Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:



paghat wrote:


In article , Greylock
wrote:



Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.


Oh, not close - correct.


Economics is the study of choice under constraint.


And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.

Since when???

Since Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say first began
thinking about it.



The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.


That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are?
Of course people have preferences, but they aren't
universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."


Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.


Oh, sure they do.

No, they don't.

Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and
libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high
tax rates?

They do.



An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.


economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun
Abbr. econ.
1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals
with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods
and services and with the theory and management of economies
or economic systems.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters,
especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are
slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun
plural psychologies
Abbr. psych., psychol.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and
behavior.

Right: nothing to do with production, distribution or
consumption.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an
individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or
influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer
when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the
soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the
functions of the body.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

I stand by my original assertion.

You stand by an error.

Economics is OBVIOUSLY a
subset of psychology.

No, plainly it is not.

Economists are people who apply
psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services."

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. See what I said earlier:
consumer preferences are accepted as a given; they
are not within the purview of economics, not in any way.

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"? Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

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

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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

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.

I see you don't have an answer to Mr. Greenspan's well-known
concern about irrational exuberance. Why not? It couldn't
be because "irrational exuberance" describes investor
psychology in a bubble market, and you don't think "real"
economists consider investor psychology - right? So
Greenspan isn't a "real" economist, right? You are, by dint
of your UCLA diploma, but he isn't? You might consider
asking for a refund of your tuition.

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

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.

Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance? Why not? Too much psychology going
on there?

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

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.

LOL. That's rich.

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

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:



Robert Sturgeon wrote:



On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.


LOL. That's rich.

It's the truth. A lot of the fed chairman's job has
nothing whatever to do with economics...and economics,
of course, has nothing to do with psychology.

Time for a candid admission, bobby: you simply don't
know what you're talking about on the issue. You know
NEITHER economics nor psychology; you were just running
your ignorant mouth.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:



Robert Sturgeon wrote:



On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.


LOL. That's rich.

It's the truth. A lot of the fed chairman's job has
nothing whatever to do with economics...and economics,
of course, has nothing to do with psychology.

On Fox News this morning (paraphrasing) "Economists
concerned about lower consumer confidence." Apparently
economists have some way of studying consumer confidence,
and even more apparently, they care what it is. But since
you say economists don't care about psychology, this must
have been an error. Or were those economists also not
speaking as economists?

Time for a candid admission, bobby: you simply don't
know what you're talking about on the issue. You know
NEITHER economics nor psychology; you were just running
your ignorant mouth.

Casting aspersions on another really doesn't win you any
debating points. Instead, you might consider explaining why
economists study consumer confidence, market sentiment, the
irrational exuberance that powers bubble markets, that sort
of thing - psychological aspects of economics that you
assure us economists don't care one whit about.

I do thank you for your rudeness, because it has prompted me
to do some more research into this matter. I did an Alta
Vista search using the key words: economics and psychology.
It returned 588,142 results. As might be expected from
reading your tirades, it is easy to find articles on the
differences between the two. But it is also easy to find
articles to the contrary. Heres one:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2002-19412.asp

"It is impossible to describe any human action if one does
not refer to the meaning the actor sees in the stimulus as
well as in the end his response is aiming at.
Ludwig von Mises"

"Economics - to the great dismay of economists - is merely a
branch of psychology. It deals with individual behaviour and
with mass behaviour. Many of its practitioners sought to
disguise its nature as a social science by applying complex
mathematics where common sense and direct experimentation
would have yielded far better results."

The article is quite lengthy. I won't repost it in its
entirety. It was written by an actual economist - "Sam
Vaknin, United Press International Senior Business
Correspondent, columnist for Central Europe Review and
eBookWeb.org, editor in the Open Directory Project, and
former economic advisor to the government of Macedonia and
to blue-chip firms in many countries." It looks like he has
better credentials than you do, and he doesn't agree with
you.

