FionaK |
|
| www.pieria.co.uk/articles/the_intui..._microeconomicsThis paper reiterates what I have concluded about economics, ie that the maths is built on unexamined assumptions with no discernible basis in reality. The author gives a couple of specific examples, which again fit with the title of this thread. In particular I liked his account of "the axiom of monotonicity". While a main objection to economics is its use of impenetrable maths to make itself look clever, it is no slouch in using language for the same purpose. Who ever heard of "monotonicity"? Wiki explains the idea here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function. I have read it but am no wiser nor any better informed: that may not be true for those of you who are numerate. Anyway, the basic idea is that consumers always prefer more (rather than less or the same amount) of a commodity. The rather obvious objection is illustrated in this paper by asking whether you really want a tenth banana: and of course this has been raised. Economists apparently believe that you do, so long as it doesn't cost you anything to throw bananas away. And this from folk who simultaneously believe in the "rational agent"
|
| | |
