I am not sure how I expected people to react to my posts yesterday and now today on using quantum-style thinking in combination with economics, but it's fair to say that not everybody has yet been gripped by the idea.
I might be, and Jacqueline might be. We are so much so, in fact, that we did a lot more thinking on the issue yesterday, creating another version of the idea that looks at how the economy might also be explained using concepts from quantum biology—an area to which Jacqueline has been giving a lot of thought. We are doing this because we think it's worthwhile offering another explanation of how the economy works. Let me be clear: that is why I am doing this. We are seeking a better explanation for the way in which the economy works; that's it.
The overarching concern I have is that the paradigm we are working within—neoliberalism—is very clearly only serving the interests of a small minority of people in society. It is most certainly not working for the vast majority, whose interests concern me. As a consequence - and this point is critical - there is no real point in trying to explain how neoliberalism might be tweaked to serve everyone best, because it is now apparent that this cannot happen. That possibility is beyond it. That was never its goal.
As I see it, the problems inherent in neoliberalism, neo-Keynesianism, and earlier models, including neoclassicism, stem from the fact that these frameworks were promoted by, and on behalf of, elites who sought to justify arrangements that served their interests. All such models now converge on explaining how the best interests of those with financial power should be protected from the rest of society. Frankly, I see little difference between them. They are variations on a theme, presenting reductionist models based on mythematics as Steve Keen would call it (and we will have our first podcast with Steve, later this week, on precisely this issue). Economics has, then, reached a singular point where the only question it seeks to answer is antisocial, in the sense that it is opposed to the best interests of most people.
In this context, the thinking behind modern monetary theory is obviously interesting. As the violent reaction to it from defenders of the status quo shows, it does challenge the hegemony of economic thought. But as I often explain, it is not so much a theory as an explanation. It describes how money works in a fiat money economy, but that falls a long way short of offering a replacement for the failed models of neoliberal thought. It is not a policy prescription. Nor does it explain much beyond money. It suggests political possibilities, which is why it appeals to me, but it does not change everything. In fact, much of what it describes is about how money works under neoliberalism, despite all the denials that the proponents of neoliberal thinking might offer. That is not a criticism: understanding reality is much better than pretending the world runs on mythical ideas of banking, central banking, and government finance. But MMT does not, by itself, offer the new paradigm we need. It provides a pathway, but maybe not more.
That is why a new economic model has to be found. Right now, I am not seeing where it is. There is no point looking backwards to the classical economists, although, as will become apparent in this quantum series, and in my series on the history of economic thought (which we have begun recording), there was more merit in classical thinking than in much of what has followed. But prescriptions from the 18th and 19th centuries cannot, by themselves, provide the answers we need in the 21st. Economic thinking must always be understood in the context of its time, and issues that exist in society at that moment.
In other words, what I am exploring are new ideas to see if there are better ways of explaining how the economy works, and better metaphors to help people understand the processes involved. This inevitably involves risk. Nothing changes unless you are willing to do things that at first appear unacceptable, incomprehensible, or just daft. I am willing to take that risk. That is the point of this post: when most economic thinking takes place within a failed paradigm, and heterodox models offer only limited ways forward, it is time to take the risk of mapping the economic terrain differently, to see whether a new perspective emerges. That is what this series will be about.
In truth, that has always been the purpose of this blog, in its different phases: I have always sought to ask what happens if we look at things differently. The appeal of quantum thinking is that it suggests the very act of looking at something always changes it—and that if you look differently, you might change it quite a lot. That is why I think this avenue is worth pursuing.
I am not pretending that the resulting blog posts will necessarily be easy to read or understand: creating them has been challenging for me, and they would not have been possible without discussions with Jacqueline. She insists she is not their co-author, but she has most definitely been a party to their creation.
I have three suggestions for readers:
First, if there are terms in these posts that are unfamiliar, and I have not provided a link, Google them—adding the word “quantum” will usually help—and you should find explanations, even if they are challenging.
Second, persist with these posts even if they are not the easiest I have ever written. Some will become more applied quite soon, and they might help explain why I think this is a direction worth following.
Finally, please understand that I may be wasting my time—and yours. This line of inquiry might prove fruitless. It may not be what is required to challenge the economic power structures we live under. That possibility has to be accepted. It would be absurd to deny it. I have no way of knowing at present, and I expect my thinking to evolve over the coming weeks and months. But unless that risk is taken, we remain stuck where we are—and that is an unacceptable outcome. So, let's see what happens.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If it helps, I think that the quantum approach is a lot more more powerful than the ‘cappuccino economy’ which I think you spoke of in ‘The Courageous State’ – this is a more powerful and fundamental sort of model which seems to fit because of the ephemeral nature of money and also – by comparing it to a photon – we are talking about its properties not its origination, it’s a sort of bounded reasoning.
