General

Re: Game Theory

Vichy Army — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 20:59:40 GMT

how much of it have you seen?

Keynesian and variants, NeoClassical standard, Chicago, Institutionalist, Supply-Sider and various Marxist kinds. They're all predicated on absurd defintions; even when correct it's really a matter of not following their alleged foundations.

Re: Game Theory

Student — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:57:47 GMT

Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense.

how much of it have you seen?

Re: Game Theory

Solid_Choke — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:27:01 GMT

I just ordered Intermediate Microeconomics. Better be good!

It is the best mainstream intermediate text on the market. The only criticism I have is his failure to add a chapter on public choice, which should come right after the chapter on welfare economics (although to be fair, he does go over the Arrow Impossibility Theorem and a few other problems with welfare economics).

Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense.

Oh come on! At most, 4/5 of it is nonsense.

Re: Game Theory

EconomistInTraining — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:23:02 GMT

It is good, I'm not sure you'll find anything new in it, but in terms of explaining the intuition of microeconomics it's unbeatable, forget Murphy, Varian is an absolute genius. It wasn't the micro textbook used for my class, but I ended up using it for the entire course, I bought a bunch of other intermediate micro books on the cheap to see if they could help at all, but there wasn't anything in those that wasn't explained better and more succinctly by Varian. All of my teachers agreed, I'm interested in getting his advanced textbook and working through that before I apply for a masters.

In terms of macro, I've yet to find a decent textbook. Mankiw is decent enough at an intro level, but it's far too repetitive for my liking, the same goes for Blanchard, I've looked at a few others that my professors recommended and the only one that stood out as being halfway decent was Carlin & Soskice.

Re: Game Theory

Vichy Army — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:11:57 GMT

Vichy Army, so all those economics textbooks and all those academics are finding no relationship between game theroy and the "real world"?

Um, 99% of economics you see in a University beyond intro micro is bogus and ridiculous nonsense.

Re: Game Theory

Lagrange multiplier — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:53:29 GMT

Vichy Army, so all those economics textbooks and all those academics are finding no relationship between game theroy and the "real world"?

Re: Game Theory

Lagrange multiplier — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:52:22 GMT

EconomistInTraining:
Varian all the way...

I just ordered Intermediate Microeconomics. Better be good!

Re: Game Theory

Vichy Army — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:19:05 GMT

Other than the fact that Game Theory has nothing to do with real world economics...

Re: Game Theory

EconomistInTraining — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:52:53 GMT

Varian all the way...

Re: Game Theory

Lagrange multiplier — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 01:06:27 GMT

Just to prove a point. He softened and omitted some of his more outrageously leftist points over the years, so I would consider newer editions to be preferable.

And, more honestly, I wouldn't actually recommend the textbook at all, at least not as an introduction to more mainstream economics (for that, I'd recommend Hubbard and O'Brien's Economics, David Friedman's Price Theory, and Mankiw's textbooks).

Re: Game Theory

I. Ryan — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 00:59:05 GMT

Neoclassical:

I. Ryan, I prefer Samuelson's dispassionate style, his penchant for operationalism, and his willingness to seek synthesis rather than division.

I don't buy the paradox of thrift or some of his stronger Keynesian sentiments, but I still find him less myopic than Rothbard. You can't read Rothbard and get a sense of what economists have accomplished in the 20th-century, for instance. You can become a denialist that outright dismisses mainstream economics, but I don't find that position tenable.

If nothing else, I'd want Austrian economists to more strongly hold hands with mathematical economics (etc.) for more positive feedback in both directions.

Would you suggest getting the 1948 first edition over the newer editions? Or was using the 1948 first edition in your example just supposed to emphasize your point?

Re: Game Theory

Lagrange multiplier — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:35:13 GMT

I. Ryan, I prefer Samuelson's dispassionate style, his penchant for operationalism, and his willingness to seek synthesis rather than division.

I don't buy the paradox of thrift or some of his stronger Keynesian sentiments, but I still find him less myopic than Rothbard. You can't read Rothbard and get a sense of what economists have accomplished in the 20th-century, for instance. You can become a denialist that outright dismisses mainstream economics, but I don't find that position tenable.

If nothing else, I'd want Austrian economists to more strongly hold hands with mathematical economics (etc.) for more positive feedback in both directions.

Re: Game Theory

chloe732 — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:34:37 GMT

[EDIT. I don't want to go there, my question to Neoclassical was off topic anyway.]

Re: Game Theory

I. Ryan — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:28:44 GMT

Neoclassical:

But, hell, if I wanted to learn economics so as to apply it to the real world, I'd still rather read Paul Samuelson's original 1948 version of Economics rather than anything a contemporary Austrian has written.

Can you explain why?

Re: Game Theory

DanielMuff — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:10:04 GMT

Neoclassical:
Taking issue with utility-maximization while endorsing a 100-year old faith in praxeology seems outrageous to me.

**rolls eyes** These petty attacks are boring. Can't you people come up with something better?