pull down to refresh
Forcing people who think about economics to formalize their thoughts catches bad logic and sneaky assumptions. It eliminates arguments that might sound reasonable when using words, but becomes untenable when you try to formalize it. You accused the authors of this book of faulty logic, well the purpose of formalization is to gatekeep the faulty thinking.
From the snippets you've posted about The Natural Dividend, the thing I'd ask them to formalize is their definition of value in this system of decision-makers, where nature is a force that imposes conditions, but isn't an acting agent. Value can only be defined with respect to the acting agents.
I don't suppose they'll see that any more clearly with a mathematical formula.
Put differently: you can always make a formula/arrange the algebra so your favoured idea comes out, no?
I don't suppose they'll see that any more clearly with a mathematical formula.
Perhaps they don't want to see clearly and would give up if asked to formalize their arguments ^_^
Put differently: you can always make a formula/arrange the algebra so your favoured idea comes out, no?
Sort of but not really. You can get a model to say whatever you want, but it may also require transparently dumb assumptions, and you'd get called out for it.
but it may also require transparently dumb assumptions, and you'd get called out for it.
That's true, and useful... but I can also just call them out for "transparently dumb assumptions" in plain text
slavery w extra steps, etc
Not following. Maybe try a graph to get your point across?
(See what I did there!)