As I read the following comparison between Maxwell's Demon and Darwin's
Natural Selector, I wondered how Walras' auctioneer would compare. Any
comments would be appreciated. MJS Hodges writes: "As an agency working
causally to bias population outcomes away from where frequencies alone
would otherwise have them, nature as a selective breeder, in Darwin, may
remind us of the demon in Maxwell. However, the resemblance must not be
allowed to mislead us as to contrasting rationales motivating the two
theorists' essentially diferent proposals. Maxwell was concerned to
dramatize how utterly improbable in nature is anything like the outcome
secured by the demon; for under all natural conditions there will be no
such quasi-purposive interference as the demon exerts. By contrast, Darwin
was out to establish that a quasi-designing form of selective breeding is
an inevitable consequence of the struggle for existence and superfecundity,
tendencies so ubiquitous and reliance not be construed as interferences at
all...One can say, then, that Darwin gave up having variation arise as
'necessary' adaptations, as necessary effects of conditions, in favor of
having it arise 'accidently' or 'by chance,' when and only when he came to
see that its fate was under the quasi-designing control of natural
selection aalogous to the skilled practice of the breeder's quasi-designing
art." " From "Natural Selection" in The Probabalistic Revolution, vol II.
(MIT, 1990): 245-6.
Now my question for economists: The other great 19th century "agent" whose
work was done behind the scenes, a most interesting trope it seems, was
Auguste Walras' auctioneer, correct? Now this auctioneer was imagined as
having set market prices and quantities of all commodities before any
trading such that markets clear, equilibrium attained and maximum utility
realized . The extreme improbability of such such a determinate outcome
however did not prevent economists from believing that market processes
were best understood as if such an omnipotent auctioneer were really at
work, correct? Any ideas as to how pursue this analogies would be most
appreciated.
Best,
Rakesh
