I just checked out *More Heat Than Light: Economics as
Social Physics: Physics as Natures Economics*, also
by Philip Mirowski.
Here are a couple of quotes from the introduction that
I found interesting:
One rapidly discovers that the resemblances of the
theories [of physics and economics] are uncanny, and
one reason they are uncanny is because the progenitors
of neoclassical economic theory boldly copied the
reigning physical theories in the 1870s.
...Neoclassicals did not imitate physics in a
desultory or superficial manner; no they copied their
models mostly term for term and symbol for symbol, and
said so.
Neoclassical economics made savvy use of the
resonances between body, motion, and values by
engaging in a brazen daylight robbery: The
Marginalists appropriated the mathematical formalisms
of mid-nineteenth century energy physics, ..., made
them their own by changing the labels on the
variables, and then trumpeted the triumph of a truly
scientific economics. Utility became the analogue
of potential energy; and the Marginalist
Revolutionaries marched off to do battle with
classical, Historicist, and Marxian economists.
Unfortunately, there was one little oversight: The
neoclassicals had neglected to appropriate the most
important part of the formalism, ... namely, the
conservation of energy. (pp 3 9)
From skimming a couple of later chapters, it seems
Mirowski also finds a close relationship with later
20th century economics and 19th century physics. (He
notes that on the surface Samuelson draws an analogous
relationship between modern physics and modern
economics, but when Mirowski digs deeper, he finds it
to be simply a variation of 19th century physics in
disguise.) He seems to credit/blame Samuelson for
much of the 20th century development at least thats
what I gathered from reading a few pages here and
there.
Seth Giertz
--- Ole J. Rogeberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I can give you a completely opposite reference :-)
Philip Mirowski, in the Cambridge Journal of
Economics, nr. 8, 1984, pp.
361-379 has an article Physics and the marginalist
revolution, where he
argues that the similarities between the physics of
the 1800s and the
economics of the 20th century results from
economists taking the
mathematical models then in vogue and reinterpreting
them in economic
terms. Neoclassical economics is bowdlerised
nineteenth century physics.
The second part of his argument is that this is not
reasonable.
The article was fun, whatever one may think of the
conclusions. Apparently,
this is a major theme of Mirowski. I gather that
he's written on this
subject elsewhere too. And been strongly criticised
by others, of course.
Ole
At 09:25 11.02.2002 -0800, you wrote:
Dear all,
I once heard about a paper by a physcist who
juxtaposed the mathematical assumptions in
economics
with the mathematical assumptions in physics.
Evidently the author found the assumptions in
economics to be quite reasonable. I've never been
able to locate it. Is anybody familiar with such a
work, or anything similar?
Curiously,
jsh
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
