priligy after alcohol
Sandbox
[ Edit ]
Back to Snip <-- Previous Change | Next Change -->
| Diff Summary | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | I was watching the n | Micro is not somethi | |||
| Date | 2014-02-19 09:29:56 | 2014-02-19 09:30:03 | |||
| Editor | Anonymous | Anonymous | |||
| Edit | Edit this version | Edit this version | |||
| Tags | |||||
| 2014-02-19 09:29:56 by Anonymous / Edit this version | 2014-02-19 09:30:03 by Anonymous / Edit this version | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t | 1 | I was watching the news last night and found him < | t | 1 | Micro is not something I have <a href="http://bnrd |
| > | a href="http://zlfbqa.com">taknlig</a> to the jour | > | mcrdrr.com">stuiedd</a> since college, so I can't | ||
| > | nalists again, complaining and complaining.I just | > | speak to the present stare of the field, but texts | ||
| > | find he is those sort of people who can be never h | > | in use seem to take pretty much the same tack. Th | ||
| > | appy. | > | e basic notion is elasticity of supply and demand | ||
| > | in near perfect markets with equally rational agen | ||||
| > | ts seek to maximize utility (consumers) or profit | ||||
| > | (producers) in terms of available options and oppo | ||||
| > | rtunity costs. The outcome is the identity of valu | ||||
| > | e and price as a discovery resulting from the free | ||||
| > | operation of the near perfect market. then issue | ||||
| > | are brought in that complicate a simple analysis, | ||||
| > | such as nominal v. real, monopoly etc.This is a go | ||||
| > | od simple model that is easy to understand for beg | ||||
| > | inners. But are beginners told that this is only t | ||||
| > | he beginning and that this narrative is simplified | ||||
| > | to the point of being simplistic because the real | ||||
| > | world is much more complex than the model suggest | ||||
| > | s?For what I can tell neo-classical economists adm | ||||
| > | it that developed economic understanding is not ac | ||||
| > | hieved before grad school. However, again, as far | ||||
| > | as I can see, they work in terms of the simple mod | ||||
| > | el, articulating the nuance.Heterodox economics, a | ||||
| > | nd there are a number of heterodox schools in econ | ||||
| > | omics and related disciplines now, don't follow th | ||||
| > | e same methodological path. For example, instituti | ||||
| > | onal economics studies institutional arrangements | ||||
| > | that affect behavior.BTW I would recommend that ec | ||||
| > | onomists drop the term "choice" when they mean beh | ||||
| > | avior, since "choice" is a subjective term. If the | ||||
| > | y persist on using "choice," then they have to inc | ||||
| > | orporate cognitive-behavioral science in accountin | ||||
| > | g for it to be logically consistent with the meani | ||||
| > | ng of the terms they are using in order to avoid c | ||||
| > | onfusion. This is always a problem in using ordina | ||||
| > | ry language terminology in technical discourse tha | ||||
| > | t depends for rigor on operational definitions. Co | ||||
| > | nsumer and firm behavior is perfectly obvious in t | ||||
| > | ransactions, which are recorded as entries in ledg | ||||
| > | er and summarized in accounting reports. Why say, | ||||
| > | "X chose y," or X preferred y," when X bought y is | ||||
| > | the case. | ||||
