John Quiggin makes the broad case (link fixed).
If you are then stuck with trying to present a Grand Unified Field Theory, you will inevitably lose (or, at best, reduce) the importance of all the agglomerations that follow from the presumption that the Rational Actor is the mean performer—ignoring that no one, including the economists themselves, believes that to be true in their own lives, let alone the lives of others.
Micromotives and Macro Behavior indeed. But no molecular biologist (or even biologists) would try to build on the Phlogiston Theory.
Related Posts by Categories
21st Century economic philosophy- PSA: D-Squared Rivals Quiggin
- When in Crisis, Insult Sociologists?
- Verklaerte KristolNacht
- If You're Marking a Curve, you need to identify an equilibrium point
- The Measured Version of My Screaming
- Norman Borlaug, Michael Jackson, and the Invisible Hand
- Coming Soon from Major Economists Near You
- Quote of the Day, esp. for Economic Modelling
- Mark Cuban Makes the Key Point
- A/l/a/n/ C/a/r/u/b/a/ Milt Shook Explains It All
- I'm Not Here
- The Hoover Institution
- What is competition?
- DeLong, Thoma, Rodrik et al. Do Good
- A Response to Megan McArdle, Again (by cactus)
- QOTD, and a bookmark for a future post
- Simple Answers to Simple Questions, CRA edition
- A Short Note on Optimality
- It Looks Like a Great House. Why Does the Basement Always Flood?
- I Remember When Mankiw was still a Neo-Keynesian
- UnReal Business Cycle
- Yankee Interlude
- And Here I Thought Corporations were Rational
- 1,121 Words on Bruce's Post, with footnote
Post a Comment