LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old 22-12-2003, 04:03 AM
Robert Sturgeon
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:44:02 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?


Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.


You may *think* you did, but you didn't.


Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn
around? "I understand economics, but you only think you
do." Not exactly overwhelming.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).


You just described applied psychology


No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory
is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one,
and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that
assumption.


Economists certainly do study human reactions to the
economic variables - tax rates, interest rates, monetary
creation, regulations, etc. You seem to think there is a
single "economic theory" - shared by everyone from Paul
Samuelson to Arthur Laffer. Not so. They do not agree
about economic behavior resulting from economic policies and
conditions. And they do study it - that's what all their
graphs and projections are about - not rocks on the other
side of the moon - economic behavior.

I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally.


See above.

Your point being...???


My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said
here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.)


I stand by my original and follow-up posts. Are you an
English teacher, grading usenet posts for grammar? If so,
you really have your work cut out for you.

Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME
economics?


tsk, tsk...

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Edible Gardening 52 22-04-2004 08:08 PM
"Left wing kookiness" Rico X. Partay Gardening 182 22-04-2004 08:02 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Edible Gardening 17 21-12-2003 05:43 PM
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Gardening 5 19-12-2003 02:32 AM
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers Jonathan Ball Gardening 0 18-12-2003 08:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017