The risk is though that it is maybe too high brow for many and I can’t ignore that fact that I might be in that category. I mean, how many explanations do we need for some sort of ‘enlightenment’ or epiphany? And then there is the sheer volume of received wisdom about these issues to contend with. Ignorance seems to be the most abundant substance in the universe right now, never mind talk of photons etc.
I think you are right.
One comment I have heard is that if you think Glastonbury is odd you have never studied quantum physics
I am sure it will be interesting!
I’m sceptical, too….. but keep going.
“All models are wrong but some are useful”….. the test is usefulness and we won’t know if it is or isn’t until we have kicked it about a bit.
Precisely
I’m sceptical …. a potential problem using quantum theory to explain anything else, is that it is not widely or well understood …. So probably a poor basis to use as an analogy.
There are other aspects that concern me …. We need to demystify the “so called complexity” of the manifest bias in our system. Its not that complex …. There’s a deeply unfair allocation of wealth, resources.
We can avoid “mythical thinking” and making things appear “spooky action at a distance” ….. If it is accepted that lack of government money is not a constraint on addressing the practical realities of real peoples’ lives, then surely the way forward is simply addressing practical issues (good governance, more equitable distribution of wealth, transparency and accountability). Using analogies, these issues seem more suited to Newtonian physics than weirder small scale quantum physics….
That said ….. Good luck with your endeavours!!
All accepted.
I entirely agree that one of the real problems with this is that the word quantum does, in itself, put people off, even though the word “quantum” originates from the Latin word quantus, meaning “how much” or “how great an extent”. It is, therefore, inherently economic and its concept.
The other problem is that people think that you’re being fairly intellectually pseudy if you try to use quantum in just about anything, as if it implies significant knowledge. I am not making any such claim about quantum physics. I have got my head around some of the concepts. I would, however, present an analogy. I do not, by any means, understand all the rules of grammar, and I can most definitely not describe all the parts of a sentence in grammatical terms. I’ve never bothered to learn. But does that prevent me from using language? No, it clearly does not. I think I am probably quite good at using language and so I can also use the language of physics, even if I do not understand every single element within it.
Thanks to both of you for your explorations of knowledge and possibilities.
Might it be that grounded exploration of knowledge and related relevant possibilities is never a waste of time, even when those explorations may be limited and/or disappointing for they still have the relevance of appropriate backgrounding and elimination?
You share my opinion.
At the very least, Jacqueline and I are going to know more at the end of this, and I hope some others will have some new insights as well.
How about some guiding principles? ………
The 10 Commandments of a Just Economy
1.Thou shalt put human need before profit.
Food, shelter, health, care, and dignity come first; markets are tools, not masters.
2. Thou shalt not hoard wealth.
Wealth is a trust to be shared. Idle accumulation and speculation at others’ expense are forbidden.
3. Thou shalt forgive debts that cannot be borne.
Perpetual bondage to debt is oppression. Jubilee principles must release households and communities.
4. Thou shalt pay workers fairly.
Every labourer deserves a living wage, safe conditions, and respect. Exploitation is theft.
5. Thou shalt welcome the stranger and care for the least.
Migrants, refugees, the poor, and the excluded have a right to hospitality and participation in economic life.
6. Thou shalt steward the earth.
The land, air, waters, and creatures are God’s creation and the common inheritance of all. Do not despoil them for short-term gain.
7. Thou shalt not manipulate money to enslave.
Money is a servant for exchange and provision, not a weapon for domination. Finance must serve the real economy.
8. Thou shalt practice truth and transparency in all accounts.
Let the creation of money, the raising of taxes, and the use of resources be open to all, that trust may flourish.
9. Thou shalt not exalt the powerful above the powerless.
Leaders must serve; corporations and governments must be held accountable to the common good.
10. Thou shalt measure thy economy by love and justice, not by growth alone.
True prosperity is peace, fairness, care, and community – where the least are lifted up, and the earth is renewed
Not right now.
I am exploring mechanics first. See where that takes us.
But I like these.
Cliff, I am going to steal this in the best capitalist tradition to offer to my friends.
Thank you.
I might also be stealing this, with one or two adaptations, to be the basis for a future video. Thank you Cliff.
