.

[King]

If your head is on fire and your feet are in dry ice,  you'be hit at market equilibrium and doing A-OK

[AggregateDemand]

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.

You have to differentiate between polemics, and actual policy proposals. Polemics can be highly entertaining, which works for people who are selling books.

[t_host1]

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.

So far, this line is the one (1) line, to me, the most logically understood. Would your point qualify for being smart enough for government use? I mean, if I understand it, doesn't that mean this logic will not work for government?
Being allowed to think is a calculation. The economics of it depends on who benefits, the politics of it – I think you’ll find ones’ self going back to the beginning - why? One answers that, then yes, it is very healthy.

[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.

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.

You're missing the point. Nobody is attacking economists for doing their job as economists (I mean, there would be some legitimate criticism to voice against how some economists have been doing their job in the past 30 years, but that's besides the point). The problem is that a few economists - but also an awful lot of non-economists - have decided that the conceptual tools and theoretical framework of modern microeconomics can be applied to every social science, from sociology to politics, to psychology etc. Basically, you can do away with "subjective" notions like ideology or socialization and examine everything in terms of interest maximization, rational choice and game theory. That is a very dangerous trend.

[traininthedistance]

First off, the problem with LessWrong is not that they "think like economists", it's that they're Singularity cultists.  (Also, the horrible evo-psych stuff.)  If they were simply Freakonomics types, that would be so much better.

Look, to a certain extent "thinking like an economist" is a good thing.  Ag's point about being able to see the likely (unintended) consequences of policy proposals is damn correct, and damn important.  I "think like an economist" when I argue against suburban road extensions on the grounds that induced demand will make them fail on their own terms; I "think like an economist" when I reject the populist rhetoric regarding gentrification, and instead argue that the only durable solution to the affordability crisis in our coastal cities is to kick the NIMBYs to the curb and engage in massive infill and upzoning, to increase housing supply.  Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean I am going against other less-quantifiable values– rather it is the opposite, my values and my understanding of the market forces at play bolster each other.  The environmental and social arguments for directing infrastructure investment towards the more efficient, more sustainable core still holds; as regarding the "g-word" one must keep in mind that some of the loudest and most effective voices against increased density are cranky old white people engaging in basically yet another xenophobic Yellow Peril, and my values are nothing if not welcoming and cosmopolitan.

Yes, if I had to discard my other values to hew to economic "utility" that would be an issue, and there are cases where I would be willing to incur some deadweight loss for more touchy-feely ends.  To that extent, I agree.  But economic thinking is compatible with all sorts of values; if people are using economics to justify anti-social modes of behavior then the problem is more likely with their prior values than their use of economic jargon, I think.

...

To get back to LessWrong and their singularity fetish... actually, though, that reminds me of the one way where "thinking like an economist" really is a Bad Thing.  Namely, let's look at another thing ag said upthread, his restatement of the "in the long run we are all dead" saw.  To be blunt: in general, economic thinking is pretty puerile and irresponsible when it comes to the "long run", when it comes to real resource shortages and environmental degradation.  (Though not as openly puerile as thinking about the future in terms of a Rapture-esque singularity. )  There's this tendency to write it off as something for far-future generations to worry about, to sweep it all under the Solow residual rug.  But that doesn't actually work, not because they're wrong about the sun swallowing us whole, but because a lot of those degradations and changes are a hell of a lot too close for comfort.  It does the victims of the Holocene extinction event no comfort to hear that the Sun will swallow us in a billion years; it does our coastal cities no comfort to hear that Pangea will re-form when they could be inundated within if not our lifetimes, the lifetimes of our kids and grandkids; it does our electric grid no comfort to hear that renewables will scale up to cover demand decades after we're scheduled to run out of oil.

It behooves the economics profession to start taking the "long run", and heterodox approaches like steady-state economics, a little more seriously.

[AggregateDemand]

To be blunt: in general, economic thinking is pretty puerile and irresponsible when it comes to the "long run", when it comes to real resource shortages and environmental degradation.

Really? Addressing scarcity with a market and open-bid is a puerile solution compared to what? Compared to a hegemon exerting absolute control over the scarce resource and allocating it according to the preferences of the hegemon? Compared to simplistic economic models that allocate resources based upon need, without any concern for the long-term ability of society to generate utility for anyone?

The purpose of reason and economic thinking is to be the least wrong and the least bad of the available solutions. Everyone who tries to uninstall the fail-safes is merely expediting the next great famine or mass genocide.

[Murica!]

To be blunt: in general, economic thinking is pretty puerile and irresponsible when it comes to the "long run", when it comes to real resource shortages and environmental degradation.

Really? Addressing scarcity with a market and open-bid is a puerile solution compared to what? Compared to a hegemon exerting absolute control over the scarce resource and allocating it according to the preferences of the hegemon? Compared to simplistic economic models that allocate resources based upon need, without any concern for the long-term ability of society to generate utility for anyone?

The purpose of reason and economic thinking is to be the least wrong and the least bad of the available solutions. Everyone who tries to uninstall the fail-safes is merely expediting the next great Chinese famine or mass genocide.

Nice job failing at understanding "need" in Marxist/Anarchist economics.

[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.

You're missing the point. Nobody is attacking economists for doing their job as economists (I mean, there would be some legitimate criticism to voice against how some economists have been doing their job in the past 30 years, but that's besides the point). The problem is that a few economists - but also an awful lot of non-economists - have decided that the conceptual tools and theoretical framework of modern microeconomics can be applied to every social science, from sociology to politics, to psychology etc. Basically, you can do away with "subjective" notions like ideology or socialization and examine everything in terms of interest maximization, rational choice and game theory. That is a very dangerous trend.

