Philosophical discussion on economics, psychology, and logic with no actionable leads

Another mini-surprise is the physics-like care in definitions. The reason is that my arguments later will drive logic pretty far. Logic needs words that are like algeraic symbols in meaning the same thing all along. Figuratively and literally, foundations are groundwork. They will be less a chore if you love logic. And you'd better if you’re going to like the later chapters. Let’s get started. Orientation Economics itself, I think, is a quantitative rationale of choices. Psychology is a sister study not explicitly quantitative, and accounting for subliminal behavior as well as deliberate choices. The two fields cooperate and overlap. Economics is quantitative in that it asks how much as well as what, and focuses on numbers. It is science-like in that it looks for surprising and testable predictions in the end. It is philosophy- like in that choices are subjective and that the larger factor, human capital, leaves little market evidence from which to reason upward. Both facts put the burden on reasoning downward from axioms. Much of the evidence for both factors, meaning physical and human capital, comes from the records of literal markets where we rent and hire and buy and sell. Most economics looked no further until Gary Becker and others expanded the boundaries about 50 years ago. The expansion made sense. A rationale of choices in literal markets alone is a silly concept. It is silly to acknowledge only choices that ring cash registers. We are the same people everywhere. Logic is the same everywhere. We have little interest in axioms that aren’t the same everywhere. Becker was right to see choices in marriage and even crime as predictable in terms of supply and demand and price. That includes psychic price. Once we follow Becker past literal markets, we accept psychic value and yield. We must anyhow. Value is in the mind. Economics works as Chapter 3: Foundations 1/11/16 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010973