Here's a NEW (i.e., you probably didn't study it at UCLA)
textbook for sale at Amazon.com from Kluwer Academic
Publishers by Gerrit Antonides:

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Psychology in Economics and Business is the first textbook
in economic psychology that is targeted at students of
economics and business administration. It describes the
experiments and explains the psychological background
associated with the topics. The book presents the state of
the art in behavioral economics and economic psychology and
their applications to economics and business. The first part
organizes economic psychological themes within a common
paradigm. The applications belong to a great variety of
fields in economic psychology, including entrepreneurial
behavior, perceptions of price, risk, inflation and economic
activities, economic socialization, demand theory, attitudes
and brand images, decision making and heuristics, economic
expectations, well-being, poverty and consumer satisfaction.
The second part deals with information processing in a wider
sense. The psychological principles of consistency and
attribution are dealt with and recent developments in
rationality and choice under uncertainty are considered. A
chapter on game theory focuses on psychological factors in
several social dilemmas. Strategies and tactics in human
interaction are dealt with in a chapter on negotiation
behavior. The chapter on economic psychological methods
deals with the acquisition of knowledge from the observation
of economic behavior in reality and in experimental
settings."

While we're at Amazon, we can buy Market Volatility
by Robert J. Shiller.

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Market Volatility proposes an innovative theory, backed by
substantial statistical evidence, on the causes of price
fluctuations in speculative markets. It challenges the
standard efficient-markets model for explaining asset prices
by emphasizing the significant role that popular opinion or
psychology can play in price volatility.
Offering detailed analyses of the stock, the bond, and the
real estate markets, Shiller discusses the relations of
these speculative prices and extends the analysis of
speculative markets to macroeconomic activity in general."

"Robert J. Shiller is Stanley B. Resor Professor of
Economics at the Cowles Foundation, Yale University."

And this Shiller fellow is an actual economics professor -
at Yale, no less.

Here's a web page by Jim Mallon, Napier University:
http://www.nubs.napier.ac.uk/nubs/Econ/Staff/mallon.htm

"Research Interests
Psychology in Economics with particular relevance to
financial markets and personal financial planning."

Well, he's in Scotland, so he probably doesn't count...
right?

From the University of California's eScholarship Repository
http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/econ/E02-313/

"A Perspective on Psychology and Economics
Matthew Rabin, University of California, Berkeley"

"ABSTRACT:
This essay provides a perspective on the trend towards
integrating psychology into economics. Some topics are
discussed, and arguments are provided for why movement
towards greater psychological realism in economics will
improve mainstream economics."

But he's a Jew, so he probably doesn't know anything about
economics or psychology, despite being a MacArthur
Foundation Fellow, right?

From MIT
http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres99/12.02.html

"DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The goal of the MIT Department of Economics is to be the
best economics department in the world. To achieve this
goal, we strive to maintain an outstanding faculty, to have
the best Ph.D. program in economics, and to provide an
outstanding education in economics for MIT undergraduates."

....

"There were seven visiting faculty for all or part of the
1998-99 academic year. Visiting Professor Jean Tirole taught
a topics course in industrial organization. Visiting
Professor Roger Brinner taught macroeconomics. Visiting
Associate Professor Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion taught
development. Visiting Assistant Professor Jinyong Hahn
taught econometrics. Visiting Professor Alberto Alesina
taught macroeconomics. Visiting Professor Mathias
Dewatripont taught theory. Post-Doctoral Associate, Xavier
Gabaix, taught a topics course on psychology in economics."

But maybe you know more about economics than the Department
of Economics at MIT...

And then there's the International Association for Research
in Economic Psychology -
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~SEGLea/iarep/welcome.html

But they're just damned Brits, so...

Here's something from the Journal of Economic Psychology
http://www.elsevier.nl/inca/publicat...e/5/0/5/5/8/9/

"The Journal aims to present research that will improve
understanding of behavioral, especially socio-psychological,
aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal
seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using
behavioral science methods for the study of economic
behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of
societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new
theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a
discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that
underlie consumption and other economic behavior. It deals
with preferences, choices, decisions, and factors
influencing these, as well as the consequences of decisions
and choices with respect to the satisfaction of needs. This
includes the impact of external economic phenomena upon
human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic
psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation,
from the household and the individual consumer to the macro
level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with
inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as
well as consumer information and economic behavior in the
market place are thus the major fields of interest.
The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) reports of
empirical research on economic behavior; (b) assessments of
the state of the art in various subfields of economic
psychology; (c) articles providing a theoretical perspective
or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior;
(d) articles explaining the implications of theoretical
developments for practical applications; (e) book reviews;
(f) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.
Special issues of the Journal may be devoted to themes of
particular interest. The Journal will encourage exchange of
information between researchers and practitioners by being a
forum for discussion and debate of issues in both
theoretical and applied research."

