Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:12:07 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


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.


Oh, I understand what you wrote. You are wrong and I didn't
bother to reply.

No, you didn't understand it. You very plainly are not
qualified to understand it. You are wrong: economics
is not a branch of, nor is it derived from, psychology.
It does not study the minds of consumers or decision
makers of firms in any way.



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.


You are incorrect.

No, I am correct. You are incorrect. You have not
studied economics. I have.

Economists most certainly do care what
economic actors think and how they arrive at their
decisions.

No, they don't. They make certain assumptions
regarding rationality, but other than that, they treat
the thinking of consumers and firm managers as a black
box. They do not study psychology.

That's why they argue about the effects of
differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc.

That's not what they argue about, economics-illiterate one.

Those effects are just another way of saying - how do people
react to economic considerations. That is psychology, even
if you don't think so.


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.


So if I could find a well-known economist who doesn't agree
with you, you are right and he is wrong?

Find one.


(BTW, argument from authority is not particularly
convincing.)

You demonstrate that you do not understand the study of
logic and logical fallacies, either, with a stupid
statement like that. The fallacy of argumentum ad
verecundiam only applies when the "authority" cited is
not an authority it the relevant field. In my case,
with a degree in economics and Ph.D. level studies in
economics at UCLA, I am very much an authority,
relative to you.



Repeat after me, dumb ass:


There you go again...

Yes. You've richly earned it.



economics does not study
*how* consumers and firms think in making choice under
constraint;


Some economists certainly do study that.

No, they don't.

Perhaps your
professors have you convinced that they don't, but I doubt
they spent much time on that question in class.

They spent just enough time in class to explain that
economics does not study psychology at all. You, on
the other hand, have not even sat in an economics class
at all. You claim, unconvincingly, to having read ONE
economics textbook to help your wife pass a class. I
have read a couple of dozen economics textbooks, and
have studied economics at a graduate level. I know
what I'm talking about; you do not.



it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality,
then looks at how the constraints
determine the choices available.


Once again you are incorrect.

No, once again I am correct, and once again you reveal
you are an arrogant ass.

The restraints don't
determine the choices people make,

Now you REALLY demonstrate your colossal ignorance.
Constraints - not restraints, you moron - most
certainly do determine the choices people make.

because people don't
react uniformly to any given set of restraints.

Generally, they do. There is one major constraint that
is assumed in the theory of demand, the budget
constraint. You don't even know what it is.


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.


Yes, they do.

No, they don't. You simply are wrong, and in no
plausible position to argue. You are arguing from
utter ignorance, compounded now by pigheadedness.

Why do you suppose they say

Who says?

that economic
conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer
confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as
bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational
exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan
Greenspan an economist?

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

And an ignorant ass.