Responding to Antonio L, I don't see how "those variables" -- if by that you mean, among other things, that people are influenced by other people and are changed over time by their own experience -- can be attached to the neo-classical model. Recognizing those variables in fact destroys the model.
I don't think it is "some economists are catching up to psychologists" as Jim D. asserts -- some economists have for 100 years recognized that an individual's consumption depends on the consumption of other people. Neo-classical economists will continue to assume (in spite of themselves knowing and sometimes acknowledging that the assumption is false) that there is no interpersonal effects. Otherwise how are they going to tell politicians that policies that benefit the rich are the best for the poor? Who are these economists over the past 100 years or so who acknowledged interpersonal effects? Pigou, Marshall, Baumol, Veblen, Duesenberry, Lionel Robbins are listed by De V. Graaff, as I discovered re-reading him looking for a Veblen cite I intend to use. We can add Gintis, Marglin, Marris, and Houthaker & Taylor (though Taylor later indirectly recanted) and more, and I myself wrote about it in the '70s and '80s, though just out of observing behavior rather than any deep thinking. So a lot of big names, respected names, have rejected the validity of the assumption(s) -- yet nothing changed in the neo-classical model. And nothing will. Thanks to Michael Nuwer for broadening the list and pushing my reading along. I'm struggling to understand what Kahneman is saying in a short piece titled "The Sad Tale of the Aspiration Treadmill." If someone can interpret that for me I'd much appreciate the help. I do see that whatever he's saying he has missed a profoundly important bit which I hope to straighten out. Gene Coyle On Mar 27, 2011, at 9:40 PM, Antonio L wrote: > Do you see any way how those variables could be attached to the model, or it > isn't worth it, and why? > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Eugene Coyle wrote: > > I've been reading in and about behavioral economics in a desultory fashion > > -- mainly because I didn't have any direction on how to approach it. > > the basic idea is that some economists have finally caught up with the > psychologists and have gotten away from _a priori_ assertions about > human decision-making and have produced a more complicated and more > realistic one. Unfortunately, they still have a basically > individualistic perspective. They thus ignore the way in which our > biographies in society (including our practice) limit and shape our > "preferences," attitudes, and ideologies. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