I could go on, but I don't think doing so would change your
mind, it being fixed on the day you received your degree
from UCLA.

Anyone else so foolish as to have read this thread so far is
welcome to reach his own conclusion as to whether or not
economics is a subset of psychology. People with better
credentials than Mr. Ball say it is.

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

Wow! You made it all the way to 10:30AM (Pacific
Standard Time) before writing your knee-jerk, WRONG
defense of your stupid belief.


Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:



Robert Sturgeon wrote:



On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:




Robert Sturgeon wrote:




On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.


LOL. That's rich.

It's the truth. A lot of the fed chairman's job has
nothing whatever to do with economics...and economics,
of course, has nothing to do with psychology.


On Fox News this morning (paraphrasing) "Economists
concerned about lower consumer confidence." Apparently
economists have some way of studying consumer confidence,

No. They aren't concerned with the *why or how* of
consumer confidence AT ALL. All they are concerned
with is objectively measurable phenomena like
purchasing behavior. "Consumer confidence" isn't
measured by any form of psychological testing. It
refers to consumers' statements of their intended
purchases. When consumers state they feel confident
about the future, it is believed they spend on
big-ticket items; when they say they don't feel
confident, they are thought not to spend.

In fact, dummy, most statements by *economists* about
consumer confidence work BACKWARD: economists look at
actual consumer spending on durables, and then they
INFER something about consumer confidence from the
numbers. If consumers are spending on durables,
economists assume consumers really do feel confident
about the future; if durables spending is declining,
economists infer that consumers don't feel confident.

Economists don't study what is going on in consumers'
minds to make them feel "confident" or "unconfident".
That would be something psychologists might study.

and even more apparently, they care what it is.

No, they care about measuring the objective expression
of it.

But since
you say economists don't care about psychology, this must
have been an error.

It is an error in your understanding. The error is not
surprising, given that the sum total of your exposure
to academic economics consists of having perused ONE
introductory textbook for a class in which you were not
even enrolled yourself. In other words, the error is
not surprising given that, effectively, you are utterly
ignorant of economics.

Or were those economists also not speaking as economists?

They were speaking about something that went right over
your head.



Time for a candid admission, bobby: you simply don't
know what you're talking about on the issue. You know
NEITHER economics nor psychology; you were just running
your ignorant mouth.


Casting aspersions on another really doesn't win you any
debating points.

We are talking about your standing to be discussing the
field of economics. You have no standing, as you have
never studied the field, and nothing at all in your
background makes you credible to be pontificating about
what is and isn't in the purview of economics.

Instead, you might consider explaining why
economists study consumer confidence, market sentiment, the
irrational exuberance that powers bubble markets, that sort
of thing - psychological aspects of economics that you
assure us economists don't care one whit about.

They don't. You haven't found what you think you've
found. As a non-expert in the field, you are leaping
to unwarranted conclusions. As a stubborn pig-headed
fool, you are insisting that your non-expert guesses
are right.


I do thank you for your rudeness, because it has prompted me
to do some more research into this matter. I did an Alta
Vista search using the key words: economics and psychology.
It returned 588,142 results.

That's nice. It doesn't tell you a thing about how the
words are combined in the results.

As might be expected from
reading your tirades, it is easy to find articles on the
differences between the two. But it is also easy to find
articles to the contrary. Heres one:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2002-19412.asp

"It is impossible to describe any human action if one does
not refer to the meaning the actor sees in the stimulus as
well as in the end his response is aiming at.
Ludwig von Mises"

"Economics - to the great dismay of economists - is merely a
branch of psychology. It deals with individual behaviour and
with mass behaviour. Many of its practitioners sought to
disguise its nature as a social science by applying complex
mathematics where common sense and direct experimentation
would have yielded far better results."

