Tweet

@MotherJones

@nytimes

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1315337860359368706?s=20

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

12 Oct

Much of the so-called theoretical advances in the social sciences appear to be limited to inventions of pithy terms for old (reinvented) ideas. Ignorance of the history of ideas drives this. I do not doubt many of these scholars believe they have discovered something new. In some

sense they have, because they are unaware of their ignorance that others have expressed similar, sometimes even the same, ideas before them. For example, Stinchcombe (1965) is credited with the "liability of newness" idea, which is very similar to Schumpeter's ([1911] 1934)

discussion (pp. 86-87) on people's "resistance" to the new and, thus, the necessity that the entrepreneur takes on a leadership role. The issue here is not the claim of novelty, but that scholars should in fact be knowledgeable about the history of the field and its theoretical

Read 14 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

17 Sep

Advanced #economics education is in a terrible, sorry state. What is taught is not actual economics, which used to be (and properly is) the economic way of thinking, but almost exclusively the practical how-to. The little economic reasoning there is, is usually taught only in

principles courses ("Econ101"), but starting from the intermediate level the economic way of thinking is swiftly replaced by pragmatic operationalizations of variables to facilitate statistical measurement and empirical testing. This becomes abundantly clear when discussing

economic matters with students (including here on Twitter). They typically cannot see a difference between the simplified operationalization of a concept and the actual concept. Why? Because they have never encountered the actual concept and what it represents. This is in fact

Read 15 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

17 Sep

Economics is primarily a way of thinking about the world that uncovers the true mechanisms and processes behind, and helps us understand, what we can all observe. This is a forever thread collecting my #econthread tweets. #PerBylundthreads

https://twitter.com/PerBylund/status/1030569930155024384?s=20

On #scarcity .

https://twitter.com/PerBylund/status/1030569930155024384?s=20

https://twitter.com/PerBylund/status/1032980416838488064?s=20

On the #sharingeconomy .

https://twitter.com/PerBylund/status/1032980416838488064?s=20

Read 46 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

26 Aug

Like all heavily regulated (protected) industries, #highered is ripe for disruption. But #startups have failed to challenge #universities because #entrepreneurs are, simply put, doing it wrong. They have focused on the wrong problem, trying to beat universities at their best, not

their worst. Higher ed does not actually have a teaching problem, despite what people may assume. The classroom method of teaching, or guided learning through instruction, has worked very well for centuries. There may be plenty of tweaks to make it more effective, less costly,

but disruption is not about tweaks or cost-cutting. Disruption is about rethinking how things are done. Universities, while perhaps lagging in adoption of online technologies and not doing enough to enthuse students in the classroom, do not have a delivery problem. Entrepreneurs

Read 18 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

21 Aug

Revisiting #regulations. It's apparently difficult for people to distinguish between the rhetoric and the measure. A regulation is a restriction on something, not an improvement of something else. The other *can* be a result (one of many possibilities), but the result is not

actually caused by the regulation. So while regulating emissions of certain pollutants adds cost to emitting those pollutants, it does not clean the air. It *can* lead to better air, but it can also lead to emissions of other, less cost-effective pollutants. The regulation is

undoubtedly introduced with the intent of improving air quality, but it is not what the regulation *does*. What it does is only place a restriction on emitting the enumerated pollutants. The reason regulations typically are bad at bringing about the intended outcome, and very

Read 8 tweets

Per Bylund

@PerBylund

21 Jul

Many seem to think it is "unfair" to say that #entrepreneurs who didn't foresee the #pandemic "should" lose their businesses, because it is an unforeseeable event. But this completely misses the point: *every* event is unforeseeable for entrepreneurs. When you invest your own

money, it's not simply about figuring out (or guessing) that something will happen, but also when it will happen and what it means specifically for your investment. It is also not about having foresight, but about exercising good and proper judgment about what might happen and

how to best respond to it. Their problems are less about "foreseeing a pandemic" than about expecting something to happen and thus refrain from irreversible investments that lock you in. Yes, there is luck involved. But only because the future is uncertain. Superior entrepreneurs

Read 9 tweets

Share this page!

Per Bylund

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @PerBylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Per Bylund

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?