.

[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

[136or142]

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

Actually, it's business schools that teach that endless growth is not only possible, but largely required for businesses to remain 'going concerns'.

That said, given human ingenuity, I fail to see why growth isn't virtually endless, unless population expansion occurs too rapidly.

Paul Erhlich has been shown to be completely wrong so far.

Just out of curiousity: is he any relation to Robert (Bob) Erhlich?

[AggregateDemand]

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, which are largely based on social science, especially sociology and psychology as well as new experiments by economists and that all of the all assumptions of 'economic rationalism' are being reexamined.

While economists know that in the aggregate the 'economic rationalism' theories are correct, i.e consumption drops as prices rise in relation to other prices, economists are finding all sorts of cases where people don't behave according to the 'rational person' theory.

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.

[136or142]

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?

[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.

[136or142]

Stats would be fine. I was an A+ stats student.

[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.

[AggregateDemand]

Life is not difficult to figure out. Exuberance, self-belief, creativity, sacrifice, love etc move humanity forward. Rational economic thought allows us to solve our problems and resolve our disputes, which thwarts pride, violence, avarice, etc.

Once upon a time, the people who founded this nation surmised that reason would eliminate the problem of tyrannical non-representative government, but they never supposed it would carry humanity forward. Instead, they thought moral sentiments and idealistic dreams and creativity would flourish in a free society. These ambitions would make free societies great and wealthy.

I've never seen an economists try to invent any device with economic theory. I've never known any economist to prescribe economic theory when choosing a spouse or establishing patterns of family behavior. Unfortunately, we never have a shortage of bumbling, slobbering plebeians who attempt to emote solutions to complex problems like poverty, unemployment, lack of education, hunger, sickness, old age, and other issues. Also, they often try to punish people for doing things they don't like, and they often wrap their feelings in a veil of economic thought, proposing taxes, penalties, and mandates to enforce "justice".

Thinking like an economist is as necessary as thinking like a father or mother or artist or philanthropist. Few people bother to try. They make excuses instead.

[AggregateDemand]

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?

[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.

[Foucaulf]

I wanted to go up to bat in this thread first, but turns out half of the posts here are ag's already. Too bad for me.

I'm not sure if all the authors cited in the OP are really focused on using economic jargon to everyday life. Levitt and Dubner's quote is about market implementation where the problem is diagnosed as not having enough markets. The Lesswrong people are more evo-psych than econ, with a bizarre belief that declaring yourself a Bayesian thinker will resolve intractable conflicts. Cowen actually thinks he's opposing Hanson (who falls with the Lesswrong people), and I think his book is really trying to embed economic concepts within common sense.

I specifically used "economic jargon" up there. The goal of high economic theory is to show how a small set of assumptions can fully characterize a class of observable trends. If theory is working well, people don't have to declare they're utility maximizers for economists to be right. Hell, someone who does abuse jargon like that is probably the kind of person who is refusing to negotiate the way a rational person should anyway.

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.


EDIT:

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?

There is, very roughly speaking, two trends of research in behavioural econ: designing lab experiments that show evidence of people not following assumptions usually placed on behaviour, and building mathematical models that can account for that behaviour. The field can also be divided into psychologists who focuses on puzzles raised by lab experiments, versus economic theorists who wants to build better theory and is wading into the waters.

I want to say that Armin Falk is an accessible behavioural guy who still is a solid theorist. Kahneman is an experimental guy, while his coauthor Tversky wrote down models and simplified it for psychologists. Bob Shiller's a pundit in behavioural finance, but Richard Thaler started out writing some stuff on that too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A lot of MBA programs seem completely broken. The MBA strategy

1. Massive layoffs or offshoring
2. Get huge bonus for cutting costs
3. Jump ship before sh**t hits the fan.

[136or142]

I've never seen an economists try to invent any device with economic theory. I've never known any economist to prescribe economic theory when choosing a spouse or establishing patterns of family behavior.

Actually, although it seems Ag is not a big fan of theirs, one of the so-called 'pop economists' either the economics Freak Stephen Levitt or the Hidden Economist Tim Harford wrote a chapter in one of their books on precisely this.

Ag, I'd appreciate the bibliography, thanks if you get the chance.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Just because you can predict GDP growth doesn't mean you have found the explanation to every single human or social phenomenon ever.

[Gustaf]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values ...

It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

I'm sorry, Antonio, but please get off your high horse. Don't be so combative unless you can describe a set of norms that predicts annualized quaterly GDP growth within 0.3 percentage points.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Just because you can predict GDP growth doesn't mean you have found the explanation to every single human or social phenomenon ever.

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is. They think it's psychology. They think that economics is trying to answer the question "Why did I buy that banana today?" But it isn't. It's trying to answer questions like "Why does X number of bananas get sold every day in the US?" Or "Why is the price of a banana X dollars?"

Economic models don't explain every single human ever because it's not supposed to do that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Which is to say because other, morally stupider non-economists also misunderstand what it is and treat it as some sort of weird fetish object, and it's that understanding of 'what economics is' that becomes the public image of the discipline.

[Gustaf]

I firmly believe that the main reason non-economists hate on economics is because they fundamentally misunderstand what it is.

Which is to say because other, morally stupider non-economists also misunderstand what it is and treat it as some sort of weird fetish object, and it's that understanding of 'what economics is' that becomes the public image of the discipline.

I don't know that I've ever encountered that sort of person so I can't really comment on that. But I get the opposite quite a lot.

[ingemann]

A lot of MBA programs seem completely broken. The MBA strategy

1. Massive layoffs or offshoring
2. Get huge bonus for cutting costs
3. Jump ship before sh**t hits the fan.

Yes and they also learn to breathe and defecate in most MBA programs.

Your MBA strategy is not something a functional human being need to learn, it comes natural to people. The real problem are that everyone who run cooperations benefit from this model, which mean it's close to impossible to change outside vigilanty violence.