math and economics

Tonight for my economics class I am reading “A Theory of Marriage” by Gary S. Becker. Besides being totally ridiculous and quite sexist, it has far to much math in it. Less then half way through I came across this footnote:

clearly...

ARE YOU SERIOUS?? I don’t think it should be legal to use the word “clearly” to lead into an equation with that many variables.

At the beginning of the year I read a critique of contemporary economics which had a whole chapter on the abuse of math in economics. This included an story from the cold war period. There once was a communist country which banned all imports of economics textbooks and journals, except for one (I wish I could remember which one it was). This journal contained so much math (and made so little sense) that the censors deemed it harmless to communism. They felt there was no way to understand capitalism through this journal. My homework tonight feels like that.

UPDATE: I talked to my Economics professor about this. Apparently it was in Romania.

2 Responses to “math and economics”

  1. Melanie says:

    just as clearly, what is unconcealed is not Being as such but human existence in its secular-temporal-linguistic authenticity. take that, econ! boo yah! heidegger will win a contest with your pussy-ass econ textbook any day.

    although that’s a pretty hilarious story about the communist country…

  2. eleanor says:

    okay… seriously, philosophy could probably take on neoclassical economics any day of the week. … with it’s left hand tied behind it’s back. Though I think it might be a party foul to link that many three syllable words together…. just a thought.

Leave a Reply