Of course it is! It seems rather strange that economists don’t care two figs about sociology and psychology. With reference to the homo economicus, they prefer to confine themselves to explain in rational terms the business world which is allegedly all about deriving maximum benefit. Especially in the light of the turmoil on the capital market, however, economists should no longer labor under the misapprehension that human behavior is the result of logical or well-considered rules and psychology doesn’t matter at all.[1]

 

But not everyone takes the same line and just follows the herd. Günter Schmölders, for example, had the guts to leave the 

well-trodden tracks in the 1950s and to kick against the pricks by embedding social science disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, psychology or anthropology into his concept of socio-economic behavioral science as well as by taking up the cause of tax psychology, consumer behavior, savings behavior and work attitude and adjudicating those subjects to be his main fields of research henceforth.[1]

     On closer consideration, Günter Schmölders was certainly by no means the first who puzzled between the conflicting priorities of psychology and economics his head over the personal experience and demeanor of Joe Schmo.[2] As early as at the beginning of the 20th century, Hugo Münsterberg set up the work and organizational psychology and laid thereby the foundation of business psychology, an area of applied psychology that takes advantage of psychological insights to find sustainable solutions to central economic problems.[3]

 

Business psychologists handle a variety of responsibilities. Along with the aforementioned work and organizational psychology, their scope of work comprises leadership psychology, market psychology as well as financial psychology. And in fulfilling their duties, business psychologists naturally bring up the experiences Joe Schmo gathers in daily work life, through his everyday purchasing decisions or from investment activity.[3]

 

Being in the know that with all kinds of tricks and dodges consumers take the bait might probably make grocers mafficking, in the borderline world, though, it’s nothing to write home about. With good reason. It’s in the nature of things, after all, that panic buying always goes hand in hand with considerable price cuts. By contrast, that tinned merda di artista, in plain English the artist’s shit, which changed hands for no less than 110,000 euros at Sothebys, Milan, in 2005 definitely baffles the borderline economist. The point here certainly is that Piero Manzoni’s doodoo doesn’t differ one iota from Joe Schmo’s doodoo. In short: What causes the art lover to spend money hand over fist for nothing at all, will always and evermore be a closed book to the economist.[4]

     The crux of the matter is, of course, that these absurdities or rather obscenities have already caught on and are in fact an essential element of everyday life. Austrian politicians, for instance, have the effrontery to provide funds equivalent to 2,39 billion euros to get Greece out of the mess while at the same time education cuts equivalent to 57 million euros are inevitable.[5][6]

     To be fair, it should not go unmentioned that the Austrians don’t plough a lonely furrow in terms of a weird coquetry with foreign countries. Unlike them, the Yanks don’t care about indebted countries but about rogue nations. Accordingly, the US defense expenditures are breaking the mold.

     All in all, it follows that denouncing the political hybris doesn’t cut it. For their own good, people should rather stop thinking in black and white terms and strike a blow for a satisfactory middle way.

    

The idea has some weight to it. Actually, that’s the whole point. Borderline economists are exploring new avenues in economic behavioral science by dealing with problems methodologically. They bring the current position shared by many people into question and ensure a better understanding of economy by melding the current position and the opposite standpoint. There isn’t much more to it than that.[7]

     As a consequence, everything will be fine if Austrian politicians budget more money for education in future before putting together a rescue package for Greece.

 

Speaking of education: Gustave Le Bon is right in arguing that cramming for exams is completely pointless with regard to intelligence. Students won’t smarten up when simply learning the stuff by heart. Pedagogues should employ curricula and teaching techniques instead that revive students’ spirits and incite them to go their own way.[8] Yet, it’s anything but advisable to speak up for less structured degree courses as to basic subjects like mathematics and statistics, computer science or systems engineering. In particular languages depend on an education system fully school-based and not lacking any orientation. Basic subjects don’t leave room for interpretation. It is much more a matter of becoming perfect and having all uncertainties clarified. At least, borderline economists have this in mind when talking of their basic studies whereas in their main studies they are prepared to give their students a free rein by nurturing talents and boosting creativeness.