.

[Averroës Nix]

.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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

[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 never occurs to their minds that norms and values are also part of the human experience and play an essential role in any well-functioning society, or that no sane human being has no other goal than to maximize its material interests. It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Is thinking like Gary Becker unhealthy? Yes.

Wendy Brown, a political theorist at UC-Berkeley, makes a great point about the dangers of "thinking like an economist". She asserts that the logic of economics has degraded democracy by analyzing public policy and political decision-making in terms of market-values. As a result, the state has become managerial and all political discourse gravitates towards questions of efficiency and optimization of production rather than values. She also points out that this has made it easier for transnational governance bodies and private industries to wrest control of the public sphere away from the citizenry because the citizenry also tends to view political decision-making in economic terms.

[Citizen Hats]

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. 

[ingemann]

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.

[Gustaf]

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to say. Thinking like what kind of an economist? As someone who actually know a lot of economists I can say that I don't think any of them think the way it's described here.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Most economists don't "think like economists", largely because they have a fleshed out understanding of the subject matter, but many of their students "think like economists". The manner in which introductory courses are taught and the manner in which pop economics enters public discourse works to promote detrimental values. I say this as a prospective economics major who is very interested in the subject. btw, averrones, I don't think your title is misleading. There's a particular school of economic thought that has attempted to analyze social behavior using rational choice theory and it's impacted public discourse

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://amle.aom.org/content/10/4/643.short

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1942691?sid=21105808985123&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=3739976

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2138205?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102789006803

[136or142]

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 never occurs to their minds that norms and values are also part of the human experience and play an essential role in any well-functioning society, or that no sane human being has no other goal than to maximize its material interests. It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

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.

[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.

[136or142]

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.

I'm not sure what you are 'accusing' me of here, I was positive about the work taking place in behavioral economics.

[bgwah]

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 never occurs to their minds that norms and values are also part of the human experience and play an essential role in any well-functioning society, or that no sane human being has no other goal than to maximize its material interests. It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

Change a few buzz words and you just described yourself.

[136or142]

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.

[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.

[Citizen Hats]

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.

Might just be the most well put description of the concept

[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.

[136or142]

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?

[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.

[136or142]

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.

Thanks for those links, but the reason I had to quit taking economics was because I couldn't pass integral calculus (failed it three times, and no I'm far from proud of that) and while I disagree that 'math is hard' (at least since that is claimed by high school math students they are referring to algebra which shouldn't be hard at all for anybody except for the bizarre though fortunately rare cases of people who genuinely can't learn mathematics) all of the links you posted to had way to many mathematical symbols (and possibly calculus itself) for me to be able to follow intelligently.  

I appreciate the effort though. The problem isn't your links it's my lack of intelligence.

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.

[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.

[136or142]

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.