.

[ag]

As a former economics student who still reads widely on the subject, you should be aware that the major theories developing in economics right now (following on the horrible attempt to determine everything in economics on the basis of mathematics) are from the field of behavioral economics,

I am not sure what you are reading, but, as a practicing economist, I think I could provide you with links to a few typical behavioral papers. All of these are pretty influential.

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/MicroTheory/gul-991020.pdf
http://www.eea-esem.com/papers/eea-esem/2003/1647/rational%20choice%20with%20status%20quo%20bias.pdf
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/924.pdf

Perhaps, that would disabuse you of your impression about behavioral economics.

[ag]

I am an economist, and, I dare say, I think like an economist. But, of course, there is a big difference between a professional economist and a "naive game theorist" produced by a typical undergrad economics course.

I remember the first time I ran a lab experiment. It was a very simple game (really, a control for something more interesting we were thinking of doing). At the end of the session a student subject, almost in tears, cried: "this is not rational!" (we do try to get freshmen into the lab, but, as it turned out, there was a third-year student in the pool, who had taken too much undergraduate econ, I guess).

[ag]

I am an economist, and, I dare say, I think like an economist. But, of course, there is a big difference between a professional economist and a "naive game theorist" produced by a typical undergrad economics course.

I remember the first time I ran a lab experiment. It was a very simple game (really, a control for something more interesting we were thinking of doing). At the end of the session a student subject, almost in tears, cried: "this is not rational!" (we do try to get freshmen into the lab, but, as it turned out, there was a third-year student in the pool, who had taken too much undergraduate econ, I guess).

[ag]

Maybe I should have picked another board, or clarified further. The point of my question isn't to make a statement about economics itself - hence the scare quotes around "thinking like an economist" - but about how it is translated into what is essentially a self-help movement based around the principles of self-interest and utility-maximization.

Finding environments in which utility maximization cannot describe behavior is pretty damn difficult (I tell you this as someone who is working on precisely that for living). Not because "utility maximization" is such a great theory, but because it is not really much of a theory: it is more of a language, in which you can express pretty much anything.

[ag]

One thing to remember. Economics is not an ideology: it is a science of human behavior. An economist, thinking like an economist, can be anything: from communist to a libertarian. In fact, what economics teaches is to distinguish between ideological and professional positions. Where economists as such conflict with the laymen it is not due to our views of how we want the world to be (here we are as heterogenous as any population group), but in our views of what are the likely consequences of various measures (here we can, sometimes, see that the real consequences would be very different from what their proponents think they would be). This is why, for instance, you get pretty much all economists to be free-traders: because, whatever our ideological views about how the society should be, we can find precious little justification for blanket trade restrictions.

[ag]

For the most part, Economists don't actually think in terms of homo-economicus, though they might employ that logic from time to time.  The Health Care- Car market example is somewhat of a head scratcher for the reason that even some one with a modicum of economic knowledge can tear that one down. 

Yes the economist I have discussed potential privatised healthcare with, begins to use words like "market failure" and "moronic Austrians/Chicagoans". Of course we can thank the Americans for delivering a clear alternative model to the different European UHC systems, which mean we can analyse the models against each others.

Just to clarify. From the stand point of most economists ("Chicagoans" included) the so called "Austrians" today are a bizarre religious cult, having little to do with economic profession. Most definitely, they are not at all "thinking like economists". If anything, an average economist would, probably, find it easier to talk to a Marxist than to an "Austrian": having wasted many hours of my life, I still have not been even able to figure out if they are thinking at all. From the standpoint of the "Austrians", of course, all economists (Chicagoans included) are not real economists at all.

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with the real historical Austrian School of economic thought, which did play a very important role in economics profession. But that is a historical phenomenon: virtually no reasonable economist would describe himself as an "Austrian" today.

[ag]

Maybe I should have picked another board, or clarified further. The point of my question isn't to make a statement about economics itself - hence the scare quotes around "thinking like an economist" - but about how it is translated into what is essentially a self-help movement based around the principles of self-interest and utility-maximization.

Finding environments in which utility maximization cannot describe behavior is pretty damn difficult (I tell you this as someone who is working on precisely that for living). Not because "utility maximization" is such a great theory, but because it is not really much of a theory: it is more of a language, in which you can express pretty much anything.

Yes, but in the 1970s some economists did try to quantify utility.

This has little to do with anything that has been said here.

"Utility", as a concept, was introduced instead of the classical concept of "value". Utility, unlike value, is not objective, but, rather, is supposed to describe the subjective worth each individual assigns to state. Eventually, the dominant view in the profession became that utility is not any sort of measurable satisfaction, but, rather, a convenient mathematical representation of ordinal preferences. But the reason for that view is, mostly, that we have no clue what quantity we are supposed to be measuring: in other words, that assuming that utility is somehow a quantity of satisfaction, to the best of our understanding, has no observable consequences whatsoever. 

[ag]

For the most part, Economists don't actually think in terms of homo-economicus, though they might employ that logic from time to time.  The Health Care- Car market example is somewhat of a head scratcher for the reason that even some one with a modicum of economic knowledge can tear that one down. 

