Dale Jorgenson: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/3618131148 |name=Eric Weinstein |usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein |username=EricRWeinstein |content=Rules are that it has to be in the Econ department on video with Becker present at Chicago or Jorgenson at Harvard. |thread= {{Tweet |image=Eric profile picture.jpg |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/3617527422 |name=Eric Weinstein |...") 聽 |
No edit summary 聽 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |image=Eric profile picture.jpg | ||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 9 December 2025
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.
Arrow's impossibility theorem can be seen as a cohomological obstruction to constructing representative consumers without magical thinking.
Becker's theory of stable homogenous tastes on the other hand is....words fail me...the greatest indictment of peer review. Ever.
Just for a moment...put yourself in my shoes. I have an amazing theory of welfare with evolving tastes and a cult that claims stable tates.
Why stop at stable tastes? Why not declare yourself the last Pasha of Scotland and immune from bigamy laws as a winged son of Zeus?
$500 Challenge: Get me an invited Econ gig at Chicago / Harvard to confront the theory of ordinal welfare with stable homogenous tastes.