Display:
The point of tweaking economists is two fold. One is to do what you just did, point out the deficiencies in their models.

The second is to encourage the younger generation of economists to break out of the dogma and examine things afresh. There is some progress on this front. In France there are the post-autistic economists (although I can't quite figure out what their viewpoint is). In the US there are various groups including the heterodox economists, the environmental economists and the ecological economists.

There has been a similar activity with regard to the hold of religion in the US. Several writers have come forth (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.) and attempted to debunk religious dogma. Once they broke the ice many who were afraid to speak up joined in the discussion. They also provided forums where such discussions could take place. I won't say that the power of the religious right has been eliminated by this effort, but there has been a noticeable change in tone in the US. The entry on YouTube with the most comments (over 200,000!) is a clip of a woman condemning Islamic dogma in Arabic (with English subtitles). This shows the power of bold ideas when presented in the right forum.

As for your discussion of elasticity and oil, you ignored the fact that the market for oil has been increasing over the same period. That's why use and price can both go up at once. I suggest looking at the rise in auto ownership in both India and China over the past decade as an example.

I don't see why, if you feel strongly that the axioms of economics are wrong, you are unwilling to discuss this in an economics forum. You won't get much disagreement on this site, nor will you get much detailed criticism of your remarks from professionals in the field. One should always be willing to have one's ideas tested in the proper setting.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 7th, 2007 at 05:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As for your discussion of elasticity and oil, you ignored the fact that the market for oil has been increasing over the same period. That's why use and price can both go up at once. I suggest looking at the rise in auto ownership in both India and China over the past decade as an example.
I have no problem with use and price to go up at the same time. The problem is that I suspect consumption is generally used as a proxy for demand, and a sort of "ergodic" hypothesis is made whereby time changes can be used to estimate elasticities, with nonsensical results.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 7th, 2007 at 05:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see why, if you feel strongly that the axioms of economics are wrong, you are unwilling to discuss this in an economics forum. You won't get much disagreement on this site, nor will you get much detailed criticism of your remarks from professionals in the field. One should always be willing to have one's ideas tested in the proper setting.
I don't know that I feel strongly about this stuff. This series is called Socratic for a reason: all I know is I don't know. And I'm afraid I expect if I say these things in a forum full of academic economists they're going to just tell me go read a textbook.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 7th, 2007 at 05:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And I'm afraid I expect if I say these things in a forum full of academic economists they're going to just tell me go read a textbook.

And the problem with that would be...  ???

by asdf on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 12:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've read textbooks. They are crap. They don't address the questions of whether the quantities in the theory are actually observeble, or how. It would be argument by authority.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 10th, 2007 at 12:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series