Yes the economist I have discussed potential privatised healthcare with, begins to use words like "market failure" and "moronic Austrians/Chicagoans". Of course we can thank the Americans for delivering a clear alternative model to the different European UHC systems, which mean we can analyse the models against each others.

Just to clarify. From the stand point of most economists ("Chicagoans" included) the so called "Austrians" today are a bizarre religious cult, having little to do with economic profession. Most definitely, they are not at all "thinking like economists". If anything, an average economist would, probably, find it easier to talk to a Marxist than to an "Austrian": having wasted many hours of my life, I still have not been even able to figure out if they are thinking at all. From the standpoint of the "Austrians", of course, all economists (Chicagoans included) are not real economists at all.

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with the real historical Austrian School of economic thought, which did play a very important role in economics profession. But that is a historical phenomenon: virtually no reasonable economist would describe himself as an "Austrian" today.

So Von Mises swings and mises?

Von Mises was an economist. A notable figure in his generation - but, by no means dominant. He must have had an interesting personality, for, eventually, a bizarre Misesian cult grew around him and his followers. This has less to d with von Mises and economics than with the human ability of creating religion out of anything.

[ag]

I like Daron Acemoglu who, though he uses a great deal of calculus to back up his work, leaves out most of the math in his discussions.

Then how can you be certain the discussions adequately report the math?

Math is but a language in which it is much harder to conceal a logical mistake. That is why we use it.

[ag]

There are only two types of people who believe that endless growth is possible--idiots and economists.

As somebody who derives his thoughts from readings of the oracle in a tree growing on the back side of the Moon you, surely, know better.

Just for your edification: "endless growth" is not something economists worry about at all. No economist has to believe or disbelieve it, since no economist ever deals with matters that at all depend on it. We are all perfectly aware that at some point sun will swallow the earth - this is not happening in the time frame we are thinking about. Infinities are but a convenient approximation of things negligible

In any case, basic intuitions of economics that you so much dislike wonderfully work in a single- or two-period environment. No endless growth there )

[ag]

I like Daron Acemoglu who, though he uses a great deal of calculus to back up his work, leaves out most of the math in his discussions.

Then how can you be certain the discussions adequately report the math?

Math is but a language in which it is much harder to conceal a logical mistake. That is why we use it.

I can't, but given that his work is in developmental economics I can at least, to some degree, use history to determine if what he says seems logical or not.

Well, suffices to say that in one of his papers A. set out to show that killing Jews is wrong - and miserably failed at that. But you would never know it from his English

[ag]

So, Ag, while I'm sure they may not please you, do you have any links to behavioral economics studies that don't rely so heavily on mathematical symbols?

Serious econ research is not written in English. Some experimental studies might be more verbose, but even they would use stats, etc. And, of course, you need to know math to figure out the theories they are testing. Without math you will be restricted to popular reports.

[ag]

That has been the case for over 100 years now, though the Austrians used logical induction rather than econometrics to support their theories, many of which are now widely accepted.

Just for your edification. "Econometrics" today means "statistical methods used in economics" and not "usage of math in economics". Austrians historically used exactly as much (or as little) math as was common during their lifetime (this, of course, is not the case with the recent cultists, but was the case up to and including the likes of Mises). Math for economists is, of course, but a simple (once you learn it) way of doing logical reasoning.

[ag]

So, Ag, while I'm sure they may not please you, do you have any links to behavioral economics studies that don't rely so heavily on mathematical symbols?

Reading disparate papers is rarely of much interest. I would need to think up a properly coherent bibliography, and I do not teach this course But could be an interesting exercise - if I do it, I will post it.

[ag]

Just for your edification. "Econometrics" today means "statistical methods used in economics" and not "usage of math in economics". Austrians historically used exactly as much (or as little) math as was common during their lifetime (this, of course, is not the case with the recent cultists, but was the case up to and including the likes of Mises). Math for economists is, of course, but a simple (once you learn it) way of doing logical reasoning.

Have you ever heard of praxeology?

Yes, of course. And of astrology as well.

[ag]

Life is not difficult to figure out.

Until, that is, you try

[ag]

I've never seen an economists try to invent any device with economic theory.

That, of course, only indicates your personal lack of familiarity with modern economics.

[ag]

I've never known any economist to prescribe economic theory when choosing a spouse

An "economist" who would attempt doing that should be committed to an asylum ASAP. Any potential spouse would be well advised to run away.

[ag]

establishing patterns of family behavior.

Studying ("establishing patterns") family/household behavior is a staple. If you have not seen those studies, it is, once again, evidence of not being well-aware of what you are talking about. 

I have, actually, seen pretty good estimates of the value of sex

[ag]

Unfortunately, we never have a shortage of bumbling, slobbering plebeians who attempt to emote solutions to complex problems ...

Your Patrician Majesty should, most definitely, not try doing that, less You start slobbering and foaming at your mouth.

Though I liked more the old nattering nabobs of negativism: nice alliteration there. "Slobbering plebeians" need a bit more work.