Talk:Complexity economics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Economics (Rated start-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as low-importance on the importance scale |
| WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-Class) | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high importance within Systems. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
[edit] Claims
Eric Beinhocker claims to have invented this term in his 2006 book The Origin of Wealth. It has the same connotation in his book. A highly dynamic, constantly evolving system, in contrast to the closed system of neo-classical economics.
I do not think think the presentation of neoclassical economics on this page is fair.
Claims that are questionable:
1. Micro and Macro Are Separate - Modern macro is based on microfoundations. Many would consider macro to now be an applied micro field.
2. No method for endogenous growth - Endogenous Growth Theory is a mainstream movement in neoclassical economics pioneered by Paul Romer in the late 80's.
3. All knowing / perfectly rational agents - fields of behavioral economics and information economics specifically avoid these assumptions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.175.204 (talk) 04:02:38, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
- As I read it, Beinhocker criticized neoclassical economics as an obsolete paradigm that cannot be fixed with adjustments, corrections or extensions. He claims that although there are advances like mentioned above, they do not fix the underlying problem: the theories are based on classical physics. It doesn't help that behavioral economics avoids the assumption of perfectly rational agents, if the rest of economics still continues to make the same assumption. Claims 1 and 2 are questionable, though; the only question is whether these theories are used and taught in schools. Again, it doesn't help if the modern cutting edge is realistic when the basic courses still include only the old theories. At least the basic economics I have been taught is purely classical, macro and micro separate and endogenous growth theory not mentioned. Actually, in the table, what is compared appears to be the original form of traditional economics, not its current state. --Vuo 09:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
