Talk:Complexity economics

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm currently studying economics at a graduate level, when I read this article I feel like it is being compared to what economics was 30-40 years ago, and that the writers might be a bit out of touch with what is going on today. --Rob.s.brit 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims 

message: These edits added material on German hyperinflation which appear to be original research. The reference to I believe this page of a book doesn't really help verify the material. It's possible complexity economics could be applied to hyperinflation, but it needs a source from someone doing it. CRETOG8(t/c) 09:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German hyperinflation 

message: The IP editor's claim that traditional economics was based on linear models, unlike complexity economics would benefit from a reality check---of the writings on Richard Murphy Goodman, Ulrich Krause (Ian Steedman), Davis's fascination with Sraffa, etc. On the contrary, these guys have pushed the Perron-Frobenius theorem as though Leontiev models  were  useful for modern economics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linearity 

message: I am pleased by the use of page references and quotations, especially given questions raised by other editors too. This is a very helpful development.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I don't mean this specifically in regard to the section, but in regard to the views of John Horgan in the section. From a gander at his works he seems WP:Fringe, and honestly a bit of a luddite, such as taking positions against psychiatric medicine. It seems fine to me if he is included in the Criticism Section if the criticism section contained something other than his thoughts on the matter, however as it currently stands the section only contains his thoughts, so a more justifiable name would be John Horgan's Criticism of Complexity Economics, the critical problem with this being, who is John Horgan and why is his opinion relevant to the Complexity Economics? I propose adding actual criticism of the field to the section, and greatly reducing the musings of Horgan, or nixxing the section all together as WP:UNDUE. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean look at what he says, "Chaos Theory is a failed fad"? I realize it's no longer a "hot field" but that's also not to say people are throwing out non-linear dynamic systems as being somehow not worthy or something weird like that. He then follows this up by saying that it's contributed nothing new. I mean you have the three body problem, lasers, directing a broken satellite back to earth using gravity, Feigenbaum's number, pacemakers, Lyapunov Exponents, the fact that most naturally occurring dynamic systems are non-linear. Which goes back to his central thesis which is apparently if math can't be proven on the back of a business card with middle school algebra it is incorrect. I'll leave this up for a while, if no one's interested I'm going to axe the section as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UNDUE Criticism of Complexity Economics 

message: The statement given in the introduction to the article "It uses computational RATHER than mathematical analysis to explore how economic structure is formed and reformed" implies an epistemological approximation to complex systems which is not widely adopted. There is no consensus on whether emergent  properties can be accessed only via computational simulations (for a recent discussion see the Introduction in this article), and therefore the most unbiased statement should consider that in the area both maths and simulations are used, I do not see any reason to narrow the methodology to computational simulations (moreover, some of the examples discussed from game theory in the article have analytical solutions) Conjugado (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational versus mathematical analysis