Eller hur!
Jag tror timpengen är rätt låg på att hela tiden följa k&s för att bygga en uppfattning om priser. Däremot kan man ju rätt snabbt göra en sökning på Chrono24.
Angående rationella människor vad gäller ekonomi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus#Criticisms
Homo economicus bases its choices on a consideration of its own personal "utility function".
Consequently, the
homo economicus assumptions have been criticized not only by economists on the basis of logical arguments, but also on empirical grounds by cross-cultural comparison. Economic anthropologists such as
Marshall Sahlins,
[11] Karl Polanyi,
[12] Marcel Mauss[13] and
Maurice Godelier[14] have demonstrated that in traditional societies, choices people make regarding production and exchange of goods follow patterns of
reciprocity which differ sharply from what the
homo economicus model postulates. Such systems have been termed
gift economy rather than market economy. Criticisms of the
homo economicus model put forward from the standpoint of ethics usually refer to this traditional ethic of kinship-based reciprocity that held together traditional societies.
Economists
Thorstein Veblen,
John Maynard Keynes,
Herbert A. Simon, and many of the
Austrian School criticise
homo economicus as an actor with too great an understanding of macroeconomics and economic forecasting in his decision making. They stress
uncertainty and
bounded rationality in the making of economic decisions, rather than relying on the rational man who is fully informed of all circumstances impinging on his decisions. They argue that perfect knowledge never exists, which means that all economic activity implies risk. Austrian economists rather prefer to use as a model tool the
homo agens.
Empirical studies by
Amos Tversky questioned the assumption that investors are rational. In 1995, Tversky demonstrated the tendency of investors to make risk-averse choices in gains, and risk-seeking choices in losses. The investors appeared as very risk-averse for small losses but indifferent for a small chance of a very large loss. This violates economic rationality as usually understood. Further research on this subject, showing other deviations from conventionally defined economic rationality, is being done in the growing field of experimental or
behavioral economics. Some of the broader issues involved in this criticism are studied in
decision theory, of which
rational choice theory is only a subset.
Other critics of the
homo economicus model of humanity, such as
Bruno Frey, point to the excessive emphasis on
extrinsic motivation (rewards and punishments from the social environment) as opposed to
intrinsic motivation. For example, it is difficult if not impossible to understand how
homo economicus would be a hero in war or would get inherent pleasure from
craftsmanship. Frey and others argue that too much emphasis on rewards and punishments can "crowd out" (discourage) intrinsic motivation: paying a boy for doing household tasks may push him from doing those tasks "to help the family" to doing them simply for the reward.
Another weakness is highlighted by economic sociologists and anthropologists, who argue that
homo economicus ignores an extremely important question, i.e. the origins of tastes and the parameters of the utility function by social influences, training, education, and the like. The exogeneity of tastes (preferences) in this model is the major distinction from
homo sociologicus, in which tastes are taken as partially or even totally determined by the societal environment (see below).
Further critics, learning from the broadly defined
psychoanalytic tradition, criticize the
homo economicus model as ignoring the inner conflicts that real-world individuals suffer, as between short-term and long-term goals (
e.g., eating chocolate cake and losing weight) or between individual goals and societal values. Such conflicts may lead to "irrational" behavior involving inconsistency, psychological paralysis, neurosis, and psychic pain. Further irrational human behaviour can occur as a result of habit, laziness, mimicry and simple obedience.
The emerging science of "
neuroeconomics" suggests that there are serious shortcomings in the conventional theories of economic rationality. Rational economic decision making has been shown to produce high levels of
cortisol,
epinephrine and
corticosteroids, associated with elevated levels of stress. It seems that the dopaminic system is only activated upon achieving the reward, and otherwise the "pain" receptors, particularly in the pre-frontal cortex of the left hemisphere of the brain show a high level of activation.
[15] Serotonin and
oxytocin levels are minimised, and the general immune system shows a level of suppression. Such a pattern is associated with a generalised reduction in the levels of trust. Unsolicited "gift giving", considered irrational from the point of view of homo-economicus, by comparison, shows an elevated stimulation of the pleasure circuits of the whole brain, reduction in the levels of stress, optimal functioning of the immune system, reduction in cortico-steroids and epinephrine and cortisol, activation of the
substantia nigra, the
striatum and the
nucleus acumbens (associated with the
placebo effect, all associated with the building of social trust.
Mirror neurons result in a
win-win positive sum game in which the person giving the gift receives a pleasure equivalent to the person receiving it.
[16] This confirms the findings of anthropology which suggest that a "
gift economy" preceded the more recent market systems where win-lose or risk-avoidance lose-lose calculations apply.
[17]