In fact, having studied economics - unlike you - I am
very well aware of the fact that the 'Austrian School'
expresses disdain for the mathematization of economics
brought about by the 'English School'. Unfortunately
for you (and the Austrians), the English School,
beginning chiefly with Alfred Marshall, has almost a
monopoly on economics departments in the United States.

The article is quite lengthy. I won't repost it in its
entirety. It was written by an actual economist - "Sam
Vaknin, United Press International Senior Business
Correspondent, columnist for Central Europe Review and
eBookWeb.org, editor in the Open Directory Project, and
former economic advisor to the government of Macedonia and
to blue-chip firms in many countries."

In other words, it is written by a journalist who has
studied economics. That puts him leagues ahead of you,
but doesn't really make him an economist.

It also is ONE source. Goody for you.

It looks like he has
better credentials than you do, and he doesn't agree with
you.

Here's a NEW (i.e., you probably didn't study it at UCLA)
textbook for sale at Amazon.com from Kluwer Academic
Publishers by Gerrit Antonides:

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Psychology in Economics and Business is the first textbook
in economic psychology that is targeted at students of
economics and business administration. It describes the
experiments and explains the psychological background
associated with the topics. The book presents the state of
the art in behavioral economics

Ah, interesting. I know two actual, Ph.D. economists
at the Federal Trade Commission, people with whom I was
in the UCLA Ph.D. program. They scoff at and belittle
'behavioral economics' as not really being economics.

[snip stuff that doesn't say what bobby thinks it says]

Anyone else so foolish as to have read this thread so far is
welcome to reach his own conclusion as to whether or not
economics is a subset of psychology. People with better
credentials than Mr. Ball say it is.

(It will be a test of your integrity, which at present
appears to be exceedingly low, if you will leave the
following lengthy material in and respond to it. I
suspect that, lacking integrity and unable to discuss
the topic, you will snip it out.)

You haven't found ANYTHING that shows economics to be a
*subset* of psychology. That some economists are
beginning to become interested in psychology in no way
makes economics a *subset* of psychology. When I was
in UCLA's Ph.D. program and for a considerable period
of time before that, some big name academic economists
were very interested in biology; they attempted to use
certain mathematical models and econometric techniques
to explain in a systematic way phenomena that
biologists had observed but not very well explained.
Some of this in an effort to find analogues with human
economic actors, and some of it was simply to apply the
techniques to unexplained phenomena.

Did it turn economics into a *subset* of biology?
Clearly not; the suggestion would be stupid.

Economics also has borrowed some of the mathematical
techniques of physics, without turning economics into a
*subset* of physics.

A big problem for you, bobby, is that the formal study
of economics, at least in the Anglo-American tradition,
began perhaps 100 years before the formal study of
psychology. In fact, both grew out of *philosophy*.
If you had studied economics, which you haven't, you
might have learned that Adam Smith, author of _The
Wealth of Nations_ and generally considered to be the
father of the systematic study of economics in the
English speaking world, was a philosopher. He also
wrote a book called _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_,
and he considered himself first and foremost a
philosopher, not an economist.

Philosophers have long speculated on all manner of
fields that, ultimately, come to be derived fields in
their own right. That does not make the derived fields
"subsets" of one another. Aristotle speculated about
astronomy, physics, economics, ethics, aesthetics, and
lots more. They all stem from philosophy, not from one
another.

At some point, bobby, you are going to have to accept
that economics began, and largely continues, as the
study of things entirely *outside* the realm of
psychology. Trade flows, the gains from
specialization, the study of what makes a competitive
market: none of these is based in the study of psychology.

WOW!
You took that poor boy to the woodshed, but good!
He's so ignorant though, he'll never recognize it.
Just like my answers to his questionaire earlier this week, he ignored them
too.
Ignorance is as ignorance does.

