Join 3,425 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Scarcity - "More noms plz."
January 9, 2011 6:21 PM   Subscribe

The concept of "Nom Nom Nom" is central to EcoNomNomNomics.
posted by Phire (26 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Knee-jerk reaction:

Good idea. Awful execution.
posted by Tomorrowful at 6:22 PM on January 9, 2011 [4 favorites]


Pretty much my thoughts, too, yeah, though they say that more content will be forthcoming and I have (perhaps naively) high hopes for it.
posted by Phire at 6:25 PM on January 9, 2011


In my microeconomics class, we called them "jollies". The concept seems to be the same.
posted by muddgirl at 6:30 PM on January 9, 2011


As a central metaphor or lens by which to examine economics (and resource distribution in general), this publication is not without its critics.

In other news, here's a nifty link on economics and the free market.
posted by sebastienbailard at 6:32 PM on January 9, 2011


Economists believe everything comes down to dollars and cents (or your currency of choice). Just like the Cookie Monster believes everything comes down to cookies. And placing the Cookie Monster in charge would produce the same result as placing Economists in charge. Just with more chocolate chips.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:35 PM on January 9, 2011 [4 favorites]


How Twee.
posted by delmoi at 6:39 PM on January 9, 2011


I'm not sure I trust them to teach me complicated economic concepts when they can't even spell "sandwich" correctly.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 6:40 PM on January 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


This is all stuff I learned in AP Micro, though. Meh.
posted by LSK at 6:50 PM on January 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


So, the invisible hand stole the last cookie?
posted by clicking the 'Post Comment' button at 7:01 PM on January 9, 2011 [4 favorites]


I'm holding out for the Larry Gonick version myself.
posted by immlass at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2011


it was foresighted

And I'm done guys.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 7:06 PM on January 9, 2011 [1 favorite]


Whoa, I apparently liked this on Facebook awhile back. I do not remember this.

Looking at it again, it's really cute. Almost too cute. And vaguely lolcats-ish. I'm wondering where I found this before??
posted by majonesing at 7:23 PM on January 9, 2011


I'm not sure I trust them to teach me complicated economic concepts when they can't even spell "sandwich" correctly.

Do economists not believe in using spellcheck?

The site is kind of boring to look at with its simplistic layout and the clipart-esque graphics. They seem to be trying to hold the LOLcat connection at arms length but they need something to make the site more appealing. The subject matter is probably too dry to keep the average person (many of whom could probably stand some enlightening in this area) interested.

I'd like to see how they might use the cutesy "nom nom nom" to explain what happened with the US economy in 2008 and 2009.
posted by fuse theorem at 8:01 PM on January 9, 2011 [2 favorites]


I want to get a book deal too.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 9:17 PM on January 9, 2011


Needs more anarcho-syndicalist commentary from...

Nom Chompsky.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:19 PM on January 9, 2011 [9 favorites]


Economists believe everything comes down to dollars and cents

You're joking, right? We use dollars and cents periodically because currency is fungible. Most economic principles can be easily explained without using currency at all.
posted by Sutekh at 10:40 PM on January 9, 2011 [3 favorites]


I am totally NOT joking. And economic principles, currency-based or not, do not explain everything, least of all human behavior, singly or group. Economics theories require a mythical being called "the rational actor", which, from my 55 years dealing with human beings, I have concluded doesn't exist. Economics has become as irrational as religions, and nations that build themselves primarily on Economic Principles, Capitalist or Socialist, lack HUMANITY.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:04 PM on January 9, 2011


I am totally NOT joking.

Then you're just wrong, and have missed (or wilfully ignored) the decades of economic scholarship that has concerned itself with precisely the issues you raise.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 11:14 PM on January 9, 2011 [6 favorites]


Too cute by half, but more importantly: supply and demand curves are about as tied to reality as the equal transit time depiction of a wing generating lift.

People buy things that they do not need at prices which they cannot afford to pay. The airplane can fly upside down. These are both silly explanations.
posted by paisley henosis at 11:28 PM on January 9, 2011 [2 favorites]


A good example of the results of "decades of economic scholarship" can be found two threads up. Rewriting history to fit "principles" - the Capitalists have learned well from the Communists.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:48 PM on January 9, 2011


It isn't exactly true that economic theory requires rational behavior. Becker's old 1962 paper shows that even irrational behavior will generate downward sloping market demand curves, even if everyone is irrational. Budget constraints are still going to bind the insane and irrational.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/econ/Becker,%2520Irrational%2520Behavior.pdf
posted by scunning at 4:37 AM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]


If you are concerned with how irrational actors behave in economic systems, you want to study behavioral economics.
posted by LogicalDash at 4:47 AM on January 10, 2011


It isn't exactly true that economic theory requires rational behavior. Becker's old 1962 paper shows that even irrational behavior will generate downward sloping market demand curves, even if everyone is irrational. Budget constraints are still going to bind the insane and irrational.

Great point Scunning! And I love that paper by Becker. Still it is a bit disappointing if micro-economists knowledge production possibility frontier is still stuck at the point of saying: when prices go up and people have the same amount of money, they must buy less stuff.

This is what makes people think economics is easy and straightforward, when actually done properly as a social science, it is intricate and demanding.
posted by Philosopher's Beard at 6:59 AM on January 10, 2011


If you are concerned with how irrational actors behave in economic systems, you want to study behavioral economics.

I've never been convinced that behavioural economics is all that new. After all, supermarkets already know how to get us to impulse buy more expensive chocolate bars by putting them at the cash register; credit cards were invented to diddle our time inconsistent preferences....

I wrote a post on this issue elsewhere, if anyone is interested: What's New about Behavioural Economics?
posted by Philosopher's Beard at 9:24 AM on January 10, 2011


[I know in these short days it feels absolutely terrific to call people names when you disagree with them, but consider some other way of making your point even though it may take more time or be more complicated, thank you.]
posted by jessamyn at 9:38 AM on January 10, 2011 [7 favorites]


Oh, fine.

oneswellfoop - your reference to an example of economic scholarship discussing more appropriate uses of the science to better serve the needs of developing nations as proof that economic scholarship is unconcerned with very humanist endeavours (like, say, better serving the needs of developing nations) prompt me to seriously question your capacity to reason like an moderately educated adult, while your proclivity for capitalising ordinary nouns as a substitute for presenting any argument of substance conjures in my mind's eye the aged offspring of the crazy cat lady and Abe Simpson from that wonderful late twentieth century popular entertainment, The Simpsons. Verily, were I required to develop an analogy for your specious reasoning, it would probably go something like this: "Thalidomide. Therefore, all Medicine is Witchcraft, and the Practitioners have learned a lot from THE SPANISH INQUISITION. Also, Mind Control Lasers."
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:19 PM on January 10, 2011 [2 favorites]


« Older Tea party in the Sonora: For the future of G.O.P. ...  |  FRACT... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments