System behavior cannot be met by creating the correct "axiomatic primitives" and then blindly building on them. We are computer scientists, and so we know that complexity eventually creates emergent behavior that likely contradicts our original goals. System behavior must be analyzed for its qualitative effects in the "big picture", to see if our goals are being met.
That is the most succinct explanation I've heard yet for why virtually all of economics is wrong.
The primary motivations of corporations and governments are vastly different, and the exponentially larger expanse of governments gives it different properties in its operations.
They are both institutions, and as such share all the issues common to large bodies of humans trying to operate in unison, but the reductionism in the analogy is too big for it to be meaningful.
I'm not saying the two are equivalent - distinguishing between the two could obviously be useful in a different discussion. I'm following this reduction to illustrate a contradiction.
System behavior cannot be met by creating the correct "axiomatic primitives" and then blindly building on them. We are computer scientists, and so we know that complexity eventually creates emergent behavior that likely contradicts our original goals. System behavior must be analyzed for its qualitative effects in the "big picture", to see if our goals are being met.