« Government & forecasting | Main | Wage cuts and profits »

July 05, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e2011571bf91ae970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Economics as Feynman's onion:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

kinglear

The cock-up theory of humanity works best I find... And by the way, what is the difference between Sod's Law and Murphy's? Within that may lie the secret of the universe....

Leigh Caldwell

nice insight. This is related to other misunderstandings about economics - for example the climate change objectors who rightly point out that future technologies will help, but wrongly think that means we need do nothing at present. Economics is about both costs and benefits, and an economic solution almost by definition involves a tradeoff which is at neither extreme.

What is your footnote a reference to? The asterisk is missing from the main body of the posting.

chris

Ta Leigh, astersisk is inserted now.

jameshigham

If this is true for physics, it must be even more true for economics. In economics, the search for simple ultimate laws is impeded by the fact that people’s behaviour is often* context-dependent; sometimes we’re rational, sometimes not; often we’re selfish, occasionally not; and so on.

Therefore all these charts and esoteric language is actually a load of bollocks?

reason

None the less having a complete model might help in spotting systemic problems.

ChrisA

Since when does "neo-classical" economics claim that incentives don't backfire, or that high incomes are a reward for talent or even that power inequalities can lead to inequalities (a truism maybe?). I think you may in fact be thinking of recent Labour party policy. In fact what neo-classical economics says is that incentives matter very much (so better get them right), that high incomes are not a "reward" for anything, they flow from circumstances (good or bad), and if you let someone have power he will exploit it (incentives again). Another criticism that I see people make (and you refer to in your link) of neo-classical economics is that supposedly it assumes people are motivated only by money. It does not, it says people are motivated to maximise their utility which is not the same thing. Trivial example; I prefer expensive wine to cheap wine even at a higher cost to me, this is perfectly acceptable to neo-classical economics (i.e. it is rational). Preferring to buy the same wine (all other factors being the same) at a higher price when offered the same at a lower price is against neo-classical economics as it irrational. For some reason most critics don't seem to grasp this distinction. There is a valid critique that we don't always know really what makes us happy so maybe our choices are not always utility maximising, but I am not about to turn over that decision over to anyone else thanks, as they know even less.

ChrisA

By "expensive" in my example, I mean "good", just to be clearer.

graeme

Oh dear, I hope you won't get dragged into debate with Richard Murphy. You will find it futile and irritating and he will never admit error.

John

Reminds me of that fun song by Iris Dement: Let the Mystery Be.

Glenn

All economics is, is a framework of relationships and laws - some hypothetical, some evidenced, which help us understand the world.

some of these laws and relationships are common sense, some defy common sense yet are still, as far as we know it, true.

I'm a professional economist. I use theory, I use rules of thumb, but I don't place blind trust in the theories or rules. I really analyse the data in depth so I can see what's going on with my own eyes... economics helps me explain this of course...

supra shoes

Your article is very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, the content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.

Replica iwc

The content of the articles there will be a lot of attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.Your article very interesting, I have introduced a lot of friends look at this article, replica breitling watches

infants

None the less having a complete model might help in spotting systemic problems

Farmacia

Oh dear, I hope you won't get dragged into debate with Richard Murphy. You will find it futile and irritating and he will never admit error.

Acomplia reviews

All economics is, is a framework of relationships and laws - some hypothetical, some evidenced, which help us understand the world.

rolex submariner

And a lot of it reflects a switch from bank deposits to securities; foreigners “other investments” in the UK, http://www.watchgy.com/ mostly bank deposits, fell by £143.2bn in Q1. And of course there’s no guarantee such buying will continue.
http://www.watchgy.com/tag-heuer-c-24.html
http://www.watchgy.com/rolex-submariner-c-8.html

milton

In fact what neo-classical economics says is that incentives matter very much (so better get them right), that high incomes are not a "reward" for anything, they flow from circumstances (good or bad), and if you let someone have power he will exploit it (incentives again). Another criticism that I see people make (and you refer to in your link) of neo-classical economics is that supposedly it assumes people are motivated only by money. It does not, it says people are motivated to maximise their utility which is not the same thing. Trivial example; I prefer expensive wine to cheap wine even at a higher cost to me, this is perfectly acceptable to neo-classical economics (i.e. it is rational)....
Matrimonial
webdesigner
Top sites

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad