Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(massive snippage)


Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.


You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice
under constraint"?

No, I *know* it doesn't.

Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff
you don't - CAN'T - understand.

Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or
the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they
BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having
to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care
in the least *how* the actors arrive at their
decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The
actual study of rationality is left to the
philosophers, psychologists and other poets.

It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating
your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in
either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have
a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm
talking about.

Repeat after me, dumb ass: economics does not study
*how* consumers and firms think in making choice under
constraint; it makes an axiomatic assumption of
rationality, then looks at how the constraints
determine the choices available. It posits a theory
about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks
at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform
to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may
study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care.