Skip to main content

Basic Instincts - Pete Lunn ****

I don't know why it took so long to review this book - it has been on my shelf for a few years and now it's out of print. But I'm still reviewing it, because it should still be on the shelves. It's just possible that in that time it has become a little out of date... but I have a horrible suspicion that it hasn't. Pete Lunn (himself an economist) absolutely tears the guts out of traditional economics.

 Although much of the central argument is also made in the excellent Economyths, there was more here I've never seen before.  What Lunn shows is so disastrous is the way that economics clings onto the bizarre idea that people always act in a way that is selfish, rational and based on perfect information. And what's particularly fascinating about this book is the way that Lunn shows that economics, which calls itself a science, behaves rather like the ancient Greeks often did - depending on a clash of theories, without ever doing any experiments to test those theories. The experimental side has primarily been left to psychologists and sociologists, while the economists simply ignore the results and plough on with their disastrous fiction regardless.

 Lunn uses as a model a pair of imagined towns - Marketopia and Muddleton, showing how people would behave if they were as traditional economics portrayed them, compared with reality. He also relates how a few mavericks down the years have tried to get something closer to reality. How, for instance, in the 1930s an economist actually talked to business managers about how they made decisions, rather than basing his economic theory on models. He found there was no resemblance between what firms did and how economists assumed they behaved. For example, according to traditional economics, prices should be set by the market. In reality, businesses worked out their costs and added what they thought was an appropriate markup with very limited reference to the market. And yet, the ship of economics has sailed on regardless, driving the policies of governments and central banks, using these bizarre unreal models.

 There is a small suggestion of change. Lunn shows us how some economists, for example, have at least challenged the 'perfect information' aspect and tried to see how not having perfect information would alter behaviour - but there is still primarily an assumption of selfish, 'rational' behaviour - where the economist's idea of 'rational' often simply isn't what human beings consider to be sensible.

 It's not a perfect book. It's written more like a business book that a science book, which means taking a lot of lines of text to make fairly simple points. It's rather repetitious too. But Lunn has a warm, approachable style and you can forgive him for being a little dull, given the quality of the content.

 Given this book has been around several years, the sad news seems to be that economists have still not got the message. Our economic advisors remain too dependent on traditional views of markets and on assuming people and companies will behave like the model, rather than researching how people and companies really behave and modifying the model to fit observation. It's arguable that this failure of economics is responsible for most of the economic mess we're in today, from the crash of 2008 to the rebellions of those who feel that the establishment doesn't care enough for them. We've been listening too much to conventional ancient Greek style economics and not enough to scientific economics. It's time for a change, and Lunn's book ought to give us a great lead in that. But somehow, I doubt it will.

 Hardback:  

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

  1. psbraterman17 July 2017 at 12:12

    THE book on this is surely Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow. In a delightful example of self-reference, Kahneman, having got the Nobel Memorial prize in economics for showing that people don't act on rational self-interest, gave nearly all the money away.

    Morningstar gives extra credit to companies that avoid traditional competition-based market economics altogether, by building a moat based on their special position.

    And increasingly, we have major players (from Amazon to Uber) who makes their money by inserting themselves between supplier and consumer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more