No, because if it really turns out that what set of genitals you have play a major role in such a huge financial decision as what career you choose, even in the absence of outside coercion, then that instantly invalidates any economic theory that assumes people generally make rational (from purely economic perspective) choices - which would be all of them

No, it isn't. Well-known Keynesian Krugman addressed this on his blog last week, so might as well repeat what he said:

So, for example, what do I say when I read something like this from someone who apparently considers himself a bold rebel against orthodoxy?

        "Rational thinking is an important aspect of human nature, but we have imagination, we have ambition, we have irrational fear, we are swayed by other people, we get indoctrinated and we get influenced by advertising," he says. "Even if we are actually rational, leaving it to the market may produce collectively irrational outcomes. So when a bubble develops it is rational for individuals to keep inflating the bubble, thinking that they can pull out at the last minute and make a lot of money. But collectively speakingâ.â.â.â"

My answer, to put it in technical terms, is "Well, duh." Maybe grad students at some departments, who are several generations into the law of diminishing disciples, really donâ(TM)t know that rational behavior is at best a useful fiction, that markets arenâ(TM)t perfect, etc, etc. But does this come as news to Robert Shiller? To Ben Bernanke? To Janet Yellen? To Larry Summers? Would it have come as news to Irving Fisher or Walter Bagehot?

The question is what you do with this insight.

There is definitely a faction within economics that considers it taboo to introduce anything into its analysis that isnâ(TM)t grounded in rational behavior and market equilibrium. But what I do, and what everyone Iâ(TM)ve just named plus many others does, is a more modest, more eclectic form of analysis. You use maximization and equilibrium where it seems reasonably consistent with reality, because of its clarifying power, but you introduce ad hoc deviations where experience seems to demand them â" downward rigidity of wages, balance-sheet constraints, bubbles (which are hard to predict, but you can say a lot about their consequences).

You may say that what we need is reconstruction from the ground up â" an economics with no vestige of equilibrium analysis. Well, show me some results. As it happens, the hybrid, eclectic approach Iâ(TM)ve just described has done pretty well in this crisis, so you had better show me some really superior results before it gets thrown out the window.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/new-thinking-and-old-books-revisited/

Real-world economists are fully aware that humans are highly irrational creatures and they've adjusted economic models to compensate as well they can. Maybe you've been reading too much Austrian lunacy?

I don't want to give them no credit, but it was certainly near-miraculous the US survived and ended up as well-off as we did in many ways in spite of them.

Things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, imprisoning your media critics, pretty much everything involving Native Americans, and so on and so forth, had very little to do with integrity.

I, for one, expect more integrity from a government formed by the likes of John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. It appears I'm in the minority, and realpolitik is the order of the day.

Hahahaha!

I don't think you know much about Adams, Washington, or Jefferson. Just like the politicians of today, they had lots of pretty speeches promoting freedom, democracy, freedom from foreign entanglements, and everything else good and great, but what they actually did was far, far from that. And man, you think bipartisanship is bad today, you should have seen it back then. Today's political campaigns look like a bunch of hippies singing Kumbaya in comparison.

Ummm, you know that the top 1% contributes more than 35% of taxes already, right?

And how much of the income do they earn?

If you have one CEO making 200x what his workers make - say, $40,000, so $8 million - that CEO is paying 50% of all taxes. And yet that's hardly unfair.

The right thing is to stop monetising debt, slash gov't spending by minimum 50%, which is what the US gov't borrows every year to "pay" for its expenses ("pay" in quotes, because the gov't always borrows, it moves its debts from credit card to credit card, it can't pay, it won't pay, it's a deadbeat debtor who is not good for its debts).

You want to get rid of the deficit and start paying down the debt?

End the recession. Then roll back then Bush tax cuts. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Boom. No more deficits.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/US-Economy/PublishingImages/20120229_EssentialEcon9.jpg

There is no need to cut government services - a great many of which are invaluable for keeping the economy going - when we have a long-term debt problem that will take care of itself if we act wisely.

Do you know what the interest rates on US bonds are right now?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield

-1%. That's right. People are literally paying the US government to hold their money.

There is no short-term debt problem.

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They (and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy) required that the Post Office prepay pensions to the extent that no other business is required to do.

This is exactly their modus operandi for pretty much every government agency these days. Cut funding where possible, demand crazy requirements on spending, saving, oversight, personnel, etc., and then when a cash-strapped agency burdened with the bureaucracy necessary to follow those requirements and things like pre-paying pensions 75 years in advance fails to perform, decry the inefficiency and waste of the government and demand that the function the agency performs be privatized.

It's called "starve the beast."

I meant to include this link - the USPS has a 13 billion dollar surplus sitting in its retirement accounts.

The USPS doesn't run on taxes, they are self-sufficient. That's why they're not asking for a bailout, but for an end to Saturday mail delivery and other USPS cost saving measures. At the same time, the USPS is generally hobbled by Congressional requirements that they do this or that and overfund their retirement obligations and all sorts of other things.

I'm not totally clear in how that's different from Windows 7/Windows 8. You can press the start button and begin typing the name of your program or document and it looks like it does the exact same thing - although Windows 8 does annoyingly cover your entire screen to do so.

For example, to open Firefox, I don't have to do anything but Win + F + Enter. Almost everything I use is no more than five key presses away.

Puttering along at near-light-speed in a universe 14 billion light years across would only remind you of how isolated we really are.

Not if you were on the ship. There's this fancy thing called "relativity" that would make time fly by if you were traveling at 0.999999999c. If you can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, you can get anywhere in the universe in seconds.

Dang Slashdot without an edit button. I meant to include this link:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/US-Economy/PublishingImages/20120229_EssentialEcon9.jpg

It shows the sources of the current budget deficits. Keep in mind Paul Ryan, famed serious "fiscal conservative," voted for every single thing in green.

Obama promised a surge into Afghanistan. He promised an eventual pullout from Iraq, and it looks like he's following through - on Bush's schedule.

Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping.

The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.

And yes, the same is true for Bush. Bush couldn't have gone to war without Congress. He couldn't have passed the Patriot Act without Congress. He couldn't have passed No Child Left Behind without Congress. He couldn't have racked up massive deficits without Congress. Heck, even today, virtually our entire deficit (that comes from government policy and not the recession) comes from the Bush tax cuts Congress (including Paul Ryan) passed and the wars.

In history? I don't know. I imagine the South Sea Company or the East India Company are among the contenders. Companies like Standard Oil would also crush Apple. General Electric, Microsoft, Intel and Cisco both hit, in modern times, higher market caps than Apple.

Here's what I got from a quick Google.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/08/22/a-history-of-ridiculously-big-companies.aspx

Point taken, but Apple is not the most valuable corporation "in the history of the world." Even assuming market cap is an accurate representation of value, that's only true for Apple if you don't adjust for inflation.

Thanks. I had not seen that. I have actually seen that notification in IE9 before, actually.