I have already mentioned that some of yesterday was spent by Jacqueline (my wife and a retired GP, for those unfamiliar, and a partner in Tax Research LLP, which publishes this blog) and me developing ideas around quantum economics, money, and even accounting.
I want to stress that neither of us claims to be experts in this, although we have read enough to ask what we think are sensible questions around the ideas in quantum physics to imagine how they might be applied elsewhere.
The result of our discussion will be published here in at least ten blogs, with the following probable themes (although not all have been edited as yet):
-
Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics
-
Money as Particle and Flow
-
Entanglement and Double-Entry Bookkeeping
-
Quantum Uncertainty and Economic Forecasts
-
Speculation, Potential, and Energy
-
Infinite Promises, Finite Energy (MMT and constraint)
-
The Photon Question — Labour as the Quantum of Value
-
Land as the Field — Henry George's Contribution
-
Towards a Quantum Political Economy
-
A Call for a New Economics
This is the first of those blogs:
Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics
“Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.” – Niels Bohr
Economics has borrowed from physics for centuries. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Newton's mechanics provided the dominant metaphor. Bodies moved under predictable forces; systems tended towards equilibrium; the world was a machine that could be measured, predicted, and controlled. Economists, eager to dress their subject in scientific clothes, copied these ideas.
Supply and demand became forces. Prices were imagined to balance markets. Equilibrium became the central metaphor: like planets finding their orbits, markets supposedly found theirs.
But physics itself abandoned this mechanistic worldview more than a hundred years ago. Quantum theory showed that, at the most fundamental level, reality is not mechanical. It is uncertain, relational, and probabilistic, at best, not least because the act of observation always changes the system observed. And, perhaps most importantly for the discussion that follows, what looks like a particle is also a wave.
Economics has, to date, not enjoyed that revolution. It is still almost entirely Newtonian in its thinking. It is, in other words, still committed to equilibrium. In particular, its dominant macroeconomic models – for example, the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models beloved of most in that field – are clockwork devices, relying on assumptions of rational agents, predictable shocks, and eventual stability whilst excluding key variables - like money - to make these decidedly limited models possible.
The result is an economics out of step with reality. We live in a world of uncertainty, not certainty; of instability, not stability; of entanglement, not independence. And yet our economics pretends otherwise.
First: the Newtonian inheritance
Newtonian mechanics is seductive. It promises an Enlightenment view of rational order, predictability, and control. Drop an object and you can calculate how fast it will fall. Tilt a balance and you can know when it will settle. These metaphors shaped economics from the start.
Adam Smith wrote of the “invisible hand” (albeit briefly) as if economic life were governed by natural law. Nineteenth-century economists imagined wages, prices, and interest rates settling at natural levels. Twentieth-century neoclassical economists developed mathematical models that assumed markets were frictionless and self-correcting, a perspective that is still held by many neoliberal economists, despite its obvious limitations.
That inheritance persists. Central bankers and other orthodox economists still talk of “output gaps” and “natural rates.” The Office for Budget Responsibility still models fiscal policy as though the future can be forecast with precision. Economists still teach students that supply and demand curves intersect at equilibrium, and that they are smooth and persistent in direction throughout their ranges, when ample evidence suggests that all of this is wrong and the world does not behave that way.
Second: the quantum revolution
Quantum theory overturned classical physics. Three lessons matter most for economics.
-
Duality. As quantum physics showed, light is both a particle and a wave. Electrons behave like both too. Their nature depends on how we observe them.
-
Uncertainty. What was also discovered was that we cannot know both the position and momentum of particles at once. The world is not determinate, but probabilistic.
-
Entanglement. What was appreciated was that articles can share a state so that measuring one instantly defines the other. Systems are relational and not independent.
These lessons shocked physicists. They defied common sense. But they worked: quantum theory explains the micro-world with astonishing precision.
Third: why economics missed the turn
Economics had its chance to learn. Keynes, in the 1930s, hinted at uncertainty and expectations. He knew that the future was fundamentally unknowable, that probability was not enough, that psychology mattered. However, after the Second World War, the drive to formalise economics into a “hard science” overrode these insights.
