Re: [OPE] Behavioural economics: a revolution in science?

I fear that Tony Tinker has a position contrary to more than a hundred years of Austrian tradition fighting Walras, Jevon and Pareto. Concerning accounting and management misconceptions in neo-classical Economics is useful to read the South African scholar G. F. Thirlby among other Austrians.   But I don’t understand how your epistemological commentaries refute my argument. Could you establish concrete links among them and my contention about measurement of MC’s?   Sincerely yours,A. Agafonow ----- Mensaje original ---- De: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: miércoles, 1 de octubre, 2008 18:45:28 Asunto: RE: [OPE] Behavioural economics: a revolution in science? > Some time economists forget the useful practical knowledge that management sciences have accumulated for the sake of the direction of a firm. > Part of this knowledge concerns accurate accounting systems.     Hi Alejandro:   This calls to mind something which (OPE-Ler) Tony Tinker said in a talk Friday night. He claimed that mainstream management and accounting theory is based on neo-classical economic theory.   Be that as it may, the more astute analysts in industrial organization and corporate finance have tossed out marginalism as being too far removed from the real-world conditions that they have to consider. Oh, sure, you can still find marginalist textbooks on industrial organization, but who uses that stuff in the real world?  What this means in practice is that many managers have to "de-learn" what they learned in graduate school if they're to de their jobs efficiently.   In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Oct 1 13:22:06 2008