Sandwichman wrote: >> The thing that gets me is that ALL of these models are models of "markets" >> without so much as boo about whether the metaphor of a market is adequate to >> the phenomenon being studied.
Is it the "market" that's the metaphor? or is it the economist's mental image (the theory or model, e.g., the supply & demand model) of the market that's the metaphor? In a market-oriented (commodity-producing) society such as capitalism, it's hard to imagine that the "market" is a mere metaphor. Here is one web definition for a "metaphor": "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable." I can't think of a case where a "perfectly competitive market where a simple supply and demand model applies exactly" could be anything but a metaphor. But there clearly exist market forces in a market-oriented society: if you try to sell a product at a price above what other companies are charging, for example, either you have a better product in some way (perhaps because it serves a local need and you have a local monopoly) or you won't be able to sell it. By the way, if the simple supply & demand model doesn't correspond to the real-world data (prices, quantities of products bought and sold), it won't do very well by statistical tests. Even so, it might be the best available model (where "best" is defined by statistical tests). Statistical tests, if done well, measure how good a model corresponds to available evidence. (Usually, they're done poorly, of course.) -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
