At 12:09 PM 6/3/2008, Pat Gunning wrote:

>Kirzner goes beyond the idea of economics as a 
>science of wealth to the (non-mathematical 
>neoclassical?) view that economics is the 
>science of choice and action under certain conditions.

Wouldn't the "science of (human) choice and 
action (under all conditions)" be psychology? One 
might get the definition to work by saying, "the 
science of economic choices," but then one is 
back to the problem of defining economics. Even 
then, economics as "human choices and actions" 
would still be subservient to psychology, would 
it not? There seems to be a boundary problem here.

Here's an interesting question: Which science do 
advertisers, those wonderful people who help us 
make our choices, rely on more, economics or psychology?


John C. M?daille