Voting is no less of a rational act than any other economic decision. An individual voter gains a small but non-negligible benefit (greater likelihood of one's desired policies being put into place) at no risk and requiring only a trivial investment (a small amount of time and attention).

Unless one is going to argue that paying one's bills on time, smiling at people, and making time for one's children are irrational acts, singling out voting makes one sound less like a Jew on Christmas and more like Scrooge.

The last time I heard "reasoning" anything like what these alleged economists are offering, it was coming from fringe religious nutcase.

Maybe that's why economic theories don't work very well in practice: They're religious, rather than scientific.

I think that any good economist would reduce the cost of voting by getting an absentee ballot. The ballot comes to you in the mail so you don't wait in line. Then you can brag about how smart you are to other economists and avoid the stigma of non-voter status.

Economists flatter themselves with rationality, but the phrase "rational economist" is as much an oxymoron as the more famous "military intelligence."

These supposed deep thinkers confuse rationality with logic and logic with probability. By the same "reasoning," one might say that since an automobile costs several thousand dollars, no one dollar matters much, and there is therefore no reason to spend it. Run that one by your auto dealer and see how far you get.

They DO understand, don't they, that the very calculations of probability from which they make their livings depend on the assumption that special behaviors are not involved?

(Itself a faulty assumption, but that's another story).

somehow these assholes have convinced millions (if not billions) of people that they have a deep insight into the functioning of the world and everyone has to LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY.

Ahem.

If *I* were President, I'd outlaw economics.

I'm an academic economist, and when I see millions of people doing something, I hesitate to label it as "irrational" because it doesn't fit the cost-benefit structure just arbitrarily assumed. Revealed preference is the mother of all economic data, and clearly a whole crapload of people are revealing a preference for voting over using their time some other way. Why someone would take as an assumption that such behavior is irrational is beyond me - though if you assume that people only have preferences over outcomes as opposed to process it might appear irrational. But again, assuming that preference seems silly.

I don't think these economists are guilty of being economists, I think they're just guilty of trying to hard in a discipline that occasionally values "clevrisms" more than understanding what the hell is going on.

...the phrase "rational economist" is as much an oxymoron as the more famous "military intelligence."

Sure, but neither of them can hold a candle to "Senate Ethics Committee".

the one that says that "crapload" is a generally accepted economic term.

:)

It's also about establishing a mandate. Showing the kleptocrats that you care and are watching. Demonstrating the growing political viability of a concept or the power of a group, though it may be, this day, in a losing cause.

Economists reduce complex human interactions to hydraulics, operating on assumptions rather than empirical evidence. In 2008 they have much to answer for.

Economics is an interesting scientific discipline in that it only works when nothing interesting is going on. Imagine if medicine worked that way. Your doctor would be able to describe in great detail how things work in a healthy person, but if you caught a cold they'd start muttering about invisible hands.

one such as astrology, numerology, and phrenology. it is not not now, nor will it be then, a science. apologies to astrologers, who average more sensible, and more useful.

voting is an irrational act. they're right about that. it is a displacement activity, an empty symbolism, which allows the oligarchy to disguise itself as a kind of democracy.

but humans need empty symbolism if they can't have actual democracy. having to admit you are two legged tax cattle is a heavy psychological burden, one much relieved by the charade of elections. little wonder that the middle class votes- the alternative is public shame in the international community.

the poor know they don't count, so they don't have to cover shame by voting. the rich know they win regardless of elections, but vote anyway to maximize their power. only the middle class takes it seriously.

If we could get away from this thing about electing somebody every four years, then we could be on the road to recovery. Bush at 25%, hold an election. The irony of that is that Bush had miserable approval numbers before the 2004 election, and then consistently after, but somehow he was popular enough to get reelected. Even he was surprised, OJ surprised. Thanks Karl Rove...

The bottom line, nobody can follow this act. As for people voting their own self interest, what a laugher. Not that people understand what is in their own self interest.

But clearly we're moving toward a jobless society, and how are we going to deal with that?

of economics is that the complexities of human behavior can be reduced to mathematical formulas which can then be used to predict the future. Thus we can have Allen Greenspan expressing complete faith in his formulas while, at the same time, complaining that the world didn't work the way it "should" have because "people got greedy."

Evidently there was no room in his formula for the very predictable levels of greed that psychologists, social scientists, theologians and historians could and did predict would become the monkey wrench in the works (as we humans always become the monkey wrench in any works which allows an opening for us to do so).

In truth, the actions and reactions of human behavior tend to follow the dictates and randomness of chaos theory with "tipping points" that can't be precisely predicted (thus the title "chaos" theory) but that, nevertheless, result in massive and seemingly sudden shifts of awareness and behavior. The realities of climate change are likely to operate the same way... not much happening, not much happening, not much happening,... then at some unpredictable tipping point, massive things happening all at once.

Just as some Christians say to those who worship the Bible in place of God, "Your God is too small," so we all need to remember that, when it comes to economists, their economic theories, and their ability to predict what will actually happen,... their formulas are always too small to actually predict real life occurrences. We trust them too much and listen to their justifications too readily at our peril.