Spread the Word!
I would suggest that all are drawn almost directly from the Bible and a perfect riposte to those who argue for “Christian Values” as they follow the beat of Garage’s drum.
I will steal it, too.
🙂
The Commandments are fully aligned with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and all of them are being broken routinely.
Our nation’s institutions claim Christian heritage – yet every day our economy betrays the values of justice, mercy, and care for the least. This must change. So do please copy them and circulate them.
A video may happen. I have edited a bit.
CLIVE
you are correct
on my Facebook page an American lady who doesn’t post very often ( and comes from the South ) didn’t like the use of the Ten Commandments. I gave a biblical reference -in general, not chapter and verse for almost all and quoted William Jennings Bryant (crucified on a cross of gold ).
I impressed myself.
I really like this and am going to share with friends and friends of friends etc
Thank you for this, Cliff B. I think it’s a fantastic post. 🙂
I sit here in bed in our caravan in Wales, and I look out of my window while listening to the so-called “News” on TV. I see the birds at the feeders, flying in and out. I see the coastline on the other side of the sea through a gap in the hedge. I see the flowers and plants in the hedge (the pennywort leaves are just starting to sprout), and the outline of Garn Fadryn over the fields (when it’s not raining of course!). At night I see the lights of Abersoch, and Mythno a bit further away. And I wonder why on earth people make so much trouble on this beautiful planet that we live on. Can’t they just look at the beauty around them and stop being so horrible to each other?
Of course city living is different, but there’s still natural beauty to see in cities too. Isn’t there a quote about the sparrows in the hedge? But I still live in hope that people will wake up!
“In a good hedge you can always talk things over, make decisions, have a laugh if you want to, sing, even with a voice like mine!”
From Hedge Sparrows, Richard Price
🙂
But what about tree sparrows?
Hayao Miyazaki:
“In this world of ours, the sparrow must live like a hawk if he is to fly at all”.
Might it be reasonably accurate, and possibly useful, to descibe/define Neoliberalism as an “oligarchic, privatised and financialised market” based socio-economic theory and set up? (From.Michael Hudson)
Might such indicate its inherent instability and limitation of decent socio-economic contexts for whole populations?
Might neoliberalism be a particularly parasitic form of socio-economics when we need a symbiotic one, which would be more stable, sustainable and equitable?
Inherent instability is a theme I will get to.
Give it time…
The potential for a eureka moment is exciting
“The appeal of quantum thinking is that it suggests the very act of looking at something always changes it—and that if you look differently, you might change it quite a lot.”
The difficulty you are going to encounter with the quantum analogy is that the observer taking the measurement has only a **probability** of being able to predict any of the future states of the quantum system after it has been measured (“the measurement problem”).
I do not see that is a problem: I see that as a virtue.
Science progresses by exploring the roads less travelled. We can anticipate that many will be dead ends but we won’t know if we don’t make the effort.
In 2001 I went with a group of Somerset teachers to Denmark. The brief was to see how they taught ‘citizenship’ which was the new idea in English education. They didn’t have it as a subject but it was implicit in the way they ran schools. Looking at another system caused us to re-evaluate our own. It wasn’t what the British Council who paid for the trip wanted to hear. They, it seemed, just wanted a few things to bolt onto the existing structure.
So go for it, Richard.
As an aside, Angeal Merkel has a PhD in quantum chemistry. Not quite sure how that is relevant though I have observed quite a number of European politicians have higher qualifications compared with ours.
Thank you, Ian.
Might be worth remembering:
Occam’s Razor
Keep It Simple
The Clapham Omnibus
“If it can’t be explained on one side of A4 it ain’t worth reading.”
Government spends/invests, money circulates, tax keeps things under control.
Beyond that we are into political priorities and discussions of “fairness”.
The Greens also muddle two things with their green wealth tax: trying to tax wealth while punishing people who won’t/can’t insulate their homes. Keep It Simple requires them to be separate – and to use a carrot not a stick!
But, getting to simple is not necessarily easy. Sometimes you have to go the long way around before you get there.
I’ve often mentioned that I think we have a profound moral crisis in politics and in our society. I’m a follower of Jesus, so you would expect me to say that, although “moral crisis” is a term more often screamed from the right than the left, despite some of the left’s historical roots in non-conformist Christianity.
I’ve been looking at these quantum posts and fully support your quest for a new way of looking at political economy, money and how it works. Quantum theory certainly makes me think about my religion afresh, so it seems entirely reasonable to let it inform our political economy.
