<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Technique Is Not Wisdom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html</link>
	<description>where orders emerge</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manfred</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/comment-page-1#comment-185758</link>
		<dc:creator>Manfred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=6878#comment-185758</guid>
		<description>Stand corrected. Thanks. M</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stand corrected. Thanks. M</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/comment-page-1#comment-185759</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=6878#comment-185759</guid>
		<description>Another interpretation is that Baumol is writing for the readers of the Rand Journal and knowing his audience feels he has to address the math issue: don&#039;t be put off by the absence of formal models - this is a great book! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another interpretation is that Baumol is writing for the readers of the Rand Journal and knowing his audience feels he has to address the math issue: don&#8217;t be put off by the absence of formal models &#8211; this is a great book!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/comment-page-1#comment-185722</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=6878#comment-185722</guid>
		<description>RE: &quot;Keynes&#039; famous book [his &quot;General Theory&quot;] was written without a single equation, and the profession spent the next 50 years sorting out &quot;what Keynes really, really, REALLY meant&quot;.&quot;Sure it did! Chapters 6, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, and 21 have equations in them. Chapter 23 has poetry and Chapter 24 has philosophy. What&#039;s not to like? :) It&#039;s true he doesn&#039;t rely on a lot of math, but it&#039;s definitely in there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: &#8220;Keynes&#8217; famous book [his "General Theory"] was written without a single equation, and the profession spent the next 50 years sorting out &#8220;what Keynes really, really, REALLY meant&#8221;.&#8221;Sure it did! Chapters 6, 8, 10, 14, 19, 20, and 21 have equations in them. Chapter 23 has poetry and Chapter 24 has philosophy. What&#8217;s not to like? <img src='http://cafehayek.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  It&#8217;s true he doesn&#8217;t rely on a lot of math, but it&#8217;s definitely in there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manfred</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/comment-page-1#comment-185720</link>
		<dc:creator>Manfred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=6878#comment-185720</guid>
		<description>One has to be careful in critizing models. Models can help quantify effects, can help sort out logical fallacies and logical mistakes, and can help with the comparative statics. Keynes&#039; famous book [his &quot;General Theory&quot;] was written without a single equation, and the profession spent the next 50 years sorting out &quot;what Keynes really, really, REALLY meant&quot;.

Yes, formalism can be abused, and one really wonders if every paper published in the Journal of Economic Theory or even Econometrica has value from an econ point of view. Even the American Economic Association, a few years ago, had studies done by very prestigious members of the profession [Debreu, etc], that discovered that grad students in the best graduate programs [Harvard, MIT, Chicago] could solve a highly complicated general equilibrium problem, but could *not* answer relatively &quot;simple&quot; questions like what happens to the price of a hair cut when the price of scissor increases.

Again, formalism can be abused, yes, but dismissing modeling outright, I think is a mistake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One has to be careful in critizing models. Models can help quantify effects, can help sort out logical fallacies and logical mistakes, and can help with the comparative statics. Keynes&#8217; famous book [his "General Theory"] was written without a single equation, and the profession spent the next 50 years sorting out &#8220;what Keynes really, really, REALLY meant&#8221;.</p>
<p>Yes, formalism can be abused, and one really wonders if every paper published in the Journal of Economic Theory or even Econometrica has value from an econ point of view. Even the American Economic Association, a few years ago, had studies done by very prestigious members of the profession [Debreu, etc], that discovered that grad students in the best graduate programs [Harvard, MIT, Chicago] could solve a highly complicated general equilibrium problem, but could *not* answer relatively &#8220;simple&#8221; questions like what happens to the price of a hair cut when the price of scissor increases.</p>
<p>Again, formalism can be abused, yes, but dismissing modeling outright, I think is a mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/technique-is-not-wisdom.html/comment-page-1#comment-185713</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cafehayek.com/?p=6878#comment-185713</guid>
		<description>RE: &quot;Williamson’s book is wonderful – and apparently more trustworthy because its author knows math.&quot;He never said or implied this Don.Good economics rests on three pillars: informal intuition, formal modeling, and empirical verification. Any insight is stronger when it has all three. You act like people who appreciate these pillars just want math for math&#039;s sake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: &#8220;Williamson’s book is wonderful – and apparently more trustworthy because its author knows math.&#8221;He never said or implied this Don.Good economics rests on three pillars: informal intuition, formal modeling, and empirical verification. Any insight is stronger when it has all three. You act like people who appreciate these pillars just want math for math&#8217;s sake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

