Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
If you can measure these things isn't that good enough? If people that buy and sell have better information, then the invisible hand should come back right?
phyllotaxis · 5247 days ago · link ·
The elements of economic understanding are already available, and mathematicians are not required to articulate them.
Please consider this as an introduction, and go from there.
–
>The elements of economic understanding are already available, and mathematicians are not required to articulate them.
Really? Isn't the study of economics in large part applied mathematics? Even if the elements are available, mathematical models allow us to meaningfully determine and discuss how these elements interact. It seems dogmatic to suggest that these theories on economics are complete or sufficient for the most useful understanding of economics. In fact, I'd be very skeptical of any theory that can't described a model that fits actual data. What is the motivation to write off the inquiries of mathematicians?
–
phyllotaxis · 5246 days ago · link ·
Please allow me to clarify. I do not imply that there is no role for mathematics in the observations of economic activity. I submit that they are a secondary measurement tool, as opposed to a key that can unlock secrets that may be revealed with evermore creative use.
Please read this excellent explanation: http://.Mises.org/daily/2125.
roundsquare · 5247 days ago · link ·
Too much information is, in some ways, as bad as too little information. There is no way to realistically take all the information out there and use it in a rapid decision making process. So, in the very long term, the invisible hand might have an effect (assuming people use the information correctly), but there will be short to medium term stickiness. If people don't use the information correctly (misinterpret it, ignore something important, use poor metric, etc...) then the old theories are really just mathematical fun.