Some thoughts on trade in general and world trade in particular.

[punkbass2000]

Well, given your response to warpus, it sounds to me that whatever people choose is rational by definition.

 

[betazed]

@punkbass2000: Think of it another way. According to you the rationality that we see is really an illusion. But if the illusion is so good that it is almost complete and impossible to negate then we may as well assume it to be true. Does that make sense?

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm not saying everyone is rational. They behave approximiately rationally. People do make irrational decisions, we see it happening.

Again, I can't say anything else but that if people didn't behave approximately rationally, then models that assume rational behavior would have little, if any, predictive power. Because they in fact do have alot of predictive power (Again, Human Capital Theory and Experimental Economics comes to mind), it necessarily follows that people at least behave in a rational manner.

Rationality could be an illusion. But what do I care if my goal is to put forth the best model possible, and the rational behavior assumption works?

I mean, there's no combatting that argument. I can't say its not, but it can't be proven that it is either.

Just please, trust me on that people behave as if they were rational...

 

[punkbass2000]

I don't know that I think of it as an illusion. Quite frankly, in order to be rational, a given set of premises must be accepted. What could make those premises rational, short of an objective observer?

EDIT: Crosspost.

 

[punkbass2000]

Just please, trust me on that people behave as if they were rational...

I do trust, don't worry. I'm more saying that calling it rational is superfluous.

 

[betazed]

I don't know that I think of it as an illusion. Quite frankly, in order to be rational, a given set of premises must be accepted. What could make those premises rational, short of an objective observer?

EDIT: Crosspost.

The premises themselves do not need to be based on any rationality. They could just be some axioms assumed to be true. Everything deduced from those axioms in a logical manner will be rational decisions.

 

[punkbass2000]

To me, then, the problem would be that if there are different axioms for diffrent people or groups or what-have-you, then the model will fall apart.

 

[warpus]

@@warpus
--A rational decision is one in which an individual takes into account all the information at their disposal and chooses the most, oh for simplicity sake's, let's call it the most profit-maximizing decision. A television commercial counts as information at one's disposal.

So, as I am an economist, I'd say that's a rational decision. Value is both tangible and intangible.

Say that I'm driving to work and I see a huge billboard with a half-naked girl w/ giant half-exposed breasts. Below the image is text that reads "Buy Colgate!"

A couple days later I'm shopping @ a local drug store and decide that I'm going to buy some toothpaste. I'm not really familiar with all the various brands, but for some reason I have an urge to buy some Colgate, and I do.

Would you categorize that as a rational decision?

 

[JerichoHill]

Sorry, but I'm completely lost now.

This has gone out of economics and into a logic discussion, which I know I'm not qualified to discuss.

I'm just happy to believe that people act rational and that rationality is not an illusion. Now I'll take my soma please. If there are any economics related questions, please wake me up!

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, we're an odd bunch, but perhaps you'll come to get used to us. I would suggest that the problem here is that we need to establish an objective and we tend to fail at that regularly

 

[betazed]

To me, then, the problem would be that if there are different axioms for diffrent people or groups or what-have-you, then the model will fall apart.

Ah see there is where you and I would differ again. The axioms are genetically ingrained in us and hence the same for everybody. We basically came to these axioms over millions of years of evolution.

Sorry, but I'm completely lost now.

Don't worry. Stay here for a while and you will get a hang of us guys. We meander through many unrelated topics in one thread only sometimes making sense.

 

[punkbass2000]

We make sense sometimes?

 

[punkbass2000]

Ah see there is where you and I would differ again. The axioms are genetically ingrained in us and hence the same for everybody. We basically came to these axioms over millions of years of evolution.

OK. What are these axioms? And by "everybody" you are referring to all humans?

 

[warpus]

Sorry, but I'm completely lost now.

This has gone out of economics and into a logic discussion, which I know I'm not qualified to discuss.

I'm just happy to believe that people act rational and that rationality is not an illusion. Now I'll take my soma please. If there are any economics related questions, please wake me up!

Hehe.

I've heard an economist say that people rarely make rational decisions when making a purchase, which is why I brought this point up.

Sure, sometimes people do actually look at the quality of the product, the price, etc., but more often than not they are influenced by advertising that relies on celebrities, catch phrases, boobies, and even more boobies, to convince the consumer to make the purchase.

So are decisions influenced by advertising considered to be rational?

 

[betazed]

OK. What are these axioms?

While I can make guesses, I have to say, "I have no frigging idea". But do I need to know them to believe that they are there and being used automatically in a programmed way. Does a robot obeying the three laws really need to comprehend the three laws?

And by "everybody" you are referring to all humans?

Uh oh! We are going into trademarked punkbass2000 questioning mode now. But if you must yes I meant all humans who a psychologist will deem 'sane'

 

[JerichoHill]

@@warpus.

Advertisements are a form of information, are they not?
Perhaps biased information, but information.

 

[punkbass2000]

While I can make guesses, I have to say, "I have no frigging idea". But do I need to know them to believe that they are there and being used automatically in a programmed way. Does a robot obeying the three laws really need to comprehend the three laws?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point here. A robot does not need to comprehend the three laws in order to obey them, true. He does need into order to be able to make predictions on what robots will do, which is what we're working on AFAIK.

Uh oh! We are going into trademarked punkbass2000 questioning mode now.

Is my ignorance really such cause for alarm?

 

[punkbass2000]

I demand the follow-up

 

[JerichoHill]

follow up to hwat?

 

[punkbass2000]

I haven't looked through it, but I'm just about certain betazed said he was going to continue this series.