Economics is called the science of choices.
Yet then we had game theory and rational choice theory etc assuming that consumers are perfectly rational agents. This produces pretty theoretical models but, come on, no one can pretend that human mind are simply price calculators.
EO Wilson says that economists, when they dont presume utter rationality, get by with "folk" psychology. That is, they base their studies on 'choice' on flawed intuitive unscientific psychology. I dont understand how any micro-economist could get by without a knowledge of psychology or neuroscience.
Perfect Example. Dominique Strauss Kahn. As an economic agent trying to make a success of his life, surely the rational economically-sound thing to do would have been to ignore the cleaner, and just think of the success that would be the French presidency. Yet he abuses her which, though disgusting in itself, was irrational from his economic perspective. Yet from an evolutionary perspective, giving in to one's libido makes perfect sense.
By the same token, is the IMF's forced austerity in Portugal etc born of its executives' rational thinking, or of their tribal dedication to ideology and fear of going against the consensus?
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I tend to go on a bit! =L
Btw I ordered this the other day. It's an attack on the theory of equilibriums and stuff, in favour of an "evolutionary" model of business.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Economics/dp/0712676619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306866975&sr=8-1