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.

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. Economists most certainly do care what
economic actors think and how they arrive at their
decisions. That's why they argue about the effects of
differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc.
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?

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

Repeat after me, dumb ass:

There you go again...

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

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

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

Once again you are incorrect. The restraints don't
determine the choices people make, because people don't
react uniformly to any given set of restraints. PEOPLE
determine how they will react to restraints. Since PEOPLE
are reacting, the study of their reactions is a subset of
psychology.

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. Why do you suppose they say 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.