tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1072959638948209184..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Ain't Misbehaving?: further thoughts on the Kahneman-Tversky experimentsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12337830721019971522015-05-08T17:53:16.939-04:002015-05-08T17:53:16.939-04:00I agree with you as regards just trying to show th...I agree with you as regards just trying to show that the irrefutable pile of magic nonsense has been refuted. <br /><br />It takes a gyrocopter to land on the lawn.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-84412191074844517352015-05-08T16:03:15.363-04:002015-05-08T16:03:15.363-04:00Here's what I read above:
A. Economics writ l...Here's what I read above:<br /><br />A. Economics writ large consists of two practices: 1. observations of economic regularities and 2. Pseudoscientific hand-waving. AND<br />B. The pseudo-scientific hand waving is self-sealing and irrefutable. <br /><br />I think both A and B are correct. My question is this: why would someone believe in A&B and yet spend much of his time deep in the details of the hand-waving, trying to show that a self-sealing and irrefutable pile of magic nonsense has been (somehow) refuted? Because, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much the life's work of all the prominent heterodox economists. <br /><br />It's New Keynesianism all over again: by agreeing to play the game you have forfeited your only chance to win. Thornton Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11402495641975262697noreply@blogger.com