Talk:Mathiness

Appreciation

Thanks for adding this page. The reason for Rome easy criticism is not stared clearly. I'll post it here in hopes we can add that clarity.

Unfortunately rover us only half right. Even if priors were removed from models, even the very premise of aggregate goods obscures tge central problem that separates mainstream economics from resulting policy decisions: economics ignores and perhaps interested tonally circumvents our moral differences. And political policy and votes are exercised morally. Curtd59 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting. I guess being right or wrong is not allways the same as being moral or immoral. But we need a scientific source to add this discussion in an wikipedia-article. Any idea? --Pass3456 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ronald Coase

My point was simply that such tax proposals [for Pigovian taxes compensating for the transaction costs] are the stuff that dreams are made of. In my youth it was said, that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics.

-- Ronald Coase, “Notes on the Problem of Social Cost” in “Firm, the Market, and the Law” (University of Chicago Press, 1990)

Ceplm (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]