Let’s face it, we are in one hell of a mess, globally, and locally. This is no time for closing down creative thought. You and Jacqueline, please keep going. It’s not as if there is anything creative coming out of Whitehall. We need all the help we can get. You are here for such a time as this, to do what you do best.
I don’t want a progressive answer that is just a different sort of maths. The crisis (whether you call it moral or not) is too deep for that.
KUTGW!
The ideas that we were exploring yesterday are in particular about mitochondria, their relationship with cancer, and how cancer (which is present in all of this, all of the time) can go out control, and consume a host through it essentially selfish growth. In economics terms, there is obvious merits in thinking about that.
Right now, this looks as though will be a second series of posts, after the first one is complete, but the two will of course complement each other.
I started reading your blogs because an accountancy approach to economics made sense to me. I then progressed to trying to understand MMT (I have an Economics A level but that was a very long time ago) and welcomed the chance to exercise my remaining brain cells. Now I’m trying to understand Quantum theory….I’m sure it’s good for me!
I will be honest, a lot of this will feel quite unfamiliar, and even difficult at first. It is to me, or rather I should say, us. But, the more we work on it, the more sense it makes, and that has been the pleasure of doing this. As we explore ideas and test them, we discover that either ChatGPT is either listening to us, and confirming our biases (which is possible) or there is something here which is really useful. Either way, as you will discover all of this is leading to a new narrative, and that really matters to me.
How will you change the way people act or if they wantvto work in a society and function in a societ?
I think that is more the question getting people to enkoy their work and emjoy making money, there are people who do not need to work as they have so many benefits worki g in thr Public sector and there are people struggling in the private sector who have to work everuday to make ends meet.
Rents are too high and houses are overpriced, how can we change this so that people think working will actually benefit them too many people are working to live a sub standard existence.
Noted
How do we avoid shit jobs, in other words?
These are issues that I intend to address.
There will always be shit jobs. The real issue is for we, who are blessed and don’t do those essential jobs, to respect those that do.
In many ways, everything follows from that respect. COVID gave us a glimpse of what that respect might look like…. but how quickly we forget.
Richard, thanks to you, I get that MMT is not theory as such but “how it works” in the real world.
As you have repeatedly stated the accepted economic theory is just that theory, not how humans really work when making choices.
How to smash the domination of modern theory economics and the fixation that only strong white men can rule for the benefit of a very small elite?
Tell the truth, offer hope with a practical this is how we can afford it. The elites will rail against you that the world is going to end.
No the world will not end. The cossetted, highly subsidised world of the financial elite will, but who cares as long as the majority have a much improved financial sustainable future.
You are getting my direction of travel.
I have long felt that economics could learn a great deal from the concepts developed in physics and I am pleased your thoughts are taking you in this direction. As a graduate physicist, the (albeit limited) economics I learned in my professional accountancy training had me hooting with laughter at its attempts to reduce what is clearly an extremely complex real-life open system to a simplistic set of rules. Physics – even Newtonian mechanics – recognises when a model has limitations or simplifications and explicitly states those accordingly, and it should always revisit even those models when experimental data (aka real life) demonstrate the underlying assumptions are in error. The economic theory we have been following for the last 40 or so years has been amply disproved by its divergence from actuality, despite desperate attempts to shoehorn reality back into that box. I had, tbh, largely ignored it until the Financial Crash but that event brought it home to me just how dangerous this theory was,which was how I came to set out on a hunt for an alternative, and found this blog.
I definitely welcome interdisciplinary thinking to find better solutions, and although we need to be careful not to push analogies too far sometimes, I do think that some of the quantum mechanistic concepts in physics, as well as perhaps perspectives from relativity (frames of reference) and maybe complexity theories (think weather forecasting) are worth consideration.
Looking forward to reading what you come up with!
Open systems? How dare you suggest something so real? Don’t you know that makes the maths more difficult for a bear with a very small brain, otherwise known as an economist?
And thanks for your comment. My problem is that it present this is just growing like topsy, but I am not very worried about that.
I’m excited, sounds really interesting. Reminds me of Douglas Adams ‘infinite probability drive’ in Hithhikers guide to the galaxy. I say hit the button and let’s see where we end up
Agreed!
This won’t be a waste of time no matter what; it’s started a conversation, people are thinking and responding.
We need a new economics; why not this, based on how the world works instead of myth and greed?
My objection to the quantum analogy is that quantum physics is about very small things and tiny changes in state – the term ‘quantum leap’ actually means a tiny jump not a big thing.