I know it's not necessarily what the OP meant, but I believe the term "thinking like an economist" shouldn't be used for a way of thinking that is not at all common among economists.

While your point is a little vague here I actually do think sociology would benefit from doing some actual science work and not limiting itself to 5 interviews and an ideological narrative as a substitute for real research (yes I'm a bit prejudiced, but it's so much fun to make fun of sociology ).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nah, the last thing sociology needs is to delude itself even further that it is a science.

[politicus]

the last thing sociology economics needs is to delude itself even further that it is a science.

[traininthedistance]

To be blunt: in general, economic thinking is pretty puerile and irresponsible when it comes to the "long run", when it comes to real resource shortages and environmental degradation.

Really? Addressing scarcity with a market and open-bid is a puerile solution compared to what? Compared to a hegemon exerting absolute control over the scarce resource and allocating it according to the preferences of the hegemon? Compared to simplistic economic models that allocate resources based upon need, without any concern for the long-term ability of society to generate utility for anyone?

The purpose of reason and economic thinking is to be the least wrong and the least bad of the available solutions. Everyone who tries to uninstall the fail-safes is merely expediting the next great famine or mass genocide.

The problem is that "scarcity" (there's a lot more than just mere scarcity at stake, of course) isn't even being addressed, it's thought of– when it is thought of at all– as something to worry about later.  All the economic thinking and incentive structures are biased towards short-term benefit, with little regard for long-term repercussions.

Also relevant:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure the EPA is the fail-safe you're looking for.  Uninstall it at our peril.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Sociology was clearly much better in the days when it was dominated by Structural Functionalism.

[King]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

That's pretty typical. Marx has always been required reading for Sociology and Political Science majors.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

That's pretty typical. Marx has always been required reading for Sociology and Political Science majors.

Pity they don't also into details of the debunkings.

[The Mikado]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

That's pretty typical. Marx has always been required reading for Sociology and Political Science majors.

Pity they don't also into details of the debunkings.

It's better than people assigned Freud in literature courses.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

That's pretty typical. Marx has always been required reading for Sociology and Political Science majors.

Pity they don't also into details of the debunkings.

It's better than people assigned Freud in literature courses.

Well, yes. That's true.

[traininthedistance]

In college, my SOC101 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my PHIL150 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, my POLS200 class had a chapter on Karl Marx, and in my dual minor my ECON350 class had a chapter on Karl Marx and my FILM300 class had a chapter on Groucho Marx.

I'm not sure how that's all relevant to this thread, but it seems somewhat profound to me.

That's pretty typical. Marx has always been required reading for Sociology and Political Science majors.

Pity they don't also into details of the debunkings.

It's better than people assigned Freud in literature courses.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

(The general consensus was, if this helps at all, that Freud's project was basically the construction of a myth system for a secular, "scientific" age.  And, well, myth systems have a lot of bearing on the literature of a society, so it's important to study them if you want to study literature.  It's not like any of us were actually in thrall to psychoanalysis or anything.)

[Foucaulf]

You're missing the point. Nobody is attacking economists for doing their job as economists (I mean, there would be some legitimate criticism to voice against how some economists have been doing their job in the past 30 years, but that's besides the point). The problem is that a few economists - but also an awful lot of non-economists - have decided that the conceptual tools and theoretical framework of modern microeconomics can be applied to every social science, from sociology to politics, to psychology etc. Basically, you can do away with "subjective" notions like ideology or socialization and examine everything in terms of interest maximization, rational choice and game theory. That is a very dangerous trend.

These are dated arguments after what everyone else has said, but non-economists have been enamoured with grand theories of everything too: structuralism, racial anthropology, power structures, and Marxism (if you count that as non-economic). Nor are attempts by economists to venture into other fields always successful; most have failed, outside of maybe Chicago school work on education, the family and crime.

On the flip side, it's not as if non-economists are forbidden to say things about the market. In the aftermath of the crisis, some have done very well: Graeber the anthropologist, the psych wing of behavioural econ, international relations faculty, even a few critical theorists. By all means, these new entrants have been much more strident against econ than any economist since Friedman and Becker have toward their disciplines.

Economists branching out into fields shouldn't be taken as an insult on your honour. Isn't cross-pollination a good thing, one that will strengthen the influence of rigorous inquiry into human behaviour? Unless you actually name people who are so virulently against other disciplines and has professional clout, I'm not going to take your rhetoric seriously.

You could always say that economists are taking the good jobs, but I believe that's only because all other social scientists don't want to communicate their ideas to non-specialists.

[anvi]

It's unhealthy if one thinks only like an economist.  Or only like a sociologist.  Or only conforming to any one discipline, or art.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nah, the last thing sociology needs is to delude itself even further that it is a science.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I do think there is a tendency in certain circles to get a bit confused about whether the pursuit of incentives is a methodological assumption or an empirical result.

Consider this video, an introduction to an online course on economics by Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen, and in particular the way they use the example of the Australian transport ships. Is it really economics, rather than some combination of history, sociology and psychology, that explains why the penal ships were put in the hands of the sort of person to whom money, but not moral suasion, would provide adequate incentive to keep people alive?

[AggregateDemand]

I'm pretty sure the EPA is the fail-safe you're looking for.  Uninstall it at our peril.

The arguments against the EPA are that it need not be an independent agency beyond the purview of Congress and the executive branch.

[Citizen Hats]

Sometimes I forget that people don't usually think on the margin in conversation

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nah, the last thing sociology needs is to delude itself even further that it is a science.

DAE le STEM???