5 ms·

Econophysicist? Does he study the supply and demand for pendula and inclined planes?

adw 17y ago
Econophysicists, roughly speaking, model economic systems using techniques from statistical mechanics; not nearly as silly an idea as it might seem at first blush.
- discojesus 17y ago
  a) 'twas a joke, sir. :) and b) the idea may not be silly but the name sure is. By this nomenclature, all current economists should more properly be called "Econostatisticians" or "Econopsychologists" (to quote Charlie Munger speaking about the silliness of the term "Behavioral Economics": "If economics isn't behavioral, then what the hell is it?!?") No offense meant, of course. I just think it's a bit humorous. He's an economist who uses methods from physics, that's all - no need to make up a new name for it (let alone a name that sounds even dopier than the previous name).
  - adw 17y ago
    Yeah, sorry about missing the intent of the joke :) I'm cynical enough to think people'll just take pot-shots at scientists playing outside their perceived core expertises just on principle. Not that I'm a scientist turned startupper or anything. Anyway, it's a pretentious name, but I think it's a bit like "systems biology" (biology done by physicists). If physicists do it, they like inventing a new name. Of course, there's masses of that kind of thing, and I guess I'm a bit more sensitive to it than most; the research I did when I was still a researcher could have been called quantum chemistry, solid state physics, materials science, or what it was actually called (theoretical mineralogy) and still have been the same damn thing! (Predicting how glass works.)
    - Anon84 17y ago
      "systems biology" (biology done by physicists). If physicists do it, they like inventing a new name. Or biophysics, nanobiology, "human dynamics", etc... sexy names make for sexy media attention (and grants). <joke> Also, we like to think of it not as "X done by physicists" but rather "X done right" </joke>
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Oddly enough, a lot of econophysics went into justifying the recent bubble and the creators of heat-equation-inspired Black-Scholes equations were directly responsible for the LTCM collapse in 1998. Econophysics doesn't have a "not snake oil" feel to it...
  - henning 17y ago
    Reading "When Genius Failed" or whatever that book was that discussed the fall of LTCM, I thought LTCM failed because they started doing things their original mathematical models didn't cover, and assuming that Russia wouldn't default on its debt. They started doing straight up directional trading and other things that weren't safe or something to that effect.
    - joe_the_user 17y ago
      I just have to comment here. There's a journalist style that loves to blame failure on some personal quality rather than on the structure of the system itself. Certainly, when it fell apart, I'm sure if one looked hard enough, one could find a "mistake" that LTCM made other than following an unsustainable system. But the invariant is that escalating leverage and escalating speculation is ultimately unsustainable, ultimately identical to a Ponzi scheme and will fail sooner or later - I mean, I'm sure you could find the "mistake" that brought Madoff down.

adw 17y ago

Econophysicists, roughly speaking, model economic systems using techniques from statistical mechanics; not nearly as silly an idea as it might seem at first blush.

discojesus 17y ago
a) 'twas a joke, sir. :) and b) the idea may not be silly but the name sure is. By this nomenclature, all current economists should more properly be called "Econostatisticians" or "Econopsychologists" (to quote Charlie Munger speaking about the silliness of the term "Behavioral Economics": "If economics isn't behavioral, then what the hell is it?!?") No offense meant, of course. I just think it's a bit humorous. He's an economist who uses methods from physics, that's all - no need to make up a new name for it (let alone a name that sounds even dopier than the previous name).
- adw 17y ago
  Yeah, sorry about missing the intent of the joke :) I'm cynical enough to think people'll just take pot-shots at scientists playing outside their perceived core expertises just on principle. Not that I'm a scientist turned startupper or anything. Anyway, it's a pretentious name, but I think it's a bit like "systems biology" (biology done by physicists). If physicists do it, they like inventing a new name. Of course, there's masses of that kind of thing, and I guess I'm a bit more sensitive to it than most; the research I did when I was still a researcher could have been called quantum chemistry, solid state physics, materials science, or what it was actually called (theoretical mineralogy) and still have been the same damn thing! (Predicting how glass works.)
  - Anon84 17y ago
    "systems biology" (biology done by physicists). If physicists do it, they like inventing a new name. Or biophysics, nanobiology, "human dynamics", etc... sexy names make for sexy media attention (and grants). <joke> Also, we like to think of it not as "X done by physicists" but rather "X done right" </joke>
joe_the_user 17y ago
Oddly enough, a lot of econophysics went into justifying the recent bubble and the creators of heat-equation-inspired Black-Scholes equations were directly responsible for the LTCM collapse in 1998. Econophysics doesn't have a "not snake oil" feel to it...
- henning 17y ago
  Reading "When Genius Failed" or whatever that book was that discussed the fall of LTCM, I thought LTCM failed because they started doing things their original mathematical models didn't cover, and assuming that Russia wouldn't default on its debt. They started doing straight up directional trading and other things that weren't safe or something to that effect.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    I just have to comment here. There's a journalist style that loves to blame failure on some personal quality rather than on the structure of the system itself. Certainly, when it fell apart, I'm sure if one looked hard enough, one could find a "mistake" that LTCM made other than following an unsustainable system. But the invariant is that escalating leverage and escalating speculation is ultimately unsustainable, ultimately identical to a Ponzi scheme and will fail sooner or later - I mean, I'm sure you could find the "mistake" that brought Madoff down.