.

[136or142]

As a social sciences student, I have realized how much the cancer of economic thinking has spread throughout this field of study. What I hate, more than the ideological framework in itself (which is an interesting perspective in itself), is the smug, self-satisfied and downright authoritarian belief held by its proponents that their economic rationality is the only rationality, that they got it all figured out, and that everybody else is just unable to see the truth because their judgment is clouded by silly things like norms and values. It never occurs to their minds that norms and values are also part of the human experience and play an essential role in any well-functioning society, or that no sane human being has no other goal than to maximize its material interests. It's this delusion of grandeur that makes homo economicus theory one of the most dangerous ideas of the 21st century.

As a former economics student who still reads widely on the subject, you should be aware that the major theories developing in economics right now (following on the horrible attempt to determine everything in economics on the basis of mathematics) are from the field of behavioral economics, which are largely based on social science, especially sociology and psychology as well as new experiments by economists and that all of the all assumptions of 'economic rationalism' are being reexamined.

While economists know that in the aggregate the 'economic rationalism' theories are correct, i.e consumption drops as prices rise in relation to other prices, economists are finding all sorts of cases where people don't behave according to the 'rational person' theory.

[136or142]

As a former economics student who still reads widely on the subject, you should be aware that the major theories developing in economics right now (following on the horrible attempt to determine everything in economics on the basis of mathematics) are from the field of behavioral economics,

I am not sure what you are reading, but, as a practicing economist, I think I could provide you with links to a few typical behavioral papers. All of these are pretty influential.

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/MicroTheory/gul-991020.pdf
http://www.eea-esem.com/papers/eea-esem/2003/1647/rational%20choice%20with%20status%20quo%20bias.pdf
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/924.pdf

Perhaps, that would disabuse you of your impression about behavioral economics.

I'm not sure what you are 'accusing' me of here, I was positive about the work taking place in behavioral economics.

[136or142]

Maybe I should have picked another board, or clarified further. The point of my question isn't to make a statement about economics itself - hence the scare quotes around "thinking like an economist" - but about how it is translated into what is essentially a self-help movement based around the principles of self-interest and utility-maximization.

Finding environments in which utility maximization cannot describe behavior is pretty damn difficult (I tell you this as someone who is working on precisely that for living). Not because "utility maximization" is such a great theory, but because it is not really much of a theory: it is more of a language, in which you can express pretty much anything.

Yes, but in the 1970s some economists did try to quantify utility.

[136or142]

For the most part, Economists don't actually think in terms of homo-economicus, though they might employ that logic from time to time.  The Health Care- Car market example is somewhat of a head scratcher for the reason that even some one with a modicum of economic knowledge can tear that one down. 

Yes the economist I have discussed potential privatised healthcare with, begins to use words like "market failure" and "moronic Austrians/Chicagoans". Of course we can thank the Americans for delivering a clear alternative model to the different European UHC systems, which mean we can analyse the models against each others.

Just to clarify. From the stand point of most economists ("Chicagoans" included) the so called "Austrians" today are a bizarre religious cult, having little to do with economic profession. Most definitely, they are not at all "thinking like economists". If anything, an average economist would, probably, find it easier to talk to a Marxist than to an "Austrian": having wasted many hours of my life, I still have not been even able to figure out if they are thinking at all. From the standpoint of the "Austrians", of course, all economists (Chicagoans included) are not real economists at all.

Disclaimer: this has nothing to do with the real historical Austrian School of economic thought, which did play a very important role in economics profession. But that is a historical phenomenon: virtually no reasonable economist would describe himself as an "Austrian" today.

So Von Mises swings and mises?

[136or142]

As a former economics student who still reads widely on the subject, you should be aware that the major theories developing in economics right now (following on the horrible attempt to determine everything in economics on the basis of mathematics) are from the field of behavioral economics,

I am not sure what you are reading, but, as a practicing economist, I think I could provide you with links to a few typical behavioral papers. All of these are pretty influential.

http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/MicroTheory/gul-991020.pdf
http://www.eea-esem.com/papers/eea-esem/2003/1647/rational%20choice%20with%20status%20quo%20bias.pdf
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/papers/924.pdf

Perhaps, that would disabuse you of your impression about behavioral economics.

Thanks for those links, but the reason I had to quit taking economics was because I couldn't pass integral calculus (failed it three times, and no I'm far from proud of that) and while I disagree that 'math is hard' (at least since that is claimed by high school math students they are referring to algebra which shouldn't be hard at all for anybody except for the bizarre though fortunately rare cases of people who genuinely can't learn mathematics) all of the links you posted to had way to many mathematical symbols (and possibly calculus itself) for me to be able to follow intelligently.  

I appreciate the effort though. The problem isn't your links it's my lack of intelligence.

I like Daron Acemoglu who, though he uses a great deal of calculus to back up his work, leaves out most of the math in his discussions.

[136or142]

I like Daron Acemoglu who, though he uses a great deal of calculus to back up his work, leaves out most of the math in his discussions.

Then how can you be certain the discussions adequately report the math?

Math is but a language in which it is much harder to conceal a logical mistake. That is why we use it.

I can't, but given that his work is in developmental economics I can at least, to some degree, use history to determine if what he says seems logical or not.

[136or142]

There are only two types of people who believe that endless growth is possible--idiots and economists.

Actually, it's business schools that teach that endless growth is not only possible, but largely required for businesses to remain 'going concerns'.

That said, given human ingenuity, I fail to see why growth isn't virtually endless, unless population expansion occurs too rapidly.

Paul Erhlich has been shown to be completely wrong so far.

Just out of curiousity: is he any relation to Robert (Bob) Erhlich?

[136or142]

So, Ag, while I'm sure they may not please you, do you have any links to behavioral economics studies that don't rely so heavily on mathematical symbols?

[136or142]

Stats would be fine. I was an A+ stats student.

[136or142]

I've never seen an economists try to invent any device with economic theory. I've never known any economist to prescribe economic theory when choosing a spouse or establishing patterns of family behavior.

Actually, although it seems Ag is not a big fan of theirs, one of the so-called 'pop economists' either the economics Freak Stephen Levitt or the Hidden Economist Tim Harford wrote a chapter in one of their books on precisely this.

Ag, I'd appreciate the bibliography, thanks if you get the chance.