Talk:Econophysics/Archive 1

Untitled
Anybody working in Econophysics?

History
I am actually working in that field. In my opinion the current article could be greatly improved, especially in the historical part. I just added a short sentence and a reference on the analogy between mechanical equilibrium and general equilibrium theory. However, there are many other issues that could be added and that show the link among physics, other hard sciences and economics. Escalas 22:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents
I would like to propose a major revision of this page. After the general definition of econophysics, the history section could be extended to include both a history of relationship between physics and economics and, then, the more recent history of econophysics as a sub-branch of statistical mechanics. A new section could point to recent trends in econophysics and to the main conferences where one can find econophysics contributions. I am looking forward to hearing your opinions. Escalas 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ciao Enrico---Joe W. here. I would suggest that we take the opportunity to do several things:
 * First, as you suggest, a clear separation between "economics and physics crossover" which has been happening for a long time, and the genuine field of econophysics, which is recent.
 * We need to touch on false analogies between the two, e.g. some of the things discussed in Nelson's book Economics as Religion, where he mentions how various economics theorems take their names from physical laws pretty much as a propaganda mechanism.
 * A discussion of theoretical motivations within economics itself for going beyond traditional methods, e.g. Hahn's "The next hundred years". This can be related to the fundamentally different methods applied in theoretical economics and physics.
 * Criticisms of econophysics. The example cited after the Krugman comment seems to me pretty fatuous---it's hardly a major claim of econophysics that bubble physics is related to economics---but it nevertheless highlights an important example, of physicists simply taking an existing physics model and dressing it in "economic clothes" without any real justification.  More important are the criticisms of Ormerod and colleagues.  The ideas discussed in James' Feigenbaum's review, "Financial physics", should also be referred to.
 * Early examples of related material. We should probably mention Galam and colleagues' "Sociophysics" paper from 1982 (I can forward you a copy).  Galam's "personal testimony" (Physica A, 2004) refers to earlier papers as well, e.g. Weidlich (1971) and Callen & Shapiro (1974).
 * I'm sure I can think of other things but those spring to mind for now. WebDrake 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article
Escalas and I are going to do a major rewrite of the Econophysics article, among which are the following aims: If anyone else is interested in joining us on this, we would be delighted.
 * Much-improved history, discussing in greater detail historical physics/economics links
 * A better distinction between "physics-like stuff in traditional economics" and the modern field of econophysics
 * Connections and influences from other interdisciplinary fields of physics such as sociophysics
 * A wider range of references
 * An inclusion of adverse effects associated with said system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.43 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite can be found for the moment at Talk:Econophysics/Econophysics. —WebDrake 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC) A Question of Note....

What would Econophysics make of Transfinancial Economics?

http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics

Robert Searle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.22.16.194 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this article deserves some serious attention and re-expression, including my branch of it which I have just added as "consequential Macroeconomics" Macrocompassion (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit
I removed the reference to Gell-Mann and Shannon for a couple of reasons. First, it was ungrammatical. Second, it gave the wrong impression that these two had worked on econophysics, rather than in the fields linked in the sentence. Anyone who needs to know about the originators of info and complexity theory can just follow the links.JQ (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Both reasons seem poor. If something is not grammatical it can be changed... so that is not really an editing excuse for removing something that could be good content. Gave the wrong impression? It did not give me the impression as you claim above that they worked in that field. Anyone who needs to know... that is a real value judgment, that may be inappropriate for a neutral observer to make as to information. It probably is a bad idea to remove information that illuminates something more... and the complexity and aspects of something. skip sievert (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Main results Econophysics for dummies
I'd like to see more results here ( is there really only one main result?), and language that a motivated layman (or even an economist?) might be able to follow. If I knew the answers, I'd put them in, but I'm just a curious outsider trying to decide if this subject holds any interest for me.

Consequential Macroeconomics
It seems to me that this subject can be sub-divided into various aspects of physics all of which share the two separate disciplines. My contribution is the book of the above titled name, which takes an engineering approach to macroeconomics and as a consequence turns it into a true science, which previously it was not! Unlike the statistical approaches, this one is far more direct and of a "nut-and-bolts" style. I am adding a summary below, for reader's interest. For a simpler explanation of the model used please see working papers SSRN 2600103 and SSRN 2865571.

