Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-01-2016, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,769 posts, read 2,085,490 times
Reputation: 661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
I took both as an undergraduate, as well as econometrics. And those courses were taken at a university quite famous for its economists.

Economics is always wrong. Always. A fundamental flaw in the field is the extreme disconnect between the bull**** theory and subsequent failure to course correct. It is never the economist's fault; it is always a "failure of the model" in one sense or another.

There was quite recently a book published on this very subject: the failure of macroeconomics. Even more recently, there was an amusing tiff between two world-renowned economists over this subject.

I do not know how many people stay in touch with economists-- they have blogs these days-- but the field has never been regarded with less respect than it is right now.
Do you got any examples?

I took a semester of micro and macro each, and I think their fundamental point, I believe, is something called supply and demand. And everything pretty much bases off of that.

Laws of supply and demand, LX curve. If the demand goes up, we must increase the prices.

But there was a 10 principles of economics, and I believe 1 of them, is "assume all people are rational." This is in response to maxiizing profit. Certainly it's possible for someone sometimes to not follow that, i.e., burn money or pay for the more expensive thing for the same quality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2016, 08:58 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 828,308 times
Reputation: 1401
I took both micro and macro economics in college. I remember my very first day in macro, the professor saying, "Economics is based on the assumption that all humans are rational and will make rational decisions." Even as a 19-year-old I knew that meant the entire thing was wack. My opinion hasn't changed 20-something years (and a LOT of study) later. How can you base any field of study on such a faulty assumption? It's no coincidence that the most important contributions to the field of Economics in recent years have come from the field of Psychology. Psychologists understand that people are NOT rational, and that in fact the very concept of rationality is highly subjective, if it even exists at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: IL
529 posts, read 639,729 times
Reputation: 667
I dont wanna pay $10 for a big mac
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 09:32 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,769 posts, read 2,085,490 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth View Post
"Economics is based on the assumption that all humans are rational and will make rational decisions." Even as a 19-year-old I knew that meant the entire thing was wack. My opinion hasn't changed 20-something years (and a LOT of study) later. How can you base any field of study on such a faulty assumption? It's no coincidence that the most important contributions to the field of Economics in recent years have come from the field of Psychology. Psychologists understand that people are NOT rational, and that in fact the very concept of rationality is highly subjective, if it even exists at all.
But that's still true, most of the time.

And even if most humans are not rational, they are statistically more rational when it comes to money.

Would you ever base a LX, supple and demand curve, the opposite way? (If demand goes up, let's make it cheaper rather than more expensive.).

If it were like 50/50 you're absolutely right. Same with 60/40 and 66/33.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago, Tri-Taylor
5,014 posts, read 9,400,974 times
Reputation: 3987
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine View Post
I took both as an undergraduate, as well as econometrics. And those courses were taken at a university quite famous for its economists.

Economics is always wrong. Always. A fundamental flaw in the field is the extreme disconnect between the bull**** theory and subsequent failure to course correct. It is never the economist's fault; it is always a "failure of the model" in one sense or another.

There was quite recently a book published on this very subject: the failure of macroeconomics. Even more recently, there was an amusing tiff between two world-renowned economists over this subject.

I do not know how many people stay in touch with economists-- they have blogs these days-- but the field has never been regarded with less respect than it is right now.
So that being the case, did you oppose Obama's stimulus plan (the ARRA)? That was based on economic theory, albeit central planning economic theory.

Obamacare also relies on the free market to provide health insurance, with the modification that customers should be required to buy it without ability to negotiate. Are you opposed to that philosophy also?

Last edited by BRU67; 11-01-2016 at 12:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 06:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago
937 posts, read 922,146 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth View Post
I took both micro and macro economics in college. I remember my very first day in macro, the professor saying, "Economics is based on the assumption that all humans are rational and will make rational decisions." Even as a 19-year-old I knew that meant the entire thing was wack. My opinion hasn't changed 20-something years (and a LOT of study) later. How can you base any field of study on such a faulty assumption? It's no coincidence that the most important contributions to the field of Economics in recent years have come from the field of Psychology. Psychologists understand that people are NOT rational, and that in fact the very concept of rationality is highly subjective, if it even exists at all.
Actually, mathematicians.

Psychologists are own the lower rung of academia (I've studied both. Psychologists have seemed to have lost the goal in their field and there's nothing truly concrete. It's also highly EuroCentric).

Economists rank up there with engineers.

Our study applies a simplistic model because the entropy of the system is quite large. It's like having to consider the effects of snow on tree growth in Polynesia.

Behavioral Economics may be the new hotness but the most substantial contributions have been game theory and probably will be topology next.

As with all social sciences, you have to suspend belief to get past the base assumptions and examine them abstractly as intended.

- Majored in Econ/Finance, Minored in Psych. Hobbyist AI tinkerer. Thinks people who like Java are evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 09:23 PM
 
3,674 posts, read 8,632,095 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth View Post
I took both micro and macro economics in college. I remember my very first day in macro, the professor saying, "Economics is based on the assumption that all humans are rational and will make rational decisions." Even as a 19-year-old I knew that meant the entire thing was wack. My opinion hasn't changed 20-something years (and a LOT of study) later. How can you base any field of study on such a faulty assumption?
This particular sticking point is always the one people get wrong.

People are always rational. Having a rationale does not mean that the decision making processes are logical, efficient, intelligent, or the most likely to achieve the desired goal. It simply means that people make decisions... for reasons.

They do not have to be good reasons. Just reasons.

Which brings us to:

Quote:
It's no coincidence that the most important contributions to the field of Economics in recent years have come from the field of Psychology. Psychologists understand that people are NOT rational, and that in fact the very concept of rationality is highly subjective, if it even exists at all.
Psychology is the study of what happens when the ability to make rational decisions is impaired. Although psychiatry is the useful science, as psychology is equally as full of **** as economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2016, 11:03 PM
 
410 posts, read 488,675 times
Reputation: 357
This isn't going to end well.

LOL at all this "good", "about time" statements.

Quote:
Economics is always wrong. Always.
Comedy hour here.

Last edited by TheSunshineKid; 11-01-2016 at 11:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2016, 10:14 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 828,308 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeman7 View Post
Why should EVERY job should be enough to support a family on.
Because children have a right to live. (Did you really need to ask that?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2016, 10:15 AM
 
1,080 posts, read 828,308 times
Reputation: 1401
Quote:
Originally Posted by NealIRC View Post
Okay cool, let's change the subject for a bit.
That's one way to admit you lost the argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top