Keith, I didn't mean to imply that you were an ideologue. And I do have to back off a bit and agree that not all economics is ideologically based. A very long time ago I recall reading that there are essentially two kinds of economics, normative and positive. Normative economics deals with various optima: the socially efficient allocation of resources and the most satisfactory distribution of income, for example. I would argue that normative economics is ideologically based. It concerns the attainment of certain socially valued objectives and is loaded with assumptions about human behaviour that may or may not be valid because they cannot easily be tested.
Postive economics, on the other hand, may also be ideologcally based, but far less so. It concerns finding out why people behave the way they do in the real world and not in an abstract world of assumptions and first principles. The most recent example of positive economics I can think of is the work of Kahneman and Tversky who, in brief, found that people respond differently to an uncertain issue depending on whether it is put positively or negatively. In doing so, they punctured a hole in one of the fundamental assumptions of normative economics, that of rationality. Again, forgive me for having called what you wrote "crap", but it struck me as being something of an overstatement. Regards, Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:09 AM Subject: Not ideological (was More crap again) > Ed, > > I don't have any more time left today to do more than a brief reply. I will > extract one comment. > > At 15:35 19/12/02 -0500, you wrote: > <<<< > One also has to recognize that economic concepts are ideologically based. > >>>> > > This is where I think you are completely and utterly wrong -- at least as > regards some economists. And certainly as regards myself. In 'ideological' > terms, I suppose I'm much more right-wing than I am left. But, as it > happens (I think I've mentioned this before) I have never voted > Conservative in my life and I don't mind who knows it. In fact, I generally > despise most right-wing politicians -- usually far more than I despise some > (not most) left-wing politicians. > > Economic concepts are certainly interpreted in ideological terms by many. > And many economists are certainly ideologists as well. > > But I treat economics as a fascinating intellectual discipline -- in > exactly the same way as I regard history, or genetics, or psychology, or > neuroscience, or biology, or chemistry (though, as a chemist, I find this > boring!) or whatever. > > I regard economics in exactly the same way as Kenneth Boulding did -- whom > I met and had a fascinating conversation with at Coventry Quaker Meeting > House 20 years ago, not long before he died -- as an interdisciplinary > subject central to the subject of man. > > Keith > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------------- > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
