to do is go beyond Robbins and insist, after Mises, that the science must be founded on an analysis of the subjective categories of human action because these categories provide the only firm grounding for economic laws. Modern economists tend to consider economic laws useful, not because they are consistent with our understanding of human action, but because they help organize large bodies of business and government data. Often economists act as if the only importance of economic theory is the ease and elegance with which it helps shuffle and reshuffle large bodies of statistical data (an unfortunate consequence of the novelty and increased availability of high-speed computers).
The efficient market hypotheses also know as the joint hypothesis problem, asserts that financial markets lack solid hard information in making decisions.
Efficient market hypothesis claims it is impossible to beat the market because stock market efficiency causes existing share prices to always incorporate and reflect all relevant information .
According to efficient market hypothesis stocks always trade at their fair value on stock exchanges, making it impossible for investors to either purchase undervalued stocks or sell stocks for inflated prices....
The performance of any significant scientific element or segment of a project outside of the United States, either by the recipient or by a researcher employed by a foreign organization, whether or not grant funds are expended. Activities that would meet this definition include, but are not limited to, (1) the involvement of human subjects or animals, (2) extensive foreign travel by recipient project staff for the purpose of data collection, surveying, sampling, and similar activities, or (3) any activity of the recipient that may have an impact on U.S. foreign policy through involvement in the affairs or environment of a foreign country. Examples of other grant-related activities that may be significant are:
As Kirzner’s study makes clear, the subject matter of economics is human action, and a concern with the abstract character of action is what defines the economic point of view. Human action in contrast to, say, reflexive action is action directed toward goals and purposes. Furthermore, while such action often results in the measurable displacement of real world objects, the significance of such displacements cannot be adequately understood by merely correlating (or regressing) one displacement with (on) another. Economic explanations must either explicitly or implicitly make reference to individual purposes and plans; otherwise they ignore a realm of experience as real as the world of things. While modem philosophers of science often insist that to explain an event is to show that it is an instance of a scientific law, Kirzner would addthis proviso: the general law must itself be explicable in terms of the purposes and plans of acting individuals. According to Kirzner, the entire science of economics is a subset of the broader (but less developed) discipline that Mises termed “praxeology,” or the science of human action.
Something new or improved, including research for (1) development of new technologies, (2) refinement of existing technologies, or (3) development of new applications for existing technologies. For the purposes of PHS programs, an example of innovation would be new medical or biological products for improved value, efficiency, or costs.
A PD/PI who has not previously competed successfully as a PD/PI for a substantial independent research award is considered a New Investigator. For example, a PD/PI who has previously received a competing NIH R01 research grant is no longer considered a New Investigator. However, a PD/PI who has received a Small Grant (R03) or an Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) retains his or her status as a New Investigator. The list of NIH grants that a PD/PI can hold and still be considered a New Investigator is the same as the list of grants that a PD/PI can hold and still be considered an Early Stage Investigator. This list can be found at .
A two-letter code in the grant number identifying the first major-level subdivision of the funding organization.
3 R01 CA 12921(9) -04 S1A1
In the example above, "CA" refers to the National Cancer Institute. For certain activities, DHHS organizations having Bureau status may use a Division-level code. An interagency agreement awarded by NCI, for instance, may be coded 1Y01CM00999-00, where CM refers to NCI's Division of Cancer Treatment.