There seems to be an evolutionary mismatch angle here that I find interesting:
>Our brains have evolved specialized cognitive inferences, or intuitions, that solved specific recurrent problems in our ancestral environments: “Who is trustworthy enough for exchange?”; “Who belongs to us, and who is a rival?”; “Who is contributing, and who is free riding?”; “Who owns what, and by what right?” These intuitions can be triggered by modern economic situations that resemble ancestral ones, even when the actual circumstances are entirely new [from “cooperation in small bands” to “coordination among millions of strangers”].
RIP_Soulja_Slim on
>Yet, a persistent friction exists between these idealized portrayals of human beings and the ways humans actually navigate economic choices. People frequently champion policies that contravene basic economic principles, including minimum wages presumed to boost income without increasing unemployment, rent controls expected to enhance housing affordability without reducing supply, or tariffs that run counter to comparative advantage and affordability.
Man, this one comes out the gate swinging – are you a lib? Slap – minimum wages and rent controls do have drawbacks! Oh, you’re a conservative? Got one for you too, tariffs are bad for efficiency and affordability.
Mostly solid article, if it is just a bit of a rehash of known biases and misconceptions among the masses. Worth a read, specifically for the behavioral drivers that create these misconceptions.
>Folk-economic beliefs persist not because people are irrational, but because they are reasoning with tools that evolved for cooperation in small bands rather than coordination among millions of strangers. The challenge for modern societies is therefore not simply to correct mistaken beliefs, but to build policies that work with—rather than against—the grain of human psychology.
Yes well, this author is very optimistic. I suggest one afternoon in the comments section of a reddit thread, there’s not enough cynicism here.
Constant_Curve on
“Other intuitions, however—such as zero-sum thinking about trade, suspicion toward profitable innovation, or faith that authorities can simply command prices—reflect cognitive shortcuts suited to environments of scarcity and small-group control rather than decentralized abundance.”
The entire article can be summed up by the quote above.
It is wrong because:
a) scarcity is real
b) suspicion toward profitable innovation is justified in that it is a time weighted monopoly.
YourFuture2000 on
Because economy, contrary to what most people think, is human science. It is not math or physics. Economy move according to human psychology, in all its sides, not only human needs, supply, demand, plans, etc. And human psychology is not entirely presivible. Otherwise we could create the ideal healthy or whatever human behavior and mind. We can’t. Society is just people and as such it is in constant transformation (like any living thing) that often we can not see until later.
4 Comments
There seems to be an evolutionary mismatch angle here that I find interesting:
>Our brains have evolved specialized cognitive inferences, or intuitions, that solved specific recurrent problems in our ancestral environments: “Who is trustworthy enough for exchange?”; “Who belongs to us, and who is a rival?”; “Who is contributing, and who is free riding?”; “Who owns what, and by what right?” These intuitions can be triggered by modern economic situations that resemble ancestral ones, even when the actual circumstances are entirely new [from “cooperation in small bands” to “coordination among millions of strangers”].
>Yet, a persistent friction exists between these idealized portrayals of human beings and the ways humans actually navigate economic choices. People frequently champion policies that contravene basic economic principles, including minimum wages presumed to boost income without increasing unemployment, rent controls expected to enhance housing affordability without reducing supply, or tariffs that run counter to comparative advantage and affordability.
Man, this one comes out the gate swinging – are you a lib? Slap – minimum wages and rent controls do have drawbacks! Oh, you’re a conservative? Got one for you too, tariffs are bad for efficiency and affordability.
Mostly solid article, if it is just a bit of a rehash of known biases and misconceptions among the masses. Worth a read, specifically for the behavioral drivers that create these misconceptions.
>Folk-economic beliefs persist not because people are irrational, but because they are reasoning with tools that evolved for cooperation in small bands rather than coordination among millions of strangers. The challenge for modern societies is therefore not simply to correct mistaken beliefs, but to build policies that work with—rather than against—the grain of human psychology.
Yes well, this author is very optimistic. I suggest one afternoon in the comments section of a reddit thread, there’s not enough cynicism here.
“Other intuitions, however—such as zero-sum thinking about trade, suspicion toward profitable innovation, or faith that authorities can simply command prices—reflect cognitive shortcuts suited to environments of scarcity and small-group control rather than decentralized abundance.”
The entire article can be summed up by the quote above.
It is wrong because:
a) scarcity is real
b) suspicion toward profitable innovation is justified in that it is a time weighted monopoly.
Because economy, contrary to what most people think, is human science. It is not math or physics. Economy move according to human psychology, in all its sides, not only human needs, supply, demand, plans, etc. And human psychology is not entirely presivible. Otherwise we could create the ideal healthy or whatever human behavior and mind. We can’t. Society is just people and as such it is in constant transformation (like any living thing) that often we can not see until later.