←back to thread

462 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
casey2 ◴[] No.45078043[source]
This is how you know most economic theory is a total lie, if it wasn't they would just "price what people are willing to pay" and be forced to eat the loss. Is that cause copper bathtubs are a special item or are you just making up more rules after the fact to patch holes in your leaky theory.
replies(8): >>45078072 #>>45078084 #>>45078092 #>>45078099 #>>45078272 #>>45078591 #>>45078626 #>>45081428 #
thayne ◴[] No.45078099[source]
It's because basic economic theory makes some really bad assumptions. It assumes everyone has the information they need, and sellers can instantaneously change prices in response to changes in demand or cost of production.

Neither of which is true in the real world.

replies(4): >>45078188 #>>45078228 #>>45078656 #>>45078787 #
wtallis ◴[] No.45078188[source]
I don't think you've successfully demonstrated that those assumptions are bad. They're simplifying assumptions that are necessary to have a "basic" economic theory in the first place—one with tractable and understandable mathematics that can produce an answer without immediately dumping you into partial differential equations or requiring impossibly detailed input data.

The assumptions are only bad if they prevent the simple models from being useful, and the existence of a scenario where a model's simplifying assumptions prevent it from being useful does not prove that the model is worthless.

replies(1): >>45078421 #
1. thayne ◴[] No.45078421[source]
I don't think the model is worthless. But there also going to be many real world scenarios where they aren't good enough.

It's like doing physics where you assume perfectly uniform spherical objects in a vacuum. It isn't worthless just because that isn't how the real world works, but depending on the circumstance it can also give you incorrect results, and sometimes even be way off.