Thursday, October 15, 2015

re-SMBC part 6

More accurate redo of SMBC number 3823:



This is a bit inaccurate, because of course an economist wouldn't even ask why...

2 comments:

JohnRaymond said...

Well at least I learned a Latin expression ;-)

Vera L. te Velde said...

yeah, that one is a bit of a mantra among economists, used to emphasize the fact that preferences must be taken for granted - the very foundation of choice theory in fact being that so long as choices are consistent, in a very very weak sense (i.e. it's very hard to prove that choices are not consistent), we can take them to represent well-defined preferences, and those preferences should be taken for granted. hence, there is very little room for the role of "rationality enforcer" suggested in the original comic. choices represent preferences and there's no disputing preferences. of course behavioral economists are hard at work adding nuance to this fundamental insight (identifying mistakes and heuristics and biases and instabilities and all kinds of other things in preferences) but it's nonetheless an extremely important starting point and one that I personally feel is too quickly being forgotten. anyway, you didn't ask for a joke-explaining rant so I should stop :)