Neoclassical economics reasserted equilibrium, rationality, and determinacy. Keynes was tamed by the neo-Keynesians into IS-LM curves and neat models. Uncertainty was reduced to risk. Probability distributions replaced genuine ignorance. The world has, since then, paid an enormous price for this, not least in the 2008 global financial crisis.
By the 1980s, DSGE models dominated macroeconomic thinking. They assumed rational, forward-looking agents, shocks treated as random noise, and economies tending back to equilibrium. The quantum revolution had passed economics by. We lived instead in a world where economists tried to shape the world in the way they thought it should be, rather than trying to understand the way it was. Dogma and not understanding ruled.
Fourth: the consequences
The consequences of this failure were seen everywhere.
-
Forecasting failure. Economic forecasts repeatedly miss reality. Recessions are rarely predicted. Growth estimates swing wildly. Yet the models persist.
-
Policy paralysis. Fiscal rules are set as though the future can be known. Governments promise balanced budgets in five years, despite the impossibility of knowing what will happen in five months.
-
Misunderstood crises. The 2008 crash was not a “shock” from outside but a collapse from within the system. Neoclassical models had no place for it. The lessons have still not been learned.
-
Denial of uncertainty. Economists talk as though risk can be priced, as though volatility can be smoothed, as though policy can be precise. Reality is otherwise. Uncertainty is real, and needs to be embraced by economists, most of whom are utterly unwilling to do so.
The Newtonian inheritance is blinding us to the true nature of the economy.
Fifth: what a quantum economics would see
A quantum-informed economics would start with different metaphors.
-
Money as a duality. Money is both a particle (a bank entry, a coin) and a wave (a flow through the economy). What you see depends on your perspective. Neither is right nor wrong. Both exist simultaneously.
-
Transactions are entangled. Every debit has a credit. Every asset has a liability. Money is not a thing but a relationship.
-
Budgets as probability clouds. The future cannot be forecast with precision. Fiscal rules that pretend otherwise are fantasy.
-
Measurement as intervention. Just as observing a particle changes it, measuring economic variables – GDP, inflation, unemployment – changes behaviour. Targets alter outcomes.
-
Uncertainty is fundamental. We cannot reduce it to risk. We must design policies that are robust to the unknown.
Sixth: the political stakes
This is not abstract. It matters to politics.
When governments claim they cannot spend now because of deficits in five years, they are using Newtonian metaphors. They are assuming certainty where none exists. They are paralysing themselves by clinging to false models.
When central banks claim independence on the basis of controlling inflation with precision, they are assuming a mechanical world. In reality, monetary and fiscal policy are entangled, and uncertainty rules.
When economists deny the relational nature of money, they permit myths: that government debt is like household debt, that deficits are dangerous, that surpluses are virtuous. None of these claims holds in a quantum world.
Seventh: why this matters now
The world is unstable. Climate crisis, inequality, geopolitical conflict, and financial speculation all create turbulence. These are not temporary shocks but features of the system.
An economics that clings to equilibrium cannot cope. It promises stability where none exists. It misguides policy, misinforms debate, and misleads the public.
A quantum-informed economics, by contrast, would accept instability as normal. It would design systems resilient to shocks. It would abandon fantasies of balanced budgets in favour of robust fiscal activism. It would regulate speculation not as a marginal nuisance but as a central threat.
Eighth: the way forward
These ideas mark the start of a journey into the application of quantum thinking to money, accounting, and economics. In the series of posts that will follow in due course, I will develop them in more detail, looking at:
-
How money behaves like both a particle and a flow.
-
How double-entry bookkeeping is a form of entanglement.
-
How speculation traps energy in destructive oscillations.
-
How labour is the quantum of value – the economic equivalent of the photon.
-
How land (as broadly defined) completes the picture by providing the field in which all value is created.
From those ideas, I will then outline a political economy that leverages these insights to fund the future we need.
Conclusion
Economics cannot continue with Newtonian metaphors. The world is not a machine tending to balance. It is a quantum field of uncertainty, probability, and entanglement.
If physics could accept this a century ago, economics can no longer refuse. It is time for an economics of uncertainty, of relationships, and of reality.
Only then can we fund the future.
Previous posts in this series
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
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!
