As I read about economics, I keep hearing the word "equilibrium", which makes me immediately think about thermodynamics. The parallels between economics and thermodynamics seem interesting and strong. Both are fundamentally statistical sciences: thermodynamics is statistical mechanics applied to kinetics, and macroeconomics is thermodynamics as applied to microeconomics. At the micro level, there seems to be some parallels: individual molecules and individual economic actors are doing their individual things based on local information, and their individual behavior is in a sense "random".
Thermodynamics and economics are random in different senses: the randomness of individual molecules is statistical: we know precisely what two individual molecules will do when they meet; the randomness is in that we don't know the actual properties of individual molecules. In economics, we're dealing only with a few million or billion human beings (rather than a few trillion trillion molecules) so it's actually possible to get direct information about individual properties in economics; we don't, however, know how to predict detailed individual economic choices from those properties. Still, randomness is randomness, and there should be some similarities.
One interesting aspect of the parallels is that thermodynamics does not — apparently unlike some economic theories — simply stop at the conclusion that in the long run everything will be in thermodynamic equilibrium. Thermodynamics gives us important tools to manipulate thermodynamic systems to create nifty things like steam engines and jet planes. To what extent have economic theorists drawn on the physics of thermodynamics to understand economic behavior? If not (yet) to any great extent, then I'm extremely curious about what serious, detailed study of the parallels could achieve in economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.