4 ms·

Inasmuch as any branch of economics theory depends on homo economicus, it is IMO little more than astrology. There’s a lot of really interesting economics rese

Inasmuch as any branch of economics theory depends on homo economicus, it is IMO little more than astrology. There’s a lot of really interesting economics research out there (at least the stuff that the Freakonomics podcast is surfacing to my notice is interesting), but it’s on edges that are, by and large, rejecting homo economicus and is trying to reflect what people really do. (There’s a lot of behavioural economics research that has been reported on for the last several episodes, which is fascinating.)

kjs3 11y ago
If you're oh-so-considered opinion of the state of economics is based on what Freakonomics is going on about (as entertaining as it might be), then please quit trying to pretend you give two shits about what economists are really up to and quit using obnoxious conceits like homo economicus.
- halostatue 11y ago
  I don’t actually care what economists are really up to. Where I care is that inasmuch as many (prominent) economists interact with the world, they do so from a perspective where homo economicus is a real thing (they don’t use that term; instead, they use terms like “rational actor”, which amounts to the same thing—a disconnect from the real world as it would detract from their theories). This is, IMO/IME, much more common from economists that believe in unfettered, minimally-regulated capitalism. The same folks who think that healthcare would be better if it were actually treated as a market, or there is such a thing as perfect information about markets. I have far fewer problems with behavioural economists, in the same way that when it comes to language I side with descriptivists far more than I do with prescriptivists. Essentially, I think that there is very little one can learn from economists—especially the famous (macroeconomists) called out in the article. Except, perhaps, what not to do.
  - kjs3 11y ago
    So you're even more pretentious and shallow than it originally seemed. You make up terms where widely accepted terms are already used (because the appropriation of Latin phrases makes one sound much smarter that those silly PhDs) and dismiss the essentially the entire field because there are some (in your view) ignorant troglodytes who don't dovetail with your obviously more informed world view. Your argument is so compelling that you don't even feel the need to support it with facts. Bravo...you must be a joy at parties.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      "You make up terms where widely accepted terms are already used (because the appropriation of Latin phrases makes one sound much smarter that those silly scientists) and dismiss the essentially the entire field because there are some (in your view) ignorant troglodytes who don't dovetail with your obviously more informed world view. Your argument is so compelling that you don't even feel the need to support it with facts." - kjs3 on lobotomy in 1930. - kjs3 on Alchemy in 1650. - ksj3 on Astrology in 3000 bc. - ksj3 on Human Sacrifice in 10000 bc. --- Are you honestly so stupid that you think that just because a lot of smart people are doing something it must be correct?
      - kjs3 11y ago
        Still no factual refutation. Predictably lame false equivalence retort; can't attack the message, attack the messenger. At least I don't have to question if you're honestly stupid.
      - dang 11y ago
        > Are you honestly so stupid Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban people for this, so please don't do it again.
        littletimmy 11y ago
        My apologies. I was only mimicking the tone of the post I was replying to in hope that the writer would see what he sounded like.

kjs3 11y ago

If you're oh-so-considered opinion of the state of economics is based on what Freakonomics is going on about (as entertaining as it might be), then please quit trying to pretend you give two shits about what economists are really up to and quit using obnoxious conceits like homo economicus.

halostatue 11y ago
I don’t actually care what economists are really up to. Where I care is that inasmuch as many (prominent) economists interact with the world, they do so from a perspective where homo economicus is a real thing (they don’t use that term; instead, they use terms like “rational actor”, which amounts to the same thing—a disconnect from the real world as it would detract from their theories). This is, IMO/IME, much more common from economists that believe in unfettered, minimally-regulated capitalism. The same folks who think that healthcare would be better if it were actually treated as a market, or there is such a thing as perfect information about markets. I have far fewer problems with behavioural economists, in the same way that when it comes to language I side with descriptivists far more than I do with prescriptivists. Essentially, I think that there is very little one can learn from economists—especially the famous (macroeconomists) called out in the article. Except, perhaps, what not to do.
- kjs3 11y ago
  So you're even more pretentious and shallow than it originally seemed. You make up terms where widely accepted terms are already used (because the appropriation of Latin phrases makes one sound much smarter that those silly PhDs) and dismiss the essentially the entire field because there are some (in your view) ignorant troglodytes who don't dovetail with your obviously more informed world view. Your argument is so compelling that you don't even feel the need to support it with facts. Bravo...you must be a joy at parties.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    "You make up terms where widely accepted terms are already used (because the appropriation of Latin phrases makes one sound much smarter that those silly scientists) and dismiss the essentially the entire field because there are some (in your view) ignorant troglodytes who don't dovetail with your obviously more informed world view. Your argument is so compelling that you don't even feel the need to support it with facts." - kjs3 on lobotomy in 1930. - kjs3 on Alchemy in 1650. - ksj3 on Astrology in 3000 bc. - ksj3 on Human Sacrifice in 10000 bc. --- Are you honestly so stupid that you think that just because a lot of smart people are doing something it must be correct?
    - kjs3 11y ago
      Still no factual refutation. Predictably lame false equivalence retort; can't attack the message, attack the messenger. At least I don't have to question if you're honestly stupid.
    - dang 11y ago
      > Are you honestly so stupid Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban people for this, so please don't do it again.
      - littletimmy 11y ago
        My apologies. I was only mimicking the tone of the post I was replying to in hope that the writer would see what he sounded like.