I’m not convinced this analogy works. For example, Newtonian mechanics is the correct model for macrophysics. You wouldn’t use a quantum model to predict whether a tennis shot will land inside the lines, or how long it will take for a person walking at 2 mph to traverse 4 miles, you’d use Newtonian. We use Newtonian physics to predict weather, not quantum. Quantum physics is used to explain sub-microscopic phenomena, and collapses into Newtonian at the macro level. So your application of the quantum ideas to macroeconomics seems unlikely to bear fruit.
I look at it from a computational modelling perspective. Classical economics and developments like DSGE all fall in the category of optimisation models, typically solvable mathematically and as you say not appropriate for macroeconomics. I think the best approach is to use simulation models, the most useful probably being system dynamics models (as Steve Keen uses) or agent-based models if you want to simultaneousely explore micro behaviour and macro outcomes.
You have supplied me with enough information to check your credentials.
I admit, as a result, I find your claims rather surprising. Newtonian maechaniscs is a usedful approximation on occassion, I agree. Until it isn’t. You seem unable to understand that.
And since Steve Keen is interesting in the flow / particle dynamic I wonder whether you really understand that.
But fundamentally you clearly do not understand the macro/micro dichotomy in economics, like so many. You cannot see the duality.
Might you read all ten before being sure I am wrong?
.
Sure I’ll read them, and your record suggests you’re likely to be right. So I hope you manage to convince me, even though I’m so far skeptical!
🙂
The classical Newtonian model of physics fails at both the smallest scales (quantum) and the largest scales (relativity). But by and large it does a pretty good job across a range of real-world phenomena in the middle. As I mentioned the other day, it is not much help if you want to build a mobile telephone (because you need a quantum analysis for microelectronics) or GPS (because relativity has a sizeable effect).
In a sense, stochastic models have some quantum-style probabilistic effects built into them, but you end up averaging them out to measure macroscopic bulk quantities.
Physicists still struggle (and by and large fail) to build up a coherent picture from quantum mechanics at the microscopic scale, through the macroscopic world we experience day to day, through to the largest scales dominated by gravity and relativity. And similarly economists have signally failed (so far) in their reductive project to build up a coherent theory of macroeconomics from microeconomics principles. There may be something of the fallacy of composition there.
Perhaps there will be a great theory of everything one day. But not yet.
For economics, the psychology of individual and groups cannot be ignored but they play almost no part in most economic analysis, assumed away as everyone always behaving rationally. They don’t.
Agreed.
That’s why I am trying a new paradigm. It may work. It might not. It could well lead elsewhere. But what we have does not work.
The titles look daunting but the text and the arguments are surprisingly clear and accessible. KUTGW!
Our current chancellor is a wonderful example of the Newtonian “opposite” to what you are saying.
For one year, the economic world around her has proved her analysis, her solutions and the consequences to be a total disaster.
So she has held on to her understanding (or lack of it), swivelled and gyrated on her responses, and things have got worse.
Starmer has done the same with his politics – if it isn’t working, double down, turn up the volume to 11, and do more of it and watch things get worse (so Trump gets a 2nd state visit, Downing St is re-organised, the ministerial shuffle brings in no new faces, and Israel’s Herzog gets an invite).
My question to your opponents is this – when did the Treasury or the OBR ever get a 5 or 10 year forecast right?
Absolutely love this. Great example of constructive use of AI.
Includes important though maybe implicit insights from the sociology of money, critical accounting, economic anthropology and so much more!
Particularly interested in the last 2 bullets which seem to be focusing on value of real resources? Where does energy fit? (Thinking of the kind of arguments Keen makes in his New Manifesto.)
Look forward to future posts.
Thanks
The series will develop, I promise.
You have a great ability to think outside the box.
I have been looking, for some years, at implications of quantum science for spirituality. They are quite profound -but that is not for this blog.
What so called mainstream economists ignore that life on this planet is determined ecologically not by maths formulas. Exttrrnaities are ignored by the mumbo jumbo of neolibrtslism. If quantum theories can help out understanding of the real world, bring it on.
This will be covered…
Hopefully relevant: household elec demand is stochastic (both magnitude and timing). It is almost quantum in its behaviour (although measuring it tends not to affect behaviour). When +/- 25 similar households in an estate are grouped together, “the wave function collapses” and you get classical behaviour i.e. a load curve over 24 hours that resembles the national load curve. This carries some quite interesting implications. Thus, the quantum world is all around us (even in brains).