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:24:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:



Robert Sturgeon wrote:



On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative
(relative to you) material that you simply cannot
refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you
don't know what you're talking about.


Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors'
irrational exuberance?

He wasn't speaking as an economist.


LOL. That's rich.

It's the truth. A lot of the fed chairman's job has
nothing whatever to do with economics...and economics,
of course, has nothing to do with psychology.

On Fox News this morning (paraphrasing) "Economists
concerned about lower consumer confidence." Apparently
economists have some way of studying consumer confidence,
and even more apparently, they care what it is. But since
you say economists don't care about psychology, this must
have been an error. Or were those economists also not
speaking as economists?

Time for a candid admission, bobby: you simply don't
know what you're talking about on the issue. You know
NEITHER economics nor psychology; you were just running
your ignorant mouth.

Casting aspersions on another really doesn't win you any
debating points. Instead, you might consider explaining why
economists study consumer confidence, market sentiment, the
irrational exuberance that powers bubble markets, that sort
of thing - psychological aspects of economics that you
assure us economists don't care one whit about.

I do thank you for your rudeness, because it has prompted me
to do some more research into this matter. I did an Alta
Vista search using the key words: economics and psychology.
It returned 588,142 results. As might be expected from
reading your tirades, it is easy to find articles on the
differences between the two. But it is also easy to find
articles to the contrary. Heres one:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-30-2002-19412.asp

"It is impossible to describe any human action if one does
not refer to the meaning the actor sees in the stimulus as
well as in the end his response is aiming at.
Ludwig von Mises"

"Economics - to the great dismay of economists - is merely a
branch of psychology. It deals with individual behaviour and
with mass behaviour. Many of its practitioners sought to
disguise its nature as a social science by applying complex
mathematics where common sense and direct experimentation
would have yielded far better results."

The article is quite lengthy. I won't repost it in its
entirety. It was written by an actual economist - "Sam
Vaknin, United Press International Senior Business
Correspondent, columnist for Central Europe Review and
eBookWeb.org, editor in the Open Directory Project, and
former economic advisor to the government of Macedonia and
to blue-chip firms in many countries." It looks like he has
better credentials than you do, and he doesn't agree with
you.

Here's a NEW (i.e., you probably didn't study it at UCLA)
textbook for sale at Amazon.com from Kluwer Academic
Publishers by Gerrit Antonides:

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Psychology in Economics and Business is the first textbook
in economic psychology that is targeted at students of
economics and business administration. It describes the
experiments and explains the psychological background
associated with the topics. The book presents the state of
the art in behavioral economics and economic psychology and
their applications to economics and business. The first part
organizes economic psychological themes within a common
paradigm. The applications belong to a great variety of
fields in economic psychology, including entrepreneurial
behavior, perceptions of price, risk, inflation and economic
activities, economic socialization, demand theory, attitudes
and brand images, decision making and heuristics, economic
expectations, well-being, poverty and consumer satisfaction.
The second part deals with information processing in a wider
sense. The psychological principles of consistency and
attribution are dealt with and recent developments in
rationality and choice under uncertainty are considered. A
chapter on game theory focuses on psychological factors in
several social dilemmas. Strategies and tactics in human
interaction are dealt with in a chapter on negotiation
behavior. The chapter on economic psychological methods
deals with the acquisition of knowledge from the observation
of economic behavior in reality and in experimental
settings."

While we're at Amazon, we can buy Market Volatility
by Robert J. Shiller.

"Editorial Reviews
Book Description
Market Volatility proposes an innovative theory, backed by
substantial statistical evidence, on the causes of price
fluctuations in speculative markets. It challenges the
standard efficient-markets model for explaining asset prices
by emphasizing the significant role that popular opinion or
psychology can play in price volatility.
Offering detailed analyses of the stock, the bond, and the
real estate markets, Shiller discusses the relations of
these speculative prices and extends the analysis of
speculative markets to macroeconomic activity in general."

"Robert J. Shiller is Stanley B. Resor Professor of
Economics at the Cowles Foundation, Yale University."

And this Shiller fellow is an actual economics professor -
at Yale, no less.

