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