[ttoinou]

It's sad that someone like the author would spend so much time avoiding understanding basic economics like subjective value, marginal value, voluntary exchanges etc. There are plenty of economics who never use any maths and help in understanding finance without resorting to this kind of silly critic

[imtringued]

I don't know how you can prove the existence of voluntary exchange in the real world. Also neoclassical economics tends to get marginal cost structures completely wrong. When you ask them, companies report constant or falling marginal cost. The text book authors that do the study then proceed to teach their students that marginal cost must rise. I am not sure I should trust people like that. If they are willing to straight up lie about this, what are they going to lie about next?

The thing about economics is that you can keep studying and studying and get none the wiser. All the low hanging fruit are still there to pick but nobody is interested in that research because it is the equivalent of going from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

The "obvious" conclusions you can derive from a continuous neoclassical model make no sense the moment you add multiple goods because at that point you now need to run NP hard optimization algorithms to get an equivalent answer. Yes, the proverbial corn economy works if all you care about is corn.

From my perspective neoclassical economics is just a disguised form of centrally planned communism so that capitalists can claim the supposed benefits of communism for themselves, while they do something different behind the scenes. Communism should be rejected because it is not possible to implement it and so should neoclassical economics. This leaves us with a lot of research opportunities that nobody is willing to take.

[marcosdumay]

> I don't know how you can prove the existence of voluntary exchange in the real world.

You mean that in a "what is free will anyway" form? Or is there something definable that you contest?

> The "obvious" conclusions you can derive from a continuous neoclassical model make no sense the moment you add multiple goods because at that point you now need to run NP hard optimization algorithms to get an equivalent answer.

I don't think many economists would disagree with that equivalence. They seem to always hint very strongly at it, but never actually articulate it. Exactly why do you think it's a problem?

Overall, I have some strong criticism of modern economics. You seem to be bothered by the same kind of thing, but I can only sympathize with your complaint about continuous models.

[FrustratedMonky]

You had me for 2 paragraphs. But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch. Like a giant leap over the grand canyon stretch. Is there anything to this argument?

I really would like to know. I read a recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism, as a way for the rich to quell dissent in the poor. But not sure that is what you are going for here.

[pessimizer]

> But claiming that a branch of economics is trying to implement communism but somehow hide in plain sight, is a real stretch.

I think it's usually called corporatism, or literally called fascism (the Italian version, not whatever liberal Democrats mean when they say it.)

For me, the test hypothetical is how one would like literal chattel slavery if laws and diligent inspections limited slave work hours to 6 hours a day with a max of 24 hours a week, slave quarters looked like fancy college dorms, families were given the right to stay together, and slaves all had iPhones and Netflix. If slavery starts to sound more appealing, you might lean towards corporatism or national syndicalism.

[uxp100]

> recent theory that late stage capitalism does naturally morph into socialism

I think this is a quite old theory, and well, who knows on the scale of history, but I am pretty skeptical about it over the last 50 years.

[Eumenes]

The federal reserve is hiding in 'plain sight' ... You could argue that a monopoly of large commercial banks regulated by a federal centralized government fixes the market to a degree.

[FrustratedMonky]

I really just want imtringued to explain a few more links in the chain of reasoning. It sounds like something I heard recently that we'll have a veneer of socialism, to hide the fact that the rich are in control (central bank, monopolies). Just not sure I'm reading into this post correctly.

[FrustratedMonky]

Still. It is still a pretty huge leap that because the Fed is a central bank, that we are really communists.

[skybrian]

Another way to think about it is that prices come from a game where one player wants the number to be higher and the other wants it to be lower, and the players can walk away. That's a voluntary exchange.

I don't know why you think the existence of this game needs to be proven when it's a game people play all the time? It's very unlikely that you've never shopped for anything.

Not every purchase is entirely voluntary. Some purchases happen under pressure. The amount of pressure varies quite a bit.