What is Reddit's opinion of More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics (Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Those interested in learning more about how economics has borrowed heavily, and often metaphorically, from various natural sciences should read Mirowski's More Heat Than Light (neoclassical econ borrowing from 19th Century physics) and Machine Dreams (Austrian/Chicago econ borrowing from 20th C. cybernetics).

http://www.amazon.com/More-Heat-than-Light-Perspectives/dp/0521426898

I appreciate your response. I'll try to keep my parting remarks brief.

> To scrap capitalism though is insane. The reason for this is that it is more efficient than any other system.

This depend on how you define "efficient". If you mean efficient in the way it has historically unleashed the productive abilities of man, then yes, it is the most efficient system to date. It is so efficient, in fact, that it produces too much capital--so much so that it routinely has to be destroyed, out of fear of a crisis of overproduction. At one time, capitalism was revolutionary (when compared to the previous epoch). Now, it has ran its course.

> You don't want to get rid of it, you want to take its gains and redistribute them as you see fit.

Considering the vast majority of humanity produces the exorbitant wealth enjoyed by an extreme minority, then yes, that is the point. And as the wealth gap steadily widens, more and more people begin to see the current relations for what they really are.

> Your alternative is to make the system produce less, and even then you still have a regulatory burden.

Only if the existing system is kept in place and one works to mitigate the contradictions of capitalism. But this can only be done for so long, before those antagonisms burst asunder and plunge society into crisis, smashing the old order.

In this respect, there is only one path ahead for society, and I'm sure it's one you won't like: world-wide socialist revolution. Genuinely ask yourself: is it more important to produce a array of commodities for sale on the market, some of which are coincidentally necessary for life, or do you want to work toward a society whose productive means are focused on producing for human need first and foremost (and that precludes a market mechanism)?

> Milton Friedman and the Chicago school advocate pure capitalism because it is the most efficient....wherein we use the state to make up for the market's failures and the unfairness that some people experience

Friedman also advocated a negative income tax. He at least saw that some mitigating factor in capitalism was necessary (of course this angered von Mises to no end, so much so that he famously called Friedman a "socialist") to prevent social crisis. Look at what's going on right now in the U.S. It's Keynesian policies in action. When the private sector falls flat, it is the State that must step up as the "employer of last resort". It's either that, or have long-term (and potentially systemic) unemployment. It's a simple tactic to keep social unrest in check, nothing more. The same reasons apply to the extension of unemployment benefits.

> It would be impossible for you to collect all of the necessary data to be able to say "all other things remaining equal, wages have not changed"

Nominal wages may have increased, but real wages have been staid since the early 80's. I'm not going to debate what's widely considered fact. The numbers are out there. Krugman, the favorite economist of liberals, himself admits this.

> I was more interested in microeconomics in school, and my knowledge is skewed towards that arena (applied economics, experimental economics, and game theory, which is considered to be the field that unifies all social sciences). One purpose of this field is to "break theories" using experiments. A professor that I had for a couple of my advanced topics in microeconomics classes is renowned in this field, and I was one of his favorite students. I've also taken a class taught by someone who was taught by Joan Robinson, who was taught by Keynes, who was taught by Marshall. For these reasons, I think that my economic beliefs are fairly well grounded in reality. I wouldn't call myself a proponent of capitalism. I just advocate it because I'm unaware of anything that provides a better end.

I suggest you see Mirkowski's More Heat than Light then. This reviewer says it better than I could:

> This is an amazing book! It exposes what is hidden in Samuelson and every other economics text, namely, that the theory of equilibria and utility were merely lifted from physics (Hamiltonian dynamics) without any support from economic data. What is more amazing is the complete discussion presented by the author that `utility' doesn't exist mathematically because the required differential form is nonintegrable. Economists and statisticians may not be able to undestand this point, but it should be familiar to researchers in dynamical systems theory. The inventors of marginal utility theory, Fisher, Walras, and Pareto, literally did not know enough mathematics to know what they were talking about. Equilibrium can't be reached in a Hamilton system (there is no friction to permit the approach to equilibrium), but this contradiction was no worse than all the others inherent in econo-pseudophysics.

For whatever reason, the social sciences feels it has to legitimize it's existence in the eyes of the "hard" sciences through the construction of mathematical models of society and social interaction. Unfortunately, those same models are simplified to the point where they usually fail to adequately grasp the very phenomena they seek to model in the first place. Economic theories are well and good on the microscopic scale. They can be tested in what resembles a scientific manner. The same cannot be said for macroeconomics and to apply the findings of microeconomics to the macroscopic scale usually results in an impedance mismatch.

Sometimes in science, elegant unifying ideas can be uncovered. One prime example being the Church-Turing thesis (something from my background). Unfortunately, they are usually the exception and not the rule. Grand unifying theories are typically few and far between and always occur in the hard sciences.

> I don't agree with this just because it disregards the possibility that they aren't, but I see what you're saying. Things need to change, that's obvious.

Well at least you agree that change or some sort of change is needed.

> If I were you, though, I would be seeking change via working with capitalism rather than against it. That's honest advice.

Reformism is a dead end. The German Revolution is a testament to this fact.

I'll leave with a parting thought: if capitalism is such a superior system of social production and distribution, why do so many billions still live in abject poverty?

"Utility theory" and monstrous neoclassical concepts like "pareto efficiency" have absolutely nothing to with mutualism or any real socialism.

Accepting the enemy's ideology from the onset is fighting a losing battle.

For critique of garbage economics take a look at:

"The Empire of Value: A New Foundation for Economics" by André Orléan:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/empire-value

"The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community" by Harvard Prof. Stephen A. Marglin:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047228

And the marvelous "More Heat Than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics" by Philip Mirowski:

https://www.amazon.com/More-Heat-than-Light-Perspectives/dp/0521426898