I commented on your first piece on quantum economics before I got to this one. I agree that old physics is now a really poor description of the economy, as you say and other commenters agree. I look forward to the rest of the pieces; I’m open to changing my mind. It seems there are difficulties with the quantum metaphor, and strengths. Like irreversibility; many changes have ramifying effects through the system and can’t be undone. The system is expanding and getting more complex, and complicated, with time. Maybe evolutionary theory might be a better source of master metaphors?
Let’s see when the posts are complete.
I think Linda is right about evolutionary theory but there are probably several useful sources for concepts to apply to the economy including quantum theory, evolutionary theory and chaos theory. One concept that chaos and evolutionary theory share is “attractors” and “basins of attraction” Tipping points relate these ideas too. A social revolution constitutes a tipping point when socio-economic organisation flips on to a different “attractor”. It applies to the climate too which is scary as we know there is a tipping point out there somewhere which will flip the climate into a different basin of attraction involving unpredictable behaviour and potential disaster for us.
Can I develop this idea first?
But aren’t you actually describing complex adaptive systems, which quantum thinking is?
I did not read this before grappling with your opening post this morning (phew!).
I did consider that money was both photon and flow as it seemed that one was indivisible from the other whilst settling on the former to move on my thoughts.
At first I found this to be a bit esoteric. But this post polarises the questions much better. What you are doing is Masters level and above. You are using a model from another discipline to enquire about a discipline, your field of expertise, inquiry. There is nothing wrong with that at all, so in my view any detractors can be ignored, your approach is valid and inventive. In a world of Neo-liberal hyper-reductionism, it is welcome and useful.
But the key is the philosophical one isn’t it – the fundamental beliefs that underpin what we think we know, and how they bleed into everything. We seem to have become addicted to ‘mono stories’? Simple tales of how things are when in fact everything is pregnant with its opposite (as Varoufakis eloquently said in his speech about being an erratic Marxist).
We ignore the duality – things are either one or the other. I sit here as a male with two redundant nipples on my chest yet I am only one thing apparently – a male. But I did not start off as a male, so what I am I missing?
I think that nature/the universe is efficient but also allows for opportunity but the way that man allocates a resource he/she created to create, has become very inefficient indeed. There is something unnatural about it.
I look forward to further posts.
I think Nigel Goddard’s assertion that Newtonian physics is used to predict the weather confirms your thesis Richard. We know that it often fails spectacularly and that is because weather is the product of a complex and dynamic system. Chaos Theory originated in the discovery by Lorenz, a meteorologist, that miniscule changes in the values input into computer models used to predict weather completely altered the system behaviour. Newtonian physics can’t deal with such complexity and with the phenomenon of “emergence”.
Agreed
What appears to be missing in many human societies is the recognition that money enables social engineering. Further to this is the lack of understanding that money works as a variable loop for social engineering. That is that a society needs to able to vary both the amount of its creation and drainage according to the state of the society’s economy. On top of all this is a failure to see that in global trading terms some countries will socially engineer their monetary systems to disadvantage many of its citizens in meeting their needs for public goods and services in order to achieve global trading advantage.
There is much to come on this
Really enjoyed this blog. Despite all the advances and high powered computing weather forecasts can still only cover the next few days with accuracy. Beyond this uncertainties make it impossible why do economists think this doesn’t apply to the economy.
Weather forecasts aren’t actually forecasts at all. They are micro extrapolations of the very recent past.
Newtonian mechanics do not show that systems tend towards equilibrium: the famous “three body problem” is one example of a pure Newtonian system that does not exhibit any form of equilibrium.
But Newtonian thinking is used to demonstrate that in economics.
And in much of Newtonian thinking too….
Certainly food for thought in this approach. I much prefer a probabilistic approach to trying to understand what often seem to be chaos in the real world. In economics, there are so many variables involved, each interacting with each other, that determinism must be questionable.
I’m sure a quantum approach, which is new to me, will throw up more questions and fewer answers, opening up avenues of thought that I can only guess at for the time being.
As you proceed, I’d be very interested to see if any academics in this field engage with you.
I was thinking about mostly unpredictable but economically very significant events… the list is a bit random. Some of the events WIIL happen but we can’t say when. Some have famous exemplars in past.