Here's a web page by Jim Mallon, Napier University:
http://www.nubs.napier.ac.uk/nubs/Econ/Staff/mallon.htm

"Research Interests
Psychology in Economics with particular relevance to
financial markets and personal financial planning."

Well, he's in Scotland, so he probably doesn't count...
right?

From the University of California's eScholarship Repository
http://repositories.cdlib.org/iber/econ/E02-313/

"A Perspective on Psychology and Economics
Matthew Rabin, University of California, Berkeley"

"ABSTRACT:
This essay provides a perspective on the trend towards
integrating psychology into economics. Some topics are
discussed, and arguments are provided for why movement
towards greater psychological realism in economics will
improve mainstream economics."

But he's a Jew, so he probably doesn't know anything about
economics or psychology, despite being a MacArthur
Foundation Fellow, right?

From MIT
http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres99/12.02.html

"DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The goal of the MIT Department of Economics is to be the
best economics department in the world. To achieve this
goal, we strive to maintain an outstanding faculty, to have
the best Ph.D. program in economics, and to provide an
outstanding education in economics for MIT undergraduates."

...

"There were seven visiting faculty for all or part of the
1998-99 academic year. Visiting Professor Jean Tirole taught
a topics course in industrial organization. Visiting
Professor Roger Brinner taught macroeconomics. Visiting
Associate Professor Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion taught
development. Visiting Assistant Professor Jinyong Hahn
taught econometrics. Visiting Professor Alberto Alesina
taught macroeconomics. Visiting Professor Mathias
Dewatripont taught theory. Post-Doctoral Associate, Xavier
Gabaix, taught a topics course on psychology in economics."

But maybe you know more about economics than the Department
of Economics at MIT...

And then there's the International Association for Research
in Economic Psychology -
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~SEGLea/iarep/welcome.html

But they're just damned Brits, so...

Here's something from the Journal of Economic Psychology
http://www.elsevier.nl/inca/publicat...e/5/0/5/5/8/9/

"The Journal aims to present research that will improve
understanding of behavioral, especially socio-psychological,
aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal
seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using
behavioral science methods for the study of economic
behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of
societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new
theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a
discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that
underlie consumption and other economic behavior. It deals
with preferences, choices, decisions, and factors
influencing these, as well as the consequences of decisions
and choices with respect to the satisfaction of needs. This
includes the impact of external economic phenomena upon
human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic
psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation,
from the household and the individual consumer to the macro
level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with
inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as
well as consumer information and economic behavior in the
market place are thus the major fields of interest.
The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) reports of
empirical research on economic behavior; (b) assessments of
the state of the art in various subfields of economic
psychology; (c) articles providing a theoretical perspective
or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior;
(d) articles explaining the implications of theoretical
developments for practical applications; (e) book reviews;
(f) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.
Special issues of the Journal may be devoted to themes of
particular interest. The Journal will encourage exchange of
information between researchers and practitioners by being a
forum for discussion and debate of issues in both
theoretical and applied research."

I could go on, but I don't think doing so would change your
mind, it being fixed on the day you received your degree
from UCLA.

Anyone else so foolish as to have read this thread so far is
welcome to reach his own conclusion as to whether or not
economics is a subset of psychology. People with better
credentials than Mr. Ball say it is.

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

Don wrote:
WOW!
You took that poor boy to the woodshed, but good!

Uh...no; no, donny, he didn't do anything of the kind.

bobby's idée fixe (look it up, you monolingual doofus)
is that economics is a "subset" of psychology. It is
not, and he couldn't possibly show that it is. That
some economists have latterly become interested in some
aspects of psychology does not support his silly and
wrong claim.

Read what I wrote in reply to bobby. Oh, wait; you're
lowbrow moron, too, so you won't understand a word of
it. In a nutshell, the development of economics as an
academic discipline PREDATES the development of
psychology. That is not to say that philosophers
weren't already thinking of psychology long before it
became a separate discipline, but it is one of the
reasons economics, which emerged as a separate
discipline long before psychology did, is not a
"subset" of psychology.

bobby is a moron, and you have bet on the wrong horse.