Description of book:

"Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works"

In the past the subject of theoretical macroeconomics has been treated badly and in an incomplete unscientific manner. The basic model for representing the general social system of a nation has never been properly developed. The results previously obtained, from the over-simplified models of the past, are unsatisfactory and they sometimes even conflict with common sense. When the alternative of computer-modeling is used, the detailed results are too complex, difficult to follow and they are unsuitable for students and teachers to appreciate, interpret and understand what really is involved. The aim of this book is to correct this situation and to provide a very logical and compact, but sufficiently complete, theoretical presentation about how our social system actually works. The emphasis is on viewing the system from sufficient a distance so as to be able to envisage it as a whole, in order to provide an improved and better perception and understanding of the full structure of our social system. It also introduces some original aspects of analysis into the subsequent methodology.

The 320 page book is presented in parts 6 named:”getting started”,”model”,”analysis”, “decisions”, “money” and “consequences”. It contains an introduction and a set of 7 appendices, a list of references and an index. This is an original engineering approach to this subject, where the ideas of Jean Says, Adam Smith, Henry George, David Ricardo, Leon Walras, Wassley Leontief, Henry Hazlitt, and several others are combined into well-knit scientific framework. The approach taken here starts from scratch. After the introduction and general review of the overall problems in representing our social system, a series of assumptions and early considerations are provided, along with the necessary definitions. From this standing, there is built up a base model (see diagram) that is logical in its development and which is virtually complete, whilst not being more complicated than is absolutely necessary--to provide for the subsequent analysis in a scientific manner. The model is expressed in three ways, by this diagram, by equations and by a matrix using W.W. Leontief’s "Input-Output" method. Its various parts are then described and used for analysis and explanation about the circulation of money, goods, services, valuable documents, etc. This leads an examination of the general equilibrium and stability of the system. Short-term disturbances to the steady-state result in the need for decision-making, which is carefully described in detail and illustrated by four simplified numerical (hand-calculated) examples, three being about taxation and the short-term dynamics. These calculations show that compared to the benefits in progress that result from an increment in income-tax (yes, it is beneficial overall), a tax on land-value is about 3 times better! The decision-making depends on some properties of the system, which are introduced to complete the descriptions of this process.

Theories about money and banking are given which lead to a discussion about the functions of government over longer periods of time. There follows a development about the limitations to growth of the system, related to George's description of the "savanna" in "Progress and Poverty". The book concludes with a long review and summary that provides a better and somewhat new understanding of what macroeconomics really is all about. The book is suitable for students of economics who wish to avoid the confusion of past explanations or are new to this subject. They should have a small acquaintance with economics and some high-school mathematics to include elementary (square) matrices and the notation of the calculus. This book is useful for teaching purposes, particularly because it uses a more general terminology (with full definitions) than is often the case. However the development also opens the way for research, since it provides a new and easy-to-use tool for analysis of short-term policy changes within the whole of a nation’s social system.Macrocompassion (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the author of this book? Attic Salt (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I have called Myself Macrocompassion but as the author of this book, I use my formal (actual) name David Harold Chester.Macrocompassion (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Econophysics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508025252/http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/2006_spring/financephysical.html to http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/2006_spring/financephysical.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

