Re: People who think that "rational economic man" is sociopathic might find this a bit humorous

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/13/06, Julio Huato <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...   What is definitely *not*
> trivial is the bunch of results that follow from it, when -- as it is
> always the case in economic theory -- you combine it with other
> premises, e.g., a certain rule descriptive of economic possibilities
> or opportunities, consistency conditions at the aggregate level, etc.

it's been my contention for awhile that it's not the utility
maximization part of economic theory that has the content as much as
the "premises," i.e., the (objective) constraints. Even then, one
can't prove that the demand curve slopes down (i.e., that the quantity
demanded rises as price falls) from utility maximization and an income
constraint.

One thing in neoclassical economics that should be admired is that it
admits that it can't make that proof. Or at least its sophisticated
users do. (Similarly, its sophisticates accept the theory of the
second best.)

As noted elsewhere, there's a bait and switch going on. Or to use a
different metaphor, the scientific-looking garb of neoclassical
economics is worn by neoliberal ideologues and dictators at the IMF
and similar types.

Speaking of metaphors, it would be good for neoclassical economics if
its users were to admit that their theory is nothing but a system of
metaphors.
JD