• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    In the hardcore contemporary literature you mostly see more precise language such as perfect competition, (theoretical) situations which are pareto-optimal, which is built on Adam’s rational choice models. The maths became more solid, the idea didn’t change. They didn’t have game theory back then.

    And FFS read The Wealth of Nations and see what he thought of monopolists he’d consider our billionaires to be no different than the kings of old. The father of capitalism was out for universal wealth and happiness, not personal enrichment.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 个月前

      You honestly seem obsessed with that adam dude.

      I think your problem is that you seem to think that “perfect” mathematical models will ever work in real life.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 个月前

        I think your problem is that you seem to think that “perfect” mathematical models will ever work in real life.

        I said the exact opposite the whole thread. Are you confusing me with a capitalist or something.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 个月前

          It’s all you talk about though.

          No one cares about Adam when his ideas are frankly stupid. Or at least how you describe them. He might be a solid dude.