There are certain econophysicists who I think have a good understanding of economics. I read Joseph McCauley's book, and while at times the technical requirements were overwhelming, from what I understood he made some devastating criticisms of neoclassicism. I wonder what anyone far more technically inclined than I am makes of this argument from a paper McCauley has online which is intended to refutee neoclassicism. I don't have the ability to make heads or tails of it.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9911/9911291.pdf Of ocurse, I sense that the best of econophysics is just applying correctly the mthods of physics which economists have (allegedly) used incorrectly for so wrong, while the worst of it is that which treats the economy as if it were well approximated by common phenomena delat with in physics and draws conclusions from that. > Pareto. > > I think the econophysics folks think that economics is so bad that > they don't have to study it at all. It's like the leading lights at > MIT economics, who don't study econ. unless it's mathematical. >
