An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Interesting photo there... are we expected to think that happened on its own without any human efforts? No human purpose involved which led to the successive cell phone designs? it just "evolved" on its own?
And btw the Ayn Rand people and many other 'survival of the fittest' people apply Darwin to economics all the time so why is he proposing this as some sort of a new thing?
And btw the Ayn Rand people and many other 'survival of the fittest' people apply Darwin to economics all the time so why is he proposing this as some sort of a new thing?
Wilson is saying that social Darwinists don't understand the science. For them it's all ideological and it is based on false assumptions.
The picture was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to those old "ascent of man" diagrams. My opinion is that evolution might help understand the histories of products like those phones (developments in antenna design, battery power and user interfaces drive the form factors of cell phones), but the specific form of cell phones is not really an economic question. In economics, a cell phone is a widget with a price ... and economics is the study of the allocation algorithm for widgets. If it is functioning properly, then the identity of the agents or the widgets shouldn't matter -- all that matters are the properties of the state space (n widgets, m units of money, a agents). In the cases where they do matter, you have market failures and my opinion is that in those cases, you cease to be studying "economics". I'm not sure exactly what is being studied during market failures ... I think it should be regarded as a separate field, though ... closer to sociology.
An analogy from physics: there is general relativity and something that applies when the assumptions of general relativity break down called "quantum gravity" (we don't really know what it is) that is effectively its own separate field.
Macroeconomics does not really separate into a department of the long run and a department of recessions, though.
And in any case, I am not sure how evolution helps you understand the properties of the state space. Hence my response to Prof. Wilson.
"all that matters are the properties of the state space (n widgets, m units of money, a agents)."
And that the widgets evolve via feedback and the agents change behaviour by feedback learning.
Physics really is the worst starting point for analysing social issues. That's what got economics into the bind it is in in the first place. Snapshotting.
Economics without politics is a largely pointless exercise, since the majority of things that are interesting are choices, not 'laws'.
5 comments:
Interesting photo there... are we expected to think that happened on its own without any human efforts? No human purpose involved which led to the successive cell phone designs? it just "evolved" on its own?
And btw the Ayn Rand people and many other 'survival of the fittest' people apply Darwin to economics all the time so why is he proposing this as some sort of a new thing?
And btw the Ayn Rand people and many other 'survival of the fittest' people apply Darwin to economics all the time so why is he proposing this as some sort of a new thing?
Wilson is saying that social Darwinists don't understand the science. For them it's all ideological and it is based on false assumptions.
Hi Matt,
The picture was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to those old "ascent of man" diagrams. My opinion is that evolution might help understand the histories of products like those phones (developments in antenna design, battery power and user interfaces drive the form factors of cell phones), but the specific form of cell phones is not really an economic question. In economics, a cell phone is a widget with a price ... and economics is the study of the allocation algorithm for widgets. If it is functioning properly, then the identity of the agents or the widgets shouldn't matter -- all that matters are the properties of the state space (n widgets, m units of money, a agents). In the cases where they do matter, you have market failures and my opinion is that in those cases, you cease to be studying "economics". I'm not sure exactly what is being studied during market failures ... I think it should be regarded as a separate field, though ... closer to sociology.
An analogy from physics: there is general relativity and something that applies when the assumptions of general relativity break down called "quantum gravity" (we don't really know what it is) that is effectively its own separate field.
Macroeconomics does not really separate into a department of the long run and a department of recessions, though.
And in any case, I am not sure how evolution helps you understand the properties of the state space. Hence my response to Prof. Wilson.
"all that matters are the properties of the state space (n widgets, m units of money, a agents)."
And that the widgets evolve via feedback and the agents change behaviour by feedback learning.
Physics really is the worst starting point for analysing social issues. That's what got economics into the bind it is in in the first place. Snapshotting.
Economics without politics is a largely pointless exercise, since the majority of things that are interesting are choices, not 'laws'.
Post a Comment