In the real world of economics I’m looking for big, meaningful change…
So am I.
And quantum means ‘how much?’, not small.
So, I am asking ‘How much change do we need?’ Hint: a lot
Black holes are quite big.
Big in space, but a big myth in neoliberal economics.
Quantum thinking helps me understand both.
(I’m hopeful Starmer/Reeves may disappear into one)
🙂
“Quantum leap” actually means an abrupt or discontinuous change, rather than a continuum, which may be what you are looking for, though I’d be wary that at the macro level this could be enormously disruptive and would need to be handled with care.
I think a fourth cautionary suggestion you could have added at the end of your post would be for readers to remember that you are exploring an ANALOGY here. Some commenters’ objections or reservations seem to arise because they have more familiarity with quantum theory than you (and most of us) do, and they think that, because there are aspects of the physics that won’t map onto the economics, the whole idea must be a non-starter. To me that looks like silo thinking, and that’s exactly what you’re trying to get away from. I’m finding the analogies you’ve made illuminating and I’m intrigued to see where this will lead. I’m not expecting economics to be re-categorised as a branch of physics as a result of your work!
I had not realised that people do not get this after my introduction, but I might make sure this is made clear now.
I understand what you’re trying to do, and in general, I approve of creative approaches, but I see two problems:
1. So far, the claims are very broad, and to be truly convincing (rather than simply a fun thought experiment), this project requires more work — perhaps even at the level of authoring a book. People with a physics background (myself included) are perhaps asking for more than is needed, but in all disciplines, rigor, specificity, and research are more interesting and more enlightening.
Also, some of your claims about physics are… hmm… divisive. Claiming that quantum mechanics is “engaged with philosophy” (as you did in the comments of your other post) is a surefire way to draw an argument. Certainly there are those that use quantum theory for philosophy, and then there are those who adhere rigorously to science being grounded in experiment. If I might make a gentle suggestion: if you are truly serious about this subject, perhaps you might consider searching for a co-author with the relevant background.
2. You are not the first to apply science and mathematics to other disciplines. Transhumanism also does this — and in my opinion, the reasons for it doing so are not always benign. The natural question is, why does your narrative need it? And of course, you have answered this question, if not with the detail some would prefer. But I think it is natural to ask: where is power in this narrative? Are you appealing to a trusted authority (science) as a way to justify your claims? Are there limits to your model?
I don’t say any of this to be discouraging. On the contrary, I hope it stimulates further discussion.
Thanks, and noted.
As I have already noted in other comments this morning, my aim is not to prove that there is an obvious link between economics and quantum physics. In fact, if at the end of the day the quantum physics element disappeared, that would be just fine. The aim to find a new economic narrative when what we have has very clearly failed.
That said, it seems to me that there is most definitely a very strong link between quantum physics and philosophy, or, at least there is amongst those who I am noting.
But, and I stress the point, this is a thought experiment being played out on this blog, which has always been its purpose. For more than 19 years it has been an ongoing narrative that has been seeking to find the truth amongst the noise. That is what I’m trying to do here in that sense. It should not be viewed as an academic exercise, nor is this something that does, necessarily, require a book (which are incredibly time consuming, and very largely go unnoticed). It is working if you respond, because that is the development of an narrative, and that is what I am aiming for.
Fair. I think you will both alienate and intrigue different audiences with this paradigm, so it is certainly provocative.
Regarding physics and philosophy: if you ever have the chance, I would encourage you to attend a local physics department symposium on string theory. (If those still exist, which they may not. My studies were contemporary with Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe.”) If the physics department is worth its salt, your opinion will certainly ruffle a few feathers and generate vigorous debate.
I admit I have never considered such a possibility.
I am not academic and have no qualifications but I have challenged myself over the years reading books on various subjects philosophy, neurology, some Chomsky and even esoteric subjects and a little it of quantum physics. I thought your new way of explaining how to see the problems with the neoliberalism works well , but I’m not sure it would capture the general public , I have learnt from your blog and videos ( and still have a long way to go ) . What you have produced up to now is amazing and I’m sure will continue to educate , I see no reason not to see we’re this goes so as to reach as many people as possible , I personally think what you do is very much needed in these working times
Thank you
Thatnks, Neil.
Let’s be clear: this is an exercise in thinking out loud. It is not the destination in itself, I am quite sure. The aim is to find new narrartives. I may not succeed, but I think it is worth tryting.
Sorry worrying times