[ExI] Inevitability of the Singularity (was Re: To Max, re Natasha and Extropy (Kevin Haskell)

[Stefano Vaj]

On 12 July 2011 14:11, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/7/12 Stefano Vaj wrote:
> > Economics tells us that economic subjects behave "rationally" (or at
> least
> > according to game theory and if taken in large enough numbers) in
> maximising
> > their own interests and preferences.
> >
> > But it does not imply in the least that such interests are "rational" in
> any
> > plausible sense of the word (btw, even the accumulation of exchange
> units,
> > that is money, may be plausibly considered as irrational in certain
> > contexts).
>
> That's the main fault in traditional economics. Investors don't behave
> the way the theory says they should. Investors are more like herds of
> lemmings, piling in to bubbles, fashions and current fads.
>

Yes, this is an additional angle. But even in a "perfect market", where
everybody *does* behave rationally, what decides the price a consumer is
ready to pay, say, for a holiday trip, which does not generate any
additional income? How much would you have him to pay to make him renounce
it? Present values are not determined economically in any sense, but by
cultural factors.

Either the theory is wrong or people are.  I suspect the latter.   ;)
>

 I have another say.

Either the theory is right, but it is not falsifiable (any behaviour is
rational since it reflects the perceived best interest in the broadest sense
of the subject concerned, including philanthropy or gambling or laziness),
or the theory is falsifiable but is wrong (everybody is ready to exchange
money for non monetary goals, such as power, pleasure, moral satisfaction,
goodwill, status, peer approval,  rest, security...)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110713/692a0144/attachment.html>