To me the fundamental problem that Bryan has is that he tries to fit everything into an econ model. I'm an econ imperialist myself - econ is insanely useful and we can (and should!) use it to analyze lots of human behavior.
However, just because you can squeeze mental illness into an econ model, it doesn't follow that an econ model is bes…
To me the fundamental problem that Bryan has is that he tries to fit everything into an econ model. I'm an econ imperialist myself - econ is insanely useful and we can (and should!) use it to analyze lots of human behavior.
However, just because you can squeeze mental illness into an econ model, it doesn't follow that an econ model is best positioned to explain mental illness.
Things like drug addiction and mental illness can both be shoehorned into an econ model, but there is a richness associated with these issues that you miss in a simple econ model.
To me the fundamental problem that Bryan has is that he tries to fit everything into an econ model. I'm an econ imperialist myself - econ is insanely useful and we can (and should!) use it to analyze lots of human behavior.
However, just because you can squeeze mental illness into an econ model, it doesn't follow that an econ model is best positioned to explain mental illness.
Things like drug addiction and mental illness can both be shoehorned into an econ model, but there is a richness associated with these issues that you miss in a simple econ model.