Krakatoa
Big volcanic ash clouds affecting air travel and/or climate
Tsunami (eg collapse of part of Canary Islands into Atlantic)
Lisbon earthquake
9/11
Covid
Liz Truss
Boris Jonson
Donald Trump
Fire of London
Mass extinction event (dinosaurs)
The “conversion” of Constantine
Barings Bank collapse
Death of Trump/Putin/Xi/Kim
Fa***e – Rise or fall?
Success or otherwise of assassination events (Trump, Regan)
That will do for now.
Might the factors infuencing the promotion mof Newtonian non-flexible/rigid economics theory being inappropriately used include some of the following:
1) Economics/Socio-economics theory is extremely powerful, not least for controlling people
2) Rigid theories are easier/more appealing to the general public
3) Rigid theories appeal to those who seek power to control others, not least the wealthy and their associates
4) Economics theorists may be influenced/persuaded by the wealthy-powerful and influential to produce and teach rigid “wealth-for-the-few” economic theory
All likely to be true.
The question is simple – who benefits from the existing model?
Colour me intrigued.
Let’s see how the full suite of blog posts unfolds.
I am interested to know what quantities/ entities will be assigned “quantum properties” and how much of the deep structure of The Quantum Theory you want to map onto a new economic theory – dare I say paradigm?
Here are prejudices which I hope you destroy:
Will you attempt to outline how to get to the macro from the micro? At the moment I don’t see how because I think the macro is an emergent property of the micro and so can’t be deduced from the micro. Examples of emergent behaviour being chemistry emerges from physics and biology emerges from chemistry. Quantum mechanics still cannot go from the micro to the macro.
Steve Keen’s work on macroeconomics is based on Godley tables leading directly to differential equations, which is system dynamics not quantum mechanics. The Ravel models do seem to capture the essence of the economic systems they model. I am in Steve’s Rebel Economist Skool class.
You are right re Steve. He takes us forward. I am, maybe, pushing us further. But my thinking is also much more conceptual, and not mathematical.
And I start in macro. What is micro for? I ask the question in all seriousness.
> And I start in macro. What is micro for? I ask the question in all seriousness.
I don’t have a good answer to that. I am not a trained economist. Intuitively, micro is not useful if the individual actors are people. Current mainstream economics appears to want to build the macro from the micro, but the assumptions they have to make in order to do this are somewhere in the range from fabulous to ridiculous (I am probably being kind here).
Accordingly I am glad you start in macro.
The current economics fails to work and needs to be replaced with different ideas about the form and structure of economics in the real world. How much more real can you get than quantum theory; it underpins the electronic devices we all use without a thought.
Quantum economics might be a frightening name but, to me, it represents the analogy, or equivalence, that all economic reality we seek to understand and describe.
The book, Entropy Economics, Galbraith & Chen, also has a similar outlook.
Thanks Richard, I wish you every success. I look forward to reading the rest.
Thanks
Thank you for such an exciting interesting post . “Money as a duality. Transactions as entanglement. Budgets as probability clouds. Measurements as intervention.” Really great analogies and frankly for me far more understandable and sense making than the conventional mechanical economics that I have been struggling to understand for many years. “Uncertainty is fundamental”.
Thanks
I look forward to further on this, in simpler language for those like me with a basic grasp of economics.
Simpler language might emerge …. as understanding grows.
Very interesting and like a physicist you’re being playful, and so you should!
The photoelectric effect – this is one of the earliest and most important quantum predictions [A. Einstein, 1905]. I wonder what the most relevant economic process(es) follow such a law? Now that’s a discovery in waiting.
🙂
“The world is not determinate, but probabilistic.”
I am no expert either, but I don’t think quantum theory allows this conclusion. It’s an extremely good working model for what it describes, but it doesn’t answer the question about the fundamental nature of reality (eg determinism is still possible with a many worlds interpretation). I don’t think this undoes the argument, but if you are embracing uncertainty maybe leave this uncertain? Things could be deterministic, but a probabilistic approach for economics may improve our model for now? Might just defend against nit pickers 🙂
Cool idea.
We use probabilistic models right now. In 2009 Lord Adair Turner in thne official govermment review on the 2008 crash concluded it as these models that were a major cause of the certainty that prevented the risk in the system from being identified. We don’t want to go there again. Uncertainty has to be embraced.
