Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
"Left wing kookiness"
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Edible 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 |