4 ms·
Right, but Homo Economicus doesn't really exist, and just because an action is "rational" from a purely economic standpoint, it doesn't mean that action will be
by sanedigital 5y ago
Right, but Homo Economicus doesn't really exist, and just because an action is "rational" from a purely economic standpoint, it doesn't mean that action will be taken by an actual living person. Disincentives sometimes have demotivating factors beyond their purely economic impacts.
- SantalBlush 5y agoWhen people are discussing economics within the framework of economic theory, it's a bit silly to invoke "Homo Economicus doesn't exist" this far down the thread in some apparent attempt to discredit one side.
- sanedigital 5y agoI disagree, painting policy issues with a simple brush of "calculate X & Y and see which is bigger" completely ignores the behavioural components at play. Homo Economicus might respond to financial incentives as expected, but in the real world they can motivate (or demotivate) in ways that aren't captured in those calculations.
- coralreef 5y agohttps://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceterisparibus.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceterisparibus.asp
- SantalBlush 5y agoMy point is that you seem to be applying your argument selectively. This whole thread is about "Homo Economicus".
- sanedigital 5y agoDisagree again, GP's comment was specifically reframing the conversation around an individual's actual ability to respond "rationally" in a real-world situation.