Two people are selected to be the firm. The rest are consumers. The firm is endowed with an operating budget. Consumers are endowed with income. The firm has a product to sell (donuts, pens, or even a pseudo financial instrument with no knowable expected value to the consumer). The firm has the opportunity to purchase marketing research (two consumers come out in the hall to test the product and give an opinion on price). The firm can also purchase traditional marketing (a pretty poster or something). The firm sets a price and the consumers decide to purchase or not. (The price setting can be done simultaneously by consumers submitting written bids before knowing the price. Different market institutions can be tested. Different supply schedules (production functions) can also be tested.) Repeat the process. Allow entrepreneurs (former consumers) to enter. Allow firms to go bankrupt.
We have to get away from avoiding utility because it "is too abstract." We have to show students that the market works (better) when it is not contrived. I do not know what the results of the game would be. It depends on the product and the people just like real life.
Economists must (re)tackle utility and value if they want to progress. The supply and demand game is not good enough. Students should see Hayek's discovery process.
You cannot learn anything superficially. You might do alright on a test, but you will not retain anything. Economics has to stop teaching superficial ideas. It has plenty of real lessons; it just takes more effort to teach and learn them.
This thought applies to my post about women. Women are Truth's (God's) most beautiful creation, but many (as well as many men) are superficial. Being superficial means denying reality. It is a refusal to see.
Economics has been superficial since Marshall. It is time to see again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment