Der er en dyb fascination af fysik som videnskabeligt emne blandt mange økonomer, og det rette teoretiske spørgsmål fra fysikkens verden er en oplagt conversation starter i stort set alle lag. Fysikernes styrke er deres empiriske tilgang og en solid matematisk værktøjskasse. Respekt for det.
Herunder et citat fra en interessant og meget se-værdig video med den teoretiske fysiker Lee Smolin, om eksistensen af mere end et pris-ekvilibrium:
Economists were seduced by physics because it made their claims seem more scientific. Their belief was in the concept of equilibrium, in which it would be impossible to profit from trading around a circle of goods or a circle of currencies without actually producing anything. Of course, that is possible, and that did happen, and that’s because you’re never really at equilibrium.
Now there’s a fault with this [notion of only one equilibrium] and it’s an obvious fault and it’s been known since the 1970s from some theorems proved by some economists including some of the founders of this field of mathematical economics, which is that there’s not one equilibrium, there are many equilibria. In fact, there’s a vast number of equilibria. And so which equilibria, even assuming that this is a decent model of the economy which is not clear, but even assuming it’s a good model, which equilibria you’re in depends on the past history, it depends on regulation, it depends on politics, it depends on taste, it depends on changing taste, changing preferences. And so history matters and what’s called path dependence matters.