I need help reading

I don't know this book but if it includes rational actors be aware that the idea of rational actors was a big mistake in economics

>>9454468

Can you expand on that

>>9454491
Well I've only read a tiny amount of economics. What I know is that they used to think people were rational and self-interested, and economic models were made with that in mind.
After research in psychology, maybe sociology, they found out this was wrong. See Daniel Kahneman for example.

The book called "the economics anti-textbook" talks about this and more stuff such as asymmetry in information (i.e. consumers do not always have the same information available about products).

>>9454491
Not him, the "homo economicus", supposed the subject that will rationally prioritize his desires in the best possible way in an economical way is just bullshit. It's not founded on any empirical evidence. It supposes that all subjets have perfect information, are perfectly rational, and in the end, is not something you find anywhere (exemple: if we were all rational when it comes to money, there wouldn't be any buyer's remorse).

It's the problem of neoclassicism, albeit it shows some schemes that helps a hell lot.

Besides, the homo economicus was also based on an old conception of Economy as a science, which was supposed to be theorical (like maths). Problem is, Economy is a social science, like sociology or psychology. The shift happened like thirty years ago, slowly.

>>9454541
Good post thanks for helping me out, you explain it much better

>>9454545
I'll just add that neoclassicism/neoliberalism is based on the homo economicus, and while it's known for its flaws, it's still one of the pillars of economy.

Also you're welcome pal

>>9454548
While I'm at it and I fucking feel like talking about economy for once, it'll just give an exemple of why neoclassicism is flawed : the theory of the perfect and pure concurrence.

Wikipedia says it better than me, and my knowledge memories are blurry anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

>>9454527
>>9454541

From what I have read so far, I don't think he has made that distinction, however I am up to Time and Risk. The next two chapters are National and International economies then 'Special Economic Issues'

>>9454461
Economic theory is mostly bullshit desu. We've been tricked into thinking it's any more complex than a central bank lending money to a business who increases the capital by using it productively. Infrastructure projects such as NAWAP (which JFK wanted to do) would revive the economy, but what would really do it now is building an orbital ring space elevator. Capital would increase exponentially and with minimal inflation.
Notice how every politician who wants this model ends up dead (JFK, Lincoln, Hamilton)

just dont learn about economics. its all materialist pop-psychology garbage. consume consume buy buy work work

>>9454461
Try readng Anwar Shaikh's book "Capitalism: Competition Conflict Crisis", he has a series of lectures on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

if you want a big direct criticism of the intellectual foundations of neoclassicalism read this:
http://jweeks.org/False%20Paradigm%20Part%201&2.pdf
http://jweeks.org/False%20Paradigm%20Part%203.pdf
http://jweeks.org/False%20Paradigm%20Part%204&5.pdf

File: 1487795367458.jpg (241KB, 1069x1196px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1069x1196px

>>9454541
>will rationally prioritize his desires in the best possible way in an economical way is just bullshit.

Economics has nothing to say on why people rank their ends or what those ends should be. That's reserved for other disciplines such as psychology and ethics. However, given SOME arbitrary ranking of ends, neoclassical economics has a lot to say.

>It supposes that all subjets have perfect information, are perfectly rational,

It does not. This is made plain in the first few pages of Rothbard's MES.
Page 7:
>This uncertainty about future events stems from two basic sources: the unpredictability of human acts of choice, and insufficient knowledge about natural phenomena. Man does not know enough about natural phenomena to predict all their future developments, and he cannot know the content of future human choices. All human choices are continually changing as a result of changing valuations and changing ideas about the most appropriate means of arriving at ends. This does not mean, of course, that people do not try their best to estimate future developments. Indeed, any actor, when employing means, estimates that he will thus arrive at his desired goal. But he never has certain knowledge of the future. All his actions are of necessity speculations based on his judgment of the course of future events. The omnipresence of uncertainty introduces the ever-present possibility of error in human action. The actor may find, after he has completed his action, that the means have been inappropriate to the attainment of his end.

>It's not founded on any empirical evidence.
This is also wrong. Every neoclassical axiom is an inference from empirical observations about the state of the world or trends in human behavior.
Also you can't remain completely empirical. At some point, you have to decide which hidden model you believe describes the statistics. The best you can ever do is pick the least informative model that doesn't contradict your rational axioms.

>>9454527
>>9454541

"Homo economicus" is a problem for making forecasts about what decisions people will make in the future, which is only part of what economics has to offer. The real beauty of economics is demonstrating how to efficiently create and distribute resources in accordance to the needs of a population and the abilities of producers.

In other words:

1) economics is about making the conclusion that free trade, based off of comparative advantages, is the most efficient way of distributing resources.

2) the homo economicus fallacy is believing that people will automatically act "rational" and do this instead of throwing up tariffs in a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma

3) behavioral economics is recognizing that people will cuck each other on trade with tariffs for many reasons that are rational outside the context of the "homo economicus", such as geopolitics

>>9456657
Economics is a lot more complicated than just tariffs m8. Even from a homo economicus standpoint it's a shitton of interconnected feedback loops, add emotions and ignorance/stupidity/incompetence and you have something that is far beyond human prediction. People have ahell of a time predicting even a small fraction of it like stocks, commodities or forex.
Economists are snake oil salesmen, they can't reliably predict >50% of the time, if they could they'd be billionaires, leverage is easy to get.

>>9456783
>shitton of interconnected feedback loops
Utility functions are almost always convex, so it's certainly possible to approach a global maximum with imperfect knowledge.
>People have ahell of a time predicting even a small fraction of it like stocks, commodities or forex.
>Economists are snake oil salesmen, they can't reliably predict >50% of the time, if they could they'd be billionaires, leverage is easy to get.
You're confusing economic theory with economic and business analysis.

>>9456657
>1) economics is about making the conclusion that free trade, based off of comparative advantages, is the most efficient way of distributing resources.

Pretty this senpai. Sowell explains very logically why the Free Market is better with real world examples. Dude is a fucking genius.

>>9456783

Economist don't invest in the share market or commodities market, that's what brokers do and even then they still lose money.