WTF?
The Bank of England have been using Stochastic Modelling for over 20 years!
Yes
And it does not include money.
I’m 80% there with (spend and tax) or (tax and spend) – now I’ve got to take on quantum economics and am not nearly clever enough (or at least educated enough) to do so.
In terms of political messaging we need to develop a sort of Maslow’s hierarchy of need adapted to economic concepts so we can start with the basic essentials and work our way up the food chain.
This is not nearly as hard as it looks…
And you could duck it
Everything here is optional
I see Quantum Economics as an aid to creative/lateral thinking by would be/actual political economists. They can then come up with new analogies and concepts to help omnibus passengers DEmystify economics.
While I DO want to understand MMT, bonds, QE QT, inflation, interest, tax, and maybe, one day, trade snd foreign exchange, I’m not going to be discussing Quantum Economics on the omnibus. But some of the ideas it gives rise to, may be very useful for the omnibus.
So far, it makes sense to me, but I’m not worried if I get lost later in the seties.
Thanks.
The aim is a better story to tell.
I am going to work through the process.
Now that was interesting. Very interesting. Something I have felt and suspected for many years but not taken the time to research and read around. I now intend to do so
Why jump directly to quantum theory when you take a first step to chaos theory – attractors, tipping points, sensitive dependence on initial conditions? Steve Keen illustrates chaos in some of his models. I find myself aligned to Linda Evans and Jim Osborne.
Because that is where the richest pickings will be found.
I rather think you believe I am looking at the maths – I am not; I am looking at the metaphors. They matter much more
‘We use Newtonian physics to predict weather’ – well, only up to a point, and decreasingly so. There’s a lot of uncertainty in weather and a certain amount of chaos. A lot of forecasting is probabilistic – what we get on TV and radio is the ‘best guess’ – and the best guesses are getting better with increasing data sources and data sharing. ‘Ensemble reporting’ looks at forecasts from different agencies and then uses some human judgement and experience in deciding on the most likely one. Dare I say that the forecasts meterorologists make are improving rather faster than those made by conventional economists?
It’s so refreshing and exciting to look at economics through a different window.
Looking forward to the journey
Wow Richard! Needs a hell of a lot of thought and due consideration.
Not sure precisely what we are trying to do here – in terms of going from the ‘micro’ – the individual person? the particle/wave of the individual £ or penny?, to the macro – eg the 2008 crash. Could be tricky.
As some here suggest, physics hasn’t yet reconciled quantum theory at the micro level to to relativity/ expanding universe/gravity etc etc.
Systems theory, network theory, entropy, emergent behaviour, chaos theory , agent based simulations, internal contradictions between capital and labour etc. all seem possibly relevant to developing an understanding of how the economic system evolves .
You wouldn’t need quantum mechanics to understand that the 2008 crash was produced by internal contractions within the wider international economy – the system.
All I am seeking to do is find a better story to tell. That’s it.
[…] 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 […]
[…] Quantum economics, part 1: Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics […]
The work being done by J Doyne Farmer may be relevant to this, he’s a systems scientist and is trying to consider how chaos theory could better explain economics. Relevant podcast here: https://www.jimruttshow.com/j-doyne-farmer/
I will be listening, this evening.
This is a very dangerous path you are heading down. The early 20th century economists tangled themselves in knots when they tried to take lessons from other disciplines (such as evolutionary biology) and apply them to economics. You are trying to crowbar economics into a framework based on quantum mechanics. The fact that money has roles as a store of value and as a medium of exchange does correlate quite well with wave-particle duality. Go any further and I think you get into murky waters.
Newtonian physics and Bohr’s model of the atom (for example) are wrong, but they are right enough to explain 99.9% of what we experience in our daily life. The same cannot be said of neo-liberal economics.
So, what would you do?
It’s very easy to be entirely negative, as you are, but what if you tried to be positive? What would happen then? What is your suggestion?
Your analogy seems to fit very well, apart from the issue of scale, as someone else has pointed out. So as long as that is recognised, this line of thought might prove rather fruitful. So why not run with it and see where it takes you.
I am…
[…] Quantum economics, part 1: Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics […]
[…] Quantum economics, part 1: Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics […]