For a long
while now I have tried to argue that all those political economic etc. theories
we have inherited from the past are not adequate for telling us how we got
where we are, or why we are there, or what is really going on and last of all
what happens next?
In the web
site Project Syndicate, one for economists of various stripes, a post today, 9th
October, by Andrew Sheng and Xiao Geng on “Micro, Macro, Meso and Meta
Economics” comes round to that view.
It is not a
long or difficult article but here is the extract of the end:
“Similarly, Eric
Beinhocker, at the newly established Institute
for New Economic Thinking, argues for “a new way of seeing and
understanding the economic world.”
Such an approach
requires incorporating psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, physics,
biology, mathematics, computer science, and other disciplines that study
complex adaptive systems.
We believe that
the framework of “micro-macro-meso-meta-economics” – what we call “systemnomics”
– is a more complete way to analyze human economies, understood as complex
living systems evolving within dynamically changing complex natural systems.
This is a
particularly useful framework for analyzing the evolution of ancient but re-emerging
economies such as China and India
The full
article is here:
Photograph
by Rocco DiDonato.
Well, one
thing is for sure, it ain’t going be any easier.
"The contemporary obsession with reductionist and mechanical models seems to have driven the profession from theory toward ideology, putting it out of touch with the real economy."
ReplyDeleteI don't think the problem is necessarily solvable because powerful people will, in an uncertain world, simply look after themselves and their own kind.
They will resort to force, fraud or whatever delivers the goods. As always.
For sure the end result will be a dictatorship.
ReplyDeletePeople tend to find this comforting for a while.
Whereas democracy seems so unpopular it needs new leaders very often.