This time I will write in English. I remember that someone told me once that as a first year undergrad in civil engineering, one of the teachers showed him the photograph of a collapsed bridge. The guy would be quite categorical about it: in this job, if you make a lazy work, if you make mistakes, there are consequences. So if you think you cannot stand the responsibility, you better choose another career. In this job, you never let the bridges fall.
And now that we start a new academical year, I think this message should be exported to undergrads in Economics. Were I teaching them, I think I would show one of those striking pictures easily found in the internet, like the infamous one taken by Kevin Carter, months before committing suicide. I would say: guys, this is what happens when you don't take your job seriously. In the end, this is all about people, and when you make mistakes, it is people who pay them . This is not about showing the others that you are the smartest guy, that you have envisaged a fancy theory about economic organization that will work out all the problems and lead us to utopia. Models can help you to do your job, but in the end, they inevitably fail in describing the human nature. There is not a theory about human behavior. People don't maximize utilities, don't aspire to maximum profit. People make mistakes, and sometimes on purpose. If you aspire to get such a theory or model, if you want your wisdom to be acknowledged, then I can suggest you a couple of innocuous fields where you will have a lot of fun without harming people.
When you are an economist, it is easy to hide behind charts and numbers, production rates, inflation and taxes. And then you finish your studies and you might end up working in a central bank, in the ministry, or an international organization, whatever. There, you try to reproduce the dogma somebody passionately filled your head with, fight for it, make it your life goal. Or maybe you simply try to keep some numbers within a range, no matter the price. If that happens, then you are already making mistakes, you are doing a lazy work. If that's gonna happen, then you better leave this class now. If you cannot stand the consequences of your mistakes, choose another career. If you don't see the part of your responsibility when looking at this picture, we, the rest of the people that will suffer from your mistakes, don't want you in charge. It is simple: please, if you are gonna stay here, make sure that you never let the bridges fall.
Why do you tell us this while we are doing a lazy job always? You can´t be so cruel. You´ll make leave my Phd thesis now, jejeje!
ResponderEliminarThese reflexive thoughts come to you brain often?
See you
No entiendo selecciona un perfil
Javier, just a small thing, why do you say "There is not a theory about human behavior"? Psychologists would be quite unhappy about this. And in particular, as you surely know, there's the field of "Behavioral Economics" out there, check for example the book 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely, which I'm sure you will like.
ResponderEliminarOther than this, and concerning the main point of the article, I would consider the human nature and say "He who is without sin, cast the first stone". I agree though that it should be emphasized that some possible consequences of our decisions in economics should simple not happen (in the same way that a physician or a pilot learn that) . But again, as you say, considering the difficulty of predicting the future in economics, based on the human nature, what is your idea to implement a "Never let the bridge fall" system in economics?
David M.
Thank you Javi.
ResponderEliminarAre you thinking of becoming an Economy Teacher??? Please, we need people like you telling things like this!!!!!
I hope everything is ok.
Maria.
Hey, thanks for the comments, it is nice that you took some time to read this stuff, I really appreciate it.
ResponderEliminarLet me answer the technical questions, and the personal ones, we can discuss them with some drinks :D.
1) About the "theory of human behavior". Maybe you would feel better if I say "there is no simple theory of human behavior". Of course there are many studies about human psichology, but as far as i understand them, they tend to enrichen the complexity of human beings, not to simplify it. In Economics, it has been seeked intensely some simple rule to explain how human beings make choices. This is ok as far as you realize you are studying a particular aspect of the problem (this is what i understand it means to make models), but some people use this kind of simplifications to claim that society actually works that way "naturally", and if it doesn't, is because there are constraints that must be removed. Then they try to change the rules for the ease of this kind of behaviors, and as a result the system gets unstable because, actually, things are more complicated in reality. The problem, somehow, is that in human sciences the "system", i.e., human beings, can react to the actual theory, and adapt its behaviour, or be manipulated to emphasize the aspects that the theory considers important. Hence, it is not clear to what extent a theory is descriptive or prescriptive.
2) About implementing such a system. Well, probably that's a task that concerns economists. I don't know, I guess the way the subject is taught should change, but I think a good starting point is to emphasize the importance that Economics has in our society, and that it carries a big responsibility.