Wednesday, May 07, 2025

Pysics and Economics

The physics for large things like galaxies is different than the physics for the tiniest quarks. That much is known and accepted. However, the holy grail for physicists is a unifying theory that would unite both the gigantic and the microscopic. 

Likewise, economics has been divided into the study of the large (Macroeconomics) and the personal (Microeconomics). Yet you never seem to read or hear about any economists working on a unifying theory of economics. This seems odd to me. Like such a theory is not a priority. Makes me wonder if it is because economic decisions are made by people who aren't always rational or because economics isn't really a science?

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:48 PM

    Are you sure you meant to use ‘or’ instead of ‘and’?

    SP RN

    ReplyDelete
  2. You really had me thinking on this. I think the word "or" is correct because if I used "and" I'd be making a definitive statement that economics really isn't a science when the opposite can be argued. The question mark at the end shows this may be still in question. Think this may be a situation where I could have used a last sentence, "Maybe both?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember the intro to one of my dismal science text books starting out with, "we assume all States are rational actors." I don't know why that still makes me laugh out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's one of the statements in economics that most rational economists know is wrong but many other still teach. I'm always like the thought "If these economics professors understand how the economy works so well how come they're not all rich?"

    ReplyDelete