Post Autistic Economics

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, there really is such a thing, and their website is really lame.

The movement for Post-Autistic Economics (PAE) was born through the work of Sorbonne economist Bernard Guerrien. Started in Spring 2000 by group of disaffected French economics students, Post-Autistic Economics first reached a wider audience in June 2000 after an interview in Le Monde.

It was supported by the Cambridge Ph.D. students in 2001 with the publication of "Opening Up Economics: A Proposal By Cambridge Students" and is signed by 797 students.

The term autistic is used in an informal way, synonymous to "closed-minded" or "self-absorbed". It has been criticized for using the medical diagnosis, autism, as a derogatory expression.

The movement is best seen as a forum of different groups critical of the current mainstream: from behavioral and heterodox to feminist, green economics and econo-physics.

I cannot even figure out what they're talking about.

Basically, from what I can tell, they're just saying that economics has stopped being "realistic" and has instead invented its own world in which to play around with. They believe that current economics focuses too much on complex, non-rational mathematical models rather than how the world really works.

Yeah, I've heard of it. They are opposed to all of the math involved in economics and the models that they consider to be unrealistic. I haven't looked over all of it and I am certain not to agree with some of it, but it does require some looking into though.

This sounds interesting.

Right, that is what I meant, but I guess I just think that being too rational is the same thing as being non-rational. Or at least similar enough in my mind to not cause me any confusion.

I think it is a rational assumption. Man is always rational and logical only by accident. Rationality means you allow for human emotion to affect decisions.

Based on that assumption we should recognize that it is rational to party.

Well, ok, since we have accepted that assumption as being true then we have to look at the other assumptions, such as that about corporate behavior, individual valuation, supply and demand, ask ourselves what we should assume for them, and then go around analyzing stuff.

I love analyzing stuff. But before we analyze stuff, we ought to educate ourselves about the institution/behvior we are analyzing rather than taking our assumptions based on a single assumption and making them into theories, which we then try to prove by making more assumptions.

So before I analyze corporations as a whole institution, I ought to educate myself on the corporate business model, the corporate mentality, the corporate employee---rather than jump right in and make a generalized theoretical assertion that if "a" happens sometimes in "b," then "b" is obviously the root of all evil. Or, rather, if some corporate directors make decisions with negative effects, then obviously the corporation is the root of all evil.

Or I could just hire experts like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky to testify as to the validity of my assumption and make a "documentary" about it... (but I digress.)