From the beginning, I would like to clarify that, I am against the use of the term “autistic” in a derogatory sense. However, a group described as the (PAE) Post-Autistic Economics, one of the largest groups seeking to change the economics study, implements the language, so I will follow suit.

In my view, the group often goes too far in their modern economics criticism. However, I do agree that they have points; as it stands economics as currently conducted does have autistic trends. In economics, research unfortunately is often established as follows.

Academic Economics Research Autistic Trends

• Identify a problem and create various stylized facts that you believe define the phenomenon in the study.

• Then based on these facts create a number of assumptions. Ensure they are mathematically viable

• Using other mathematical tools or a fixed point, find equilibrium to the problem; at a minimum at least prove that one exists.

Standard Economics Research flaws

To a non-economist it is readily clear that this approach has a number of flaws. Say, if I want to study, how the car rental sector sets their prices, the logical step would be by learning more about the car rental sector. One can talk to the car-rental dealership managers, discuss strategy with high ranked executives, and read up on the industries history. Too often in economics however the starting point is automatically to make several assumptions such as prices to capitalize, every firm in the market.

Mostly, the person setting the vehicle price is not trying to maximize the company profits. He is trying to lessen the probability of the firm to incur losses, which is different from trying to maximize profits.

Maybe he has various stock options, or his decision-making criteria are to capitalize the current value of stocks, even if it is at the expense of future profits. The opposing firms possibly have dedicated themselves to a fixed rate plan, so as the opponent or market firm pricing strategies change they cannot price rationally. One cannot know if any assumption is plausible, without first investigating the issue.

Double sides of Mathematical Tractability

There are still several issues associated with mathematical tractability. Keeping count of the many models that have wrong assumptions such as on product demands is impossible, unless their value is above average (bar), in which case the demand is zero. In the real world, such markets cannot work, let alone exist. However, such assumptions are often necessary to prove an outcome; elasticity of demands and realistic prices would thus not be mathematically tractable.

As long as the assumptions make, sense, trying to offer a mathematical proof to the model is understandable. However, if the assumptions are wrong all that has been achieved is the proof that the results are not applicable in the current world. In summary, the main lesson is that bad assumptions lead to irrelevant outcomes.

Progress towards a Real World Economics

In order for economics to be more relevant, in that describe more accurate real life events, and then it needs assumption models that are more accurate. However, it is costly to do so.

First economist would need to spend more time on the fields to create more real life accurate assumptions. However, with the improved models mathematical traceability is however lost that is proofs become impossible, and researchers are forced to resort to other methods that are not valid.

Economics needs to be more enamored with realism and less captivated with proofs. This is unlikely to occur, unless the environment somehow evolves spontaneously. It is unlikely that researchers who stress realism situations over mathematical certainty will end up controlling the top journals.