-  [JOIN IRC!]


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Subject   (reply to 111)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
¯\(°_O)/¯
  • Supported file types are: BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 400x400 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 82 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2015-09-02 Show/Hide Show All


File 140149624212.jpg - (7.54KB , 180x274 , 9780511613050i.jpg )
111 No. 111
Let's talk serious hardcore motherfucking economics.

How in the hell do people think macroeconomics can emerge except as the aggregation of microeconomic behaviour.

It doesn't take complicated modelling to figure this out. No, it takes consideration of the fact that people exist, and sometimes do batshit crazy things. Proof - mental hospitals. I don't think there are many schizophrenics maximising their cardinal utility, do you?

There, microfoundations are back on the agenda. I think I want to go back to university to write a thesis on the topic. But am I wasting my time? Why aren't all those serious cognitive scientist revolutionising every other fields doing something with us?
>> No. 236
>>111
How or where did the question arise? I agree with you, but where is the dissent? Or are you hinting that because the most powerful Socialist theories rely on a strong hand, their economies are naturally flawed?
>> No. 237
>>236
Standard economic theories - neoclassical economics, neoclassical synthesis, classical economics...all of them are subject to the "lucas critique" which I have just summarised.

Sometimes I feel as if just about every single person in the world who has studied lots of economics and isn't me is either a purveyor or victim of deceit.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason