.
"One day in the early 1970s, Amos handed me a mimeographed essay by a Swiss economist named Bruno Frey, which discussed the psychological assumptions of economic theory. I vividly remember the color of the cover: dark red. Bruno Frey barely recalls writing the piece, but I can still recite its first sentence: “The agent of economic theory is rational, selfish, and his tastes do not change.” I was astonished. My economist colleagues worked in the building next door, but I had not appreciated the profound difference between our intellectual worlds. To a psychologist, it is self-evident that people are neither fully rational nor completely selfish, and that their tastes are anything but stable. Our two disciplines seemed to be studying different species, which the behavioral economist Richard Thaler later dubbed Econs and Humans. Unlike Econs, the Humans that psychologists know have a System 1. Their view of the world is limited by the information that is available at a given moment (WYSIATI), and therefore they cannot be as consistent and logical as Econs. They are sometimes generous and often willing to contribute to the group to which they are attached. And they often have little idea of what they will like next year or even tomorrow.
...
Most graduate students in economics have heard about prospect theory and loss aversion, but you are unlikely to find these terms in the index of an introductory text in economics. I am sometimes pained by this omission, but in fact it is quite reasonable, because of the central role of rationality in basic economic theory. The standard concepts and results that undergraduates are taught are most easily explained by assuming that Econs do not make foolish mistakes. This assumption is truly necessary, and it would be undermined by introducing the Humans of prospect theory, whose evaluations of outcomes are unreasonably short-sighted. There are good reasons for keeping prospect theory out of introductory texts. The basic concepts of economics are essential intellectual tools, which are not easy to grasp even with simplified and unrealistic assumptions about the nature of the economic agents who interact in markets. Raising questions about these assumptions even as they are introduced would be confusing, and perhaps demoralizing. It is reasonable to put priority on helping students acquire the basic tools of the discipline."
.
Só que parece que os estudantes nunca chegam a ter contacto com as tentativas de descrição científica da tomada de decisões entre Humans, para eles as decisões são tomadas por Econs.
.
Depois, saem das universidades e chegam a posições de relevo e a única alavanca explicativa e descritora da realidade baseia-se em Econs:
.
"Custo do trabalho "reduzido" para estimular economia"
.
"Os custos do trabalho estão a ser reduzidos para melhorar a competitividade
...
Esta "redução de custos" deverá servir para "impulsionar o setor dos bens transacionáveis até se concretizar o impacto da agenda de reformas estruturais"."
.
Estes ex-estudantes não pescam nada da revolução económica em curso... são quase como os políticos da oposição que pedem mais crescimento, que eu traduzo por: mais autopistas e mais empréstimos bancários para consumo.
.
Ex-estudantes e políticos da oposição e da situação deviam procurar perceber melhor a economia dos Humans, o advento de Mongo e a recalibração em curso. Se olharmos para a nossa situaçãop actual como uma recessão clássica, então, os estímulos pedidos pela oposição e o discurso do ex-estudante agora ministro das Finanças, apontam para um regresso mais rápido ou mais lento a um set-point já vivido no passado. Ou seja, voltar a ter um PIB medonho assente em construção, comércio e empregos no Estado...
.
Estamos é a caminho de um outro set-point, diferente e, por isso, não servem as políticas dinamizadoras de um Grande Líder... a coisa vai mais como o fuçar de um conjunto de empreendedores. Talvez o termo seja próximo deste: efectuação.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário