4 ms·

The abstract and introduction read like this is the "assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane" level of theorising. A better use of time might be reading

The abstract and introduction read like this is the "assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane" level of theorising. A better use of time might be reading a chapter or two of Bowles's Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution[1], which at least tries to engage with the real world. Edit: Or learning about Hotelling's Rule[2], given recent rises in the price of fossil fuel. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-Institutions-Evolution-Roundtable-Behavioral/dp/0691126380 https://www.amazon.com/Microeconomics-Institutions-Evolution... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Hotelling's Rule [2], given recent rises in the price of fossil fuel. Fair points. Some of the economic language is a bit hard for me to follow, but I always took Hotelling as an explanation for some perverse incentives not explainable within, but adjacent to, systems theory. Weird ones like how the demand for killing nearly extinct species goes up because mega-rich crazies will pay a fortune at black-market restaurants to eat the last one. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule
t_mann 4y ago
> assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane It's even worse than that. In physics, we know in principle what's wrong with that model and how to fix it. Macroeconomics would need to ditch its entire modelling paradigm, except that we still don't really have a good replacement. https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/WP-Trouble.pdf https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/WP-Trouble.pdf
- contingencies 4y ago
  Classical economics is based on a false analogy with Newtonian physics. - George Soros, billionaire The better replacement is behavioral.
  - paganel 4y ago
    Behavioral economics also gave us all that nudge non-sense, so not sure that’s a good choice, either. Economics as a whole would certainly gain from using less maths, but unfortunately I think that ship has sailed by now.
    - contingencies 4y ago
      I agree on all points.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> Hotelling's Rule [2], given recent rises in the price of fossil fuel. Fair points. Some of the economic language is a bit hard for me to follow, but I always took Hotelling as an explanation for some perverse incentives not explainable within, but adjacent to, systems theory. Weird ones like how the demand for killing nearly extinct species goes up because mega-rich crazies will pay a fortune at black-market restaurants to eat the last one. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_rule

t_mann 4y ago

> assume a spherical cow on a frictionless plane It's even worse than that. In physics, we know in principle what's wrong with that model and how to fix it. Macroeconomics would need to ditch its entire modelling paradigm, except that we still don't really have a good replacement. https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/WP-Trouble.pdf https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/WP-Trouble.pdf

contingencies 4y ago
Classical economics is based on a false analogy with Newtonian physics. - George Soros, billionaire The better replacement is behavioral.
- paganel 4y ago
  Behavioral economics also gave us all that nudge non-sense, so not sure that’s a good choice, either. Economics as a whole would certainly gain from using less maths, but unfortunately I think that ship has sailed by now.
  - contingencies 4y ago
    I agree on all points.