Schelling on Equilibrium

By -
Noting that "equilibrium" does not equate to "good":

"The body of a hanged man is in equilibrium when it finally stops swinging, but nobody is going to insist that the man is all right." -- Thomas Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior, pp. 26-27

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell7:21 PM

    Who has ever said "equilibrium" is good? I never seen it used as anything other than a simple metric detached from normative claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:36 PM

      Thomas Schelling won the Nobel Prize in economics. He says people often misinterpret equilibrium as a normative concept. Are you saying he doesn't know what he is talking about?

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell3:07 PM

      No, not at all. I just wasn't sure whether or not he was responding to people who say "equilibrium" is good or people who assume that it is without saying so. I'd never assume that I'm more knowledgeable in economics than a Nobel prize winner! But I wonder how many more economic concepts are mistaken for normative standards.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more