Re: Equilibrium, stasis and death

[ECOPPC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jim Devine responds that Mirowski overdoes the comparison between neoclassical
theory and 19th century energy physics.

First, energy physics is not about the substantive aspects of the laws of
thermodynamics and irreversibility. It is rather an equilibrium framework which
avoids the basic questions by assuming that processes proceed infinitely slowly
to avoid dissipation and irreversibility.

Second, I agree that Mirowski has overstated the influence, especially as
regards Walras who was virtually ignorant of 19th century physics and
mathematics. Walras framework was rather 18th century in his orientation and
training.

But neoclassical economics borrows more than the mathematics, it also borrows
fundamental  conceptions and methodology from energy physics (mid-19th century
analytical mechanics). The whole apparatus of field theory as applied to the
theory of utility and production is virtually a direct borrowing.

Edgeworth expressed it as follows: "The particular hypothesis adopted in these
pages, that Pleasure is the concomitant of Energy. <Energy> may be regarded as
the central idea of Mathematical Psychics [economics]; <Maximum energy> the
object of the principle investigations in that science..."Mecanique Sociale"
may one day take her place along with "Mecanique Celeste" throned each upon the
double-sided height of one maximum principle, the supreme pinnacle of moral as
of physical science. As the movements of each particle, constrained or loose,
in a material cosmos are continually subordinated to one maximum sub-total of
accumulated energy, so the movements of each soul whether selfishly isolate or
linked sympathetically may continually be realising the maximum pleasure..."
(1881) quoted in <More Heat than Light> p. 221.

See Mirowski for the mechanisms of the transmission. The results are of course
the treatment of economic agents as particles of mass in equilibrium in a field
of forces. There is no recognition of the influence of history, society, social
bonds, etc. As Mirowski writes: "neoclassical consumer theory is premised upon
the deep presumption that trade alters neither the commodity nor the consumer..
Would everyone acquiesce in the symmetric thesis that production alters neither
the factors nor the process...? [i.e. NO THERMODYNAMIC DISSIPATION OR
LEARNING!!  {ppc}] .... Economists must presume that the technology
field is path-independent, so that the firm can go anywhere in the field
(within the stated constraints) from any other point, and actually end up
producing the anticapated output. Further, this has to be true for each and
every technology, past, present, or future, independent of any other
considerations." <More Heat> p. 315.

If it were just a question of mathematics it would be easy to change. Just
develop the appropriate conceptions and express them mathematically. WE are
locked in at a much deeper level in our "ontological" and "epistemological"
assumptions. The whole framework is a dead-end as Kirman EJ 1989 argues.
Kirman however waves his hands about production saying it doesn't solve any
problems (i.e. it raises even more problems for the ARrow-Debru framework). But
production, including environmental production has to be part of the "system"
we lay out. Marx argued in the GRundrisse that material production was the
starting point but jumped to an analysis of the dual aspect of the commodity
and to capitalist social relations of production. THe Cambridge controversies
were supposed to have redirected us to a "production approach to economics" and
rehabilitated the "Classical production approach" But where's the production as
Mondale would have put it?