3 ms·
>When you say 'textbook definition' you are implying canonical usage, not there exists a textbook that I use that defines this. I know. It seemed like the text
by fgf 16y ago
>When you say 'textbook definition' you are implying canonical usage, not there exists a textbook that I use that defines this.
I know. It seemed like the textbook definition because all the textbooks (and the economics related writing) I had read, as far as I could recollect, used it that way.
>European approaches to economic education differ quite a bit from American ones.
I don't doubt it. In Norway the education/social science establishment (who are pretty socialist) make sure you notice everything that may discredit arguments for laissez faire. Allegedly unrealistic assumptions about rationality and information are gleefully (and sometimes unfairly) ridiculed.
As for your other points it now seems like there is little factual disagreement. Discussing different definitions and interpretations of earlier comments further is probably a waste of our time.
- rortian 16y agoI don't know if it is. It's pretty shocking to me how different these subjects can be. And the grass is always green on the other side. >Allegedly unrealistic assumptions about rationality and information are gleefully (and sometimes unfairly) ridiculed. These are more than allegedly ridiculous, they are ridiculous. But, I'm sure constant harping on this point would be very annoying. Beinhocker's book is interesting because it lays out several different types of evolution that a taking place that contribute to economic growth. He also lays out some interesting mathematical models that people are using. I'm am genuinely curious as to how much math you've been exposed to in your econ courses.