Search:

Reminds me of a funny thing I read once about analysts and the stock market. Basically, because it's a random walk, any predictions are made at chance. From any group of analysts, some will guess...

Granted, economics is a soft science and maybe it isn't fair to hold it up to the same standards as physics or chemistry. That's one of it's problems though, the system is so chaotic as to be nearly...

Well sort of I guess. I mean the point isn't so much whether the assumption of utility is circular given all assumptions are circular (on a philosophical level). It's that there's so much flexibility...

Yup, we'd have a hard time doing science then. Not sure what else you're getting at though.

Assumptions are the building blocks of theories. If your assumption is shit, your theory is also likely to be shit.





Sure whatever.

The problem is you can define 'utility' along a number of dimensions, be it money, pride, self-respect, etc., and then assign different weights to those dimensions that will allow you to explain...

Ok let's go back to the start. Here's what you said about the idea of rationality in economics:



This is where your wrong. You're saying that it's ok to begin with an assumption along the lines...

You're missing the point. If Science argued that gravity exists because it exists, you'd say that was a bad argument. But economists say 'people behave how they behave because their brain makes them...

No, it's a problem because it's meaningless. For any given behavior you, you just say 'that's what they wanted, therefore it was rational' . Doesn't mean you've done a good job of explaining it or...

Explain how it accounts for the irrational please.

How does your definition differ from the one I quoted? 'People want what they want and want more of it' is just a colloquial way of saying they try to maximize their benefit/utility.

This doesn't seem wildly different to what I would expect, it only makes it more encompassing than just being about money:



People make bad decisions all the time, economically and otherwise....

The problems I see with economics as a discipline are threefold (and bear in mind I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt):

First, it seems to have at its core the idea that humans are...

This sounds like you're saying most economists are way way off.



Oh. I thought you were basing your ideas on Friedman's, I didn't realise you'd progressed beyond him into your own realm of...

I have to admit I don't really have the tools to critique your essay as I'm not a trained economist. My point of view is probably better articulated by others, such as here:
...

The Social Darwinists' motivation for applying Darwin to human behavior was mainly an excuse for imperialism, racism, etc., as being the 'natural' state of things and thus, morally justified.

For...

I assumed there was a good reason for the misunderstanding, no problem.

Exactly. That's why Social Darwinism is a bad theory, at least in the way it was put forth in the 1800s.

If you're referring to Social Darwinism, it has some serious shortcomings which is why it fell out of favor early in the 20th century. The main issue is the idea that evolution only rewards...

You keep saying this but you haven't explained how capitalism reduces inequality (or if you did I missed it, sorry).





I'm not talking about interfering with the private sector in ways that...

So you accept that capitalism leads to inequalities but say it fixes the problem too. Thank you for making my point.




Thankfully you're not in the majority in that view. If you take it to its...

Anyone trying to suggest that gov't should be in charge of things like railroads and not capitalists is just letting Wuf shoot fish in a barrel. I think it's pretty clear capitalism wins that battle....

That was a joke.

Tell that to all the human plows who lost their jobs back in 2000 BC

+1