Who will you vote for if a federal election was held tomorrow

Who would you vote for in a federal election tomorrow

  • Liberal/National Party

    Votes: 104 60.1%
  • Labour

    Votes: 54 31.2%
  • Democrats

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Greens

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • Independant/Other

    Votes: 6 3.5%

  • Total voters
    173
  • Poll closed .
However we are having an economic discussion which places financial decisions at the pinnacle. So within this economic framework, if she acts in a manner that is contrary to her economic well being, she is being irrational and not behaving in a self interested manner.

It's all very logical and, to quote a slogan, "economic rationalism isn't".

MC


The point is that her long history of secure wealth devalues the importance of economic wellbeing, in her mind. SHe has grown accustomed to getting her "money for nothing and her chicks for free". Take everything away from her and make her start from the beginning in a microbusiness startup, working 12 hour days 6 days a week until exhausted....and see how much she enjoys paying more to her employees and ato...

Just another chardonnay socialist IMHO.
 
MC

Yes I would argue that, because I consider good economics to be about more than just dollars (accounting is just dollars).

It's my belief that economics extends beyond the bottom line and into the realm of human behaviour far beyond what the traditional homo economicus model can adequately explain.

How?

Well, by appropriately defining an individuals' utility many different types of human behavior can be seen as rational and utility maximizing (including altruistic behaviour).

Most certainly this belief of mine reflects a personal bias that revealed itself before I even studied economics - the alternative forgone (opportunity cost) of my economics study was a degree in sociology.

However, I am not alone. Coincidently one economist who would agree with me is Gary Becker, 1996 Nobel Laureate and a Professor of both Economics and Sociology at the University of Chicago.

Another possible ally would be John Kenneth Galbraith who in his 1958 book "The Affluent Society" argued that Americans would lead longer, more fulfilling lives if they spent less on private luxuries and more on their external environments. Of course, Galbraith was often criticised by fellow economists (recall my reference to economists and their precious models) and as Milton Friedman described it after his death in 2006, his work was "not so much economics as it is sociology".

And it's also more or less consistent with some of the things that Duncan used to say when he talked about happiness and how he was discovering happiness with less, not more.

That's not to say I am right just because three people - one a Nobel Laureate, one the most read economist of the 20th century, and one a 3,000 plus poster on somersoft happen to agree with me.

The reality is that for the most part there is no right or wrong in economics.

As I say to people -

There are no lies in economics, only alternative versions of the truth.

M

ps. The hyperlink that sits behind Milton Friedman's name goes back to an article written by Robert H Frank who is a Professor of Economics at Cornell University and a world renowned expert in the economics of behaviour. He is also co-author of a textbook, simply titled "Economics", with (now Chairman of the US Federal Reserve) Ben Bernanke.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top