Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
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 |