Professor Ali Khan (@JohnsHopkins) explores the tensions between mathematics, economics, and the relentless institutional pressures to formalize economic thinking.
@@EvolutionWendy The desire to be in possession of facts and knowledge in general -- I would let go of that. Our lives have meaning because we create stories, form, art. Facts, I argue, do not exist, only perspectives, frog perspectives...
Essentially, the same observations may be made for the relation of any science with mathematics, wherein substance may be stated in formal terms, transformed using analytical tools, and that result then restated as substance (Feynman has some excellent lectures on this). Thus, depending on the tool, differing perspectives. Similarly, all sciences have an issue with domain, as all is inevitably part of a same whole, and it is the observer who must choose which models and abstractions are worthy of pursuit, and indeed, what they "mean". TL;DR Lovely talk, but I still haven't understood what "New Economic Thinking" as a channel is trying to convey.
Believing people envy you is a delusional trait of those who lack sufficient healthy parenting. Your second point is illogical and best understood as a psychological projection. You will continue to give away your undeveloped psychology with your cognitive biases and logical fallacies until you learn more about how you operate.
What i hate are "underlying assumptions" when we econometricians start looking for a "fit" in data. That is why economists can never predict any human-related phenomena
@@ekwing7968 And BTW, in another remark I asked "What does modal logic have to do with non-standard analysis? Is he confused or am I ignorant?" He mentions modal logic at 12:00. Abraham Robinson was my advisor's advisor. I studied modal logic under Nino Cocchiarella. I don't know what he's talking about.
@11:08 he goes back to question, “what is mathematical economics”….”and what has it accomplished for economics”….I would ask, what has it done for society or the economy? Economics has been politicized to such an extent that most economists toe the Governments line on economy and use mathematics to back into a justification to get gov’t favor and get quoted in newspaper or maybe spot on TV. When has the Fed actually been right? And when will economists call them out for it…anyone remember “transitory inflation” or “the American housing market will never go down”? Anyone remember any econmists stating what a joke it was and refuting it publically. Has CNBC ever been critical with Democrat as President. America has suffered at the pen of culture-economists whose intellictual curiosity stops at public census. The Fed has lost all credibility and the Economic profession risks the same. Mathematical gymnastics to find predetermined answer may get someone tenur but does not explain real economy.
Metaphysics Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).
Abraham Robinson was my advisor's advisor. I studied modal logic under Nino Cocchiarella. I have a masters in econ too and I don't understand the relevance of this. Maybe one of those people commenting on how brilliant and so profound this is can explain it to me.
I found the Brown and Robinson papers he must be referring to. They appear to be doing math that has nothing to do with real economics. If you know otherwise, I'd like to learn from you. The Cores of Large Standard Exchange Economies, 1972 Non-Standard Exchange Economies, 1971
If you have confusions, you should write to him directly for clarification, instead of complaining or asking random viewers. Just google his name and you'll find his email.
Who is this Professor Ali Khan? Is he another scholar who has been and is used as tool by and for The Establishment? Do we understand scholars? Are they paid to quantify the human condition, to mold and massage their work for The Establishment? Yes, we understand that mathematics is used to express the human condition. AND, THE SIGNIFICANT OF THAT IS? Where in all the research, lectures, and discussions has math, as expression, been the distinct cause for the good-and-wholesome? Math is nothing more than tool for searching and exploring. Math is not a decision maker. Math is not a counselor. Math is not a negotiator. Math is not a salesperson. Math is used as an excuse for reason, and as rhyme for telling stories. The scholar is pawn for games, whether the games are rigged or not rigged. New World Man - RUSH #WeAreRent books 1 & 2 by Fred Harrison Professor Ali Khan, thank you for participating. Although my comment is critical, I mean no disrespect. The lecture is informative.
Economics as it is taught in modern day universities is a conditioning process, it's rank ideology, no scholastic rigor is required nor allowed . Modern economics curriculum was written by an elite class to indoctrinate, condition and subjugate an academic class so as to propagate their theories. These theories when put into practice creates an economic environment which is design to subjugate and confine a middle and lower class for perpetuity under it's rules, which is there are no rules. All is accomplished with a veneer of intellectual superiority and snobbery. No need for Marx, simply because Marx predicted exactly this situation. Good theories have predictive qualities. Ideology just needs modelling. Just change the initial assumption and you can have any output you desire. As a consequence modern day economic theorists are unwitting simpletons no smarter than a parrot but more harmful and far less amusing.
My daughter hates her college economic course... She can't put her finger on it, but I think her intellect is rebelling. It's so much disjointed information that's been cut off from its main assumptions... Indoctrination is a good way to describe it.
Look into Austrian Economics. It's considered heterodox, like Marxian theory, but has a far. more epistemologically grounded framework than Marx's post-modernist, historicist, obscurantist doctrine.
@@slow_goon73 somewhere along the lines economics went from a diagnostic tool to a top-down way of imposing a state's will on people. I tend to reject all frameworks in favor of a radical commitment to ones neighbors.
I find it weird that people are loving this (based on the comments). It sounds like rubbish to me. But if someone could explain otherwise, I'd really like to know.
