>
>Robert A. McCain replied:
It's Roger. Common enough error, though. Comes from the wrist, not the
brain, I think.
>
>> A problem with operant conditioning from this point of view -- and I don't
>> believe it is the only problem -- is that it rules out most of the
>> questions economists are interested in -- efficiency-related problems. How
>> do we define efficiency if we carefully write our models so as to avoid any
>> reference to what is going on in people's heads? Doesn't efficiency have to
>> have something to do with somebody being "better off" in subjective terms?
>>
>Mark Nadler replied:
>
>Operant conditioning still allows economists to deal with prediction and
>control -- this is also a big part of how working and applied economists
>make their living.
Does it lead to different predictions? I don't think so.
>I suspect it (prediction and control) also consumes a
>large of part of class time in principles of micro and macro. You're correct,
>that efficiency viewed as a cognitive construction involving Pareto
>efficiency is ruled out. Of course, our use of utility theory might
>distort our view of what is actually going on in the economy and thus distort
>our notion of what it means for an economy to achieve efficency.
>
Agreed, but since it leads to the same predictions that o.c. theory does
(if indeed either approach predicts anything) the blade cuts both ways.
Roger A. McCain voice (215) 895 2176
Professor, Economics fax (215) 895 6975
507D Matheson Hall mccainra@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Drexel University http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19104 origin code 507