Re: Mathematicians And Economics
From: sinister (sinister_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: sinister: "Re: Bush busts Social Security with massive deficits"
- Previous message: sinister: "Re: inflation smoke and mirrors (bill gross)"
- In reply to: Robert Vienneau: "Mathematicians And Economics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:31:22 GMT
"Robert Vienneau" <rvien@see.sig.com> wrote in message
news:rvien-213C9F.16324901102004@news.dreamscape.com...
>A number of mathematicians or mathematical physicists have examined
> economics over the last century. Some of these have objected to
> neoclassical theory, which was dominant among Western mainstream
> economists. I find it interesting that some of these have, seemingly
> indedependently, thought the same alternative was a better basis
> for starting to explore capitalist economies. For example, consider
> John Von Neumann, Jacob T. Schwartz, and John Blatt. I believe Ricard
> Goodwin also was initially trained in mathematics or mathematical
> physics.
With all due respect, I think more interesting is the critique that came
out, AFAICT, from a meeting of economists and physicists. A summary:
----------begin quote--------------
This is in response to the widely quoted wisecrack
about "physics envy" that I think was originated by Phil
Mirowski, if I am not mistaken. Actually, as a number of
observers have recently pointed out, including Deirdre
McCloskey and Brian Arthur, it should really be labeled
"mathematics envy." The tale is told about what happened
at the first Santa Fe conference on economics back in 1987
where a bunch of mainly neoclassical economists got
together with a bunch of physicists. The physicists were
shocked at the propensity of the economists to prove
theorems that had nothing to do with the real world. This
is not the way physicists proceed who are much more
empirical and when they are theoretical, much more "ad hoc"
as economists would say. The emphasis on proving theorems
is actually an imitation of what the mathematicians do, not
what the physicists do. And the physicists think that we
are suffering from a ridiculous version of rigorous mortis
when we do so.
--------------end quote---------------------
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pkt/1998m11-d/msg00019.htm
>
> I've skimmed through the first two chapters of this book:
>
> <http://iml.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/Lee/Intro-PKE/Index.html>
>
> This is the model I'm talking about.
>
> Comes now another physicist. And he too says this model is a
> start on explaining actual economies:
>
> "Interesting alternative work in modeling, paying attention to
> limitations on our ability to gather, process, and interpret
> information, is carried out in several schools of economics
> in northern Italy and elsewhere..."
> -- Joseph L. McCauley, Dynamics of Markets: Econphysics and
> Finance, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
>
> --
> Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
> r c
> v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
> i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or
> wealth
> e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed
> by
> n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
> @ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
> d o the truth. -- Rousseau
- Next message: sinister: "Re: Bush busts Social Security with massive deficits"
- Previous message: sinister: "Re: inflation smoke and mirrors (bill gross)"
- In reply to: Robert Vienneau: "Mathematicians And Economics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
