Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
What's your take on bobby's basic point: that
economics is a "subset" of psychology? I may have come to this thread late, so I don't know if that was bobby's basic point, but I've already posted my disagreement with it. I maintain it's crap. Economics issues were *considered* by some philosophers before the emergence of economics as a distinct academic discipline, .... Because they concern matters, ultimately, of life and death, economic writings are as old as civilization. Civlization was originally based on the control of water and arable land along the Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus River in India, etc. Civilization also introduced "taxation" and required record keeping. Of course, men had economies, and no doubt argued about them, long before civilization, otherwise they would have starved or frozen to death. But they left no writings for us to examine. During the Middle Ages, economic writings were based on Christian thought. A crucial concept was Justium Pretium, the "just price." Profit-seeking was sinful. Consider: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven." "What does it profit a man to gain wht the whole world but lose lhis immortal soul?" After the Reanaissance, the prevailing view was "Mercantilism," the key notion of which was that economic activity was to enrich the Crown, not provided for the welfare of ordinary people. The "Trade and Navigation Acts," against which the colonists rebelled, were Mercantilist laws. Adam Smith, who published _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_, 1776, was a professor of moral philosophy, (there were no "economists" yet) a branch of philosophy that dealt with questions of right and wrong--including the right way to use resources, the right way to distribute wealth, etc. People have always thought about what we today call "psychology," too. The Greeks wrote about the question "How do we know what we know?" That branch of philosophy was known as "epistemology." There's a consensus that "psychology" was born about 1870, a century after Smith's Wealth of Nations and after the "Classical Economists" such as Ricardo, Malthus, James and John Stuart Mill, Jevons, and others had written numerous books aobut political economy. When I studied economics as an undergraduate and in graduate school, consumer preference was taken as a given, and the notion of utility was being abandoned. I retired ten years ago, but at that time, the concept of utility was still being included in the introductory texts. But textbooks are not always up-to-the-minute with the latest developments. One of my professors in grad school at UCLA, Armen Alchian, demonstrated decades ago that downward sloping demand curves can be obtained without considering "utility" at all; "Indifference analysis" has been around for many years. all that is required is a diminishing marginal rate of substitution between two goods, which is what we observe in the real world. The the purpose of "theory" in any science is to explain what we observe in the real world. Merely observing it is insufficient. vince norris |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers | Gardening |