Economic Theory Overview 

+Jack Roberts Funny!

+Complexity Academy Thanks for the video! Looking forward to the series

i dont know if you take money multiplier as a paradigm downward slopping demand curves and covered intrest parity then these things are not axioms at all since they dont hold the same argument you have given for assumptions has also been given by milton friedman, ken arrow and paul samuelson on why we think on equilibrium terms or real terms these simplifying assumptions were the biggest problem with neoclassical theory and i dont like the idea of the lucas critique aka model the economy from micro to macro as if goverments are households and banks just intermediaries THIS IS JUST WRONG infact its the very mistake the new keynisians and the neoclassicals made by taking their basic principles from marginal theory nd the fact that behavior only defines the reason why agents dont maximize their profits is wrong since we know that in debt deflation people use their profits to deleverage thats what blance sheet crisis tells us and the fact that its not about money as if money are neutral a so called veil to look through as if their just commodities or legal tender and im really concerned if you view bughet as richardian equivelance does dynamics sure are better than the static models but if take the same priciples of marginal theory and ignore buisness cycles and endogenous money then you do something similar to what leontief did

@@s0uris012 I tried really hard to understand what you have written. Could you please break down your ideas with proper spacing and proper punctuation. This is not a criticism of what you have said, but how you have presented your thoughts. Thank you!

​@@atticuspoet Well this was three years ago but i guess what i was taking issue with is how assumptions in economic models/theories should be interpreted. Under the lakatos view/conventionalism/holism the basic assumptions of a theory are unfalsifiable and only the positive belts of a theory which derive from the basic assumptions are subject to testing so the theory can only be evaluated as a whole in that sense the assumptions of the hardcore of the theory are like axioms(the refrence of the video to paradigms and axioms seems to be close to this view) www.jstor.org/stable/1805586 , www.hetsa.org.au/pdf-back/16-A-11.pdf , www.cairn.info/revue-de-philosophie-economique-2012-1-page-79.htm . Then theres the anti realist/instrumentalist view that only the observable parts of theories are true or in the case of economics theoritical assumptions and behavioral entities shouldnt be taken as true and the structural realist view which states that only causal structures or patterns in scientific theories are true not entities they end up having a similar attitude in that certain behavioral assumptions shouldnt be subject to testing and a theory or model is succesfull so long as it helps you derive certain predictions or causal explanations to advice policy. People who hold those views tend to emphsize that prefrences in economic models dont refer to mental states in psychollogy so much of the behavioral econ project has been misplaced according to them www.academia.edu/6724608/Ontic_structural_realism_and_economics_the_unwanted_gift , papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3015932 , www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/193629 , mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/71933/1/MPRA_paper_71933.pdf . Then theres entity realism and robust realism people who hold this view think that the truth of entinties in theories is needed for their ability of giving explanation people who hold this view are mentalists about perfences and goal oriented behavior in economic theory and believe that agent behavior should be psychologically robust when deriving causal explanations from it and thats the view i subscribe to. I should point out that in principle somebody could be a behaviorist/samuelsonian about behavior in economic theory who thinks said intentional states dont reduce to internal mental states but i find such view implausible. Also this scientific realism for economics isnt motivated by no miracles type arguments in the literature where the empirical success of a scientific theory warrants to believe in the truth of its entities since this argument only applies to hard sciences or the best sciences and somebody coud be lakatosian and anti realist and structural realist but not lakatosian and robust realist as one of the papers i cited points out . Finally this may not be an indictment of all neoclassical approaches such as HANK or agent based neoclassical modelling that seem to work along similar lines ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lj3Jhi-GGCI.html or it may not be obvious that standard goal oriented behavior in neoclassical models is actually not psychologically robust link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-019-00837-1 , www.vsfs.cz/periodika/acta-2020-1-02.pdf and it may be pointed out that given the nature of design based experimental econometrics we could remain agnostic to significant theoretical assumptions all together and still get causal evidence and give policy adviceescholarship.org/content/qt6pc1x9r6/qt6pc1x9r6.pdf , philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15674/1/Reassessing%20QEs%20final.pdf i have some other issues with these type of responces which i wont go into. One last clarification by realism i dont mean simply semantic realism or epistemic realism but the realism i have in mind is about the relationship of certain parts of models and theory and ''external reality'' in some sense which could be compatible with a deflationary notion of truth .I dont agree with tony lawsons views but he is correct when he points that out ejpe.org/journal/article/view/70 .

Yes a typo, well noted!

Maybe this video will help to answer your question goo.gl/kQ1xPa

The fruit of knowledge isn't always tasty!