Difference between revisions of "Talk:MinSim"

From CSWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
We would do well to study this example (as well as from the much later Aspen project.)
 
We would do well to study this example (as well as from the much later Aspen project.)
 +
 
--[[User:Ken|Ken]] 01:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 
--[[User:Ken|Ken]] 01:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
  
Line 15: Line 16:
 
Published: October 1, 2008  
 
Published: October 1, 2008  
  
A short excerpt:
+
A couple brief teasers:
  
Well, part of the reason is that economists still try to understand markets by using ideas from traditional economics, especially so-called equilibrium theory. This theory views markets as reflecting a balance of forces, and says that market values change only in response to new information  the sudden revelation of problems about a company, for example, or a real change in the housing supply. Markets are otherwise supposed to have no real internal dynamics of their own. Too bad for the theory, things don't seem to work that way.
+
"Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant to embrace this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to the traditional equilibrium picture)."
 +
     
 +
"If we’re really going to avoid crises, we’re going to need something more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude to how science can help us understand how markets really work."
 +
 
 +
--[[User:Ken|Ken]] 19:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
----

Latest revision as of 19:45, 1 October 2008

The skepticism of economists towards simulation in general is reflected in the following dissection of Jay W. Forrester's World Dynamics (Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971):

  • "Measurement Without Data", William D. Nordhaus, The Economic Journal, Vol. 83, No. 332 (Dec., 1973), pp. 1156-1183. [1]

We would do well to study this example (as well as from the much later Aspen project.)

--Ken 01:34, 1 October 2008 (EDT)


Here's a link to an Op-Ed piece by Mark Buchanan in today's NY Times, sent to me by Peter Wayner:

This Economy Does Not Compute [2]

By MARK BUCHANAN Published: October 1, 2008

A couple brief teasers:

"Sadly, the academic economics profession remains reluctant to embrace this new computational approach (and stubbornly wedded to the traditional equilibrium picture)."

"If we’re really going to avoid crises, we’re going to need something more imaginative, starting with a more open-minded attitude to how science can help us understand how markets really work."

--Ken 19:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)