That's economics' second-biggest flaw. Its biggest flaw is its habit of assuming away coercion (in politics, foreign affairs and trade, immigration, law, crime, etc.) and security and yet pretending that its results are universal or readily applicable in coercive situations.https://twitter.com/EconTalker/status/1098641809608269824 …
-
If you think an economic model is failing to explain reality, it can be improved. That's part of economics too. And btw economics deals (or can deal) with what you are talking about - e.g.: externalities.
But economists very seldo improve their models in these very obvious ways. They have, generally speaking, simply removed the massive amounts of coercion and security that exist in the real world outside of their purview of thinking.
-
-
The failure of economics to handle coercion perhaps reaches its epitomy and nadir in the Coase Theorem, which I critique in this two-part analysis: https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/05/coase-theorem-is-false-contracts-depend.html … https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2009/09/coase-theorem-in-action.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would say those are bad economists. One of the main differences between economics and accounting is that the former also deals with non-monetary, hidden costs as well. It's the economist job to consider effects beyond short-term $ gain.
-
In that case, nearly all economists are bad economists, because nearly all economists commit these fundamental errors when talking about the supposed policy consequences of their speculations.
-
P.S. I don't mean to pick on economists; the other social "sciences" are generally even worse.
-
It’s because modeling the behavior of people is way, way harder than modeling, say, the movement of celestial bodies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Russ/Nick, you really should have a chat together on EconTalk, it'd be epic! Discussions on the history of money could easily fill an hour alone. I'd throw some Satoshis into a lightning wallet for charity, maybe others would too.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's the limitation of a quantitative approach.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
" “praxeology of coercion,” or, more precisely, an analysis of interpersonal actions involving threats, is developed." https://mises.org/library/praxeology-coercion-catallactics-vs-cratics …
#AustriansThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.