<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Economics Questions</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/5.aspx</link><description /><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: General equilibrium theory, thermodynamics a connection?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/149851.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 16:02:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:149851</guid><dc:creator>Jon Irenicus</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/149851.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=149851</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;You might want to read &lt;i&gt;Rational Economic Man&lt;/i&gt; by Hollis and Nell. I should caution that the latter is a Marxian and you can in fact skip his part of the book and focus on Nell&amp;#39;s part dealing with the methodology of economics. Hollis in particular focuses on Friedman&amp;#39;s attempt to take economics analogously to physics (treating perfect competition e.g. as fricitonless motion.) Hollis then goes on to deconstruct the analogy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Re: General equilibrium theory, thermodynamics a connection?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/149844.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 15:46:06 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:149844</guid><dc:creator>abskebabs</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/149844.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=149844</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;Irving Fisher too bears a direct connection, as he was trained by Williard Gibbs(one of his doctoral advisors), a pretty awesome American physicist who made some invaluable conributions to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics(a lot of the stuff i&amp;#39;ve been studying recently has his name in it.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Samuelson, interstingly, could also be seen as one Gibbs&amp;#39; intellectual grandsons, as he himself was mentored by a protege of Gibbs, Edwin Bidwell Wilson. It does make an interesting connection I feel. I am reminded of something Hulsmann said in one of his lectures, something like: &amp;quot;When you have your favourite hammer(mathematics), every problem looks like a nail!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Re: General equilibrium theory, thermodynamics a connection?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/147862.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 01:21:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:147862</guid><dc:creator>Juan</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/147862.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=147862</wfw:commentRss><description>According to wikipedia (...) samuelson used thermodynamics in his &amp;#39;economic&amp;#39; analysis. Sounds like cheap positivism to me, but saying that would of course get you branded as an ignorant rustic...&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>General equilibrium theory, thermodynamics a connection?</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/147831.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 00:25:38 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:147831</guid><dc:creator>abskebabs</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/147831.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=5&amp;PostID=147831</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello everybody. This relates to an essay which I originally wanted to enter for an essay writing competition at my university concerning the Impact of Physics on European culture, I decided to investigate the impact on the social sciences, especially economics. I didn&amp;#39;t get round to submitting the essay, but would be interested in doing something of the sort at a future point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I should say a bit about myself. I&amp;#39;m a theoretical physics student in my 3rd year at university, and have been almost obsessed with the Austrian school of economics since coming across it. I am very much attracted to its logical and deductive character. However, I do not know that much about mainstream economics. I am vaguely aware that general equilibrium theory has connections with topics in physics like mechanics and classical thermodynamics. Does anyone know any good sources I can start reading up on this, and other mainstream economic subjects in general?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I wish to see how consistent they are with their analogies and whether the assumptions used can be held up as they are in Physics. Do you think the Mises institute or any scholars associated with it would be interested if I wrote up and submitted some essays or investigations on this subject?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>