. Byronmercury (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose merging this page with Thermoeconomics. As far as I can tell, Thermoeconomics is a slightly more specialized treatment of the same concept.96.227.134.54 (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree,thermo economics should be a brief section within the econphysics page. Byronmercury (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense--econophysics is barely a field but "thermoeconomics" certainly isn't one at all, and the page seems to be a holdover from the persistence of one interested user from 10 years ago who was banned for bad behavior. WeakTrain (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They should not be merged. Thermoeconomics proposes to work in the energy as a commodity into economic transactions.  Econophysics proposes no such thing: it is more about the use of models in physics to study economic processes, whether these models are created a-priori or are a result of more general approaches that lead to a Logit/Gibbs equilibrium instead of Nash equilibrium, for example.  Thus the fields have conceptually different approaches.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.47.218 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Major improvements required
I like that there is an article on this topic, but geez this really could use some love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.199.178 (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Lectures
A lecture given at Harvard University on econophysics was removed. This research contains content cited in the Econophysics article itself, and is content created by a nobel laureate in economics, Vernon L. Smith. What differentiates this content from the lectures already listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.201.130 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We've been over this before: and 1#Influence. Your edits pretty consistently are about citing Michael J. Campbell: . That your co-author is a Nobel laureate is not relevant. You should not be citing yourself. That is called REFSPAM. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, in an unbiased way, you are welcome to do so. Self-promotion is not acceptable, however. Attic Salt (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not either author. You're justification of self-citing is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.201.130 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, the papers you want to cite by Michael J. Campbell are not significant. Most of the citations to them are by Michael J. Campbell himself. As for the lecture you want to link, by Campbell and Smith, this is simply not suitable for this article. It is far too technical and specialised. More generally, and again, your edit history does not suggest that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Attic Salt (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Look at the lecture "Financial Bubbles, Real Estate Bubbles, Derivative Bubbles, and the Financial and Economic Crisis". At 24:47 there is a differential equation. At 27:24 there is a stochastic partial differential equation, as with the Campbell/Smith video. This talk is every bit as technical. So your argument about being too technical and specialized doesn't hold water. Students do research in this area, and there is no question that it is relevant (appearing at Harvard and including participation with Nobel laureate). Since there is a paragraph on this page that has been long-standing, it should have the citations to back it up. Again, your requirements are arbitrary and inconsistent. You should at least do some basic investigation, such as watching the actual videos, and make sure that your standards are justified and consistent. As for your claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, that is again inconsistent and or misleading: you did not remove this Quantal_response_equilibrium, which I posted upon learning. This is another factor deeply tied into these papers you removed, and that you don't understand that shows that you have very little knowledge about the content on this page. So please be more humble and attempt to gain a deeper understanding of content before you impulsively remove it. Your bio says you are a scientist - you should know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.201.130 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Influence
The sentence "More recently, Vernon L. Smith, one of the founders of experimental economics and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate, has used these techniques and claimed they show a lot of promise." was removed with a claim that it is uninformative. The person who claims this is clearly not knowledgeable about the issues between the field of econophysics and mainstream economics. It is very relevant that a Nobel laureate in economics, Vernon L. Smith, has used techniques in econophysics.
 * That someone, be they Nobel laureate or just a regular person, used this is a low-information assertion. Attic Salt (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you using to qualify "low information"? When such a prominent economist makes a statement like that, it has great impact. In fact, Dr. Smith mentioned the response to his work in econophysics was "tremendous", which is very relevant to attitudes of economists about the field of econophysics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:507:9815:AA46:1580 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He told you this personally? Attic Salt (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question about qualifying "low information". Your assertion is arbitrary, and without merit in light of your lack of knowledge about the aforementioned work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:507:9815:AA46:1580 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The sentence is uncited to a source. You were previously wanting to cite a recently published paper that is not yet established as significant (it is not cited by anyone). The sentence itself is not helpful to a Wikireader in that it conveys no useful information, it is just an opinion. That is low information. Please review both WP:RS and WP:REFSPAM. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a naive statement. It is much more than an opinion: that Dr. Smith published a paper in econophysics is very relevant. In fact the content of the paper is very high information - if you read the paper you would know that. It is an opinion to say something about a field, but is much more to publish in the field itself. That being said, I would defer the comment until the paper has an adequate number of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:507:9815:AA46:1580 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, then we should remove the sentence. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Econophysics? Yard sale model and its development
I searched Wikipedia hoping to learn more related to Is Inequality Inevitable?; Scientific American, November 2019. This was the only article which referenced that and it was as a see also with nothing on the topic directly. There did not seem to be anything much even on the earliest model called a "Yard sale model" from twenty five years ago and is quite startling in its simplicity and results. The article called The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the only place it was mentioned - and that is just in the further reading.

Am I missng something? Is this the right article for it or another one if I want to try add a bit about it? It doesn't really seem to have anything to do with physics. NadVolum (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)