Physics and economics

Post Reply New Topic

I decided to post this here since it is quasi-mathematical. I posted an entry to my blog that is an essay arguing that profit violates conservation of energy. I was looking for people that might point out the flaws in it.

http://bizarrebrainbazaar.blogspot.com/

I would prefer comments to be posted on the blog since not everyone in the world is autistic and I would hope to interest a few NTs as well. But I suppose if that goes against protocol I'll take my beating here.

The law of conservation only applies to a closed system. Since an economy such as ours operates by exploiting natural resources there is a marked input of energy into the system. Not only that but the manpower that is being quantified is also putting more energy into the sytem which is why econom grows. The problem is not whether energy is being put in but rather how does one quantify the wealth that is actually preserved after an exchange occurs. The answer is at least in consumerism is that very little wealth is preserved which is a principle of the modern economy and....perpetually...frustrating me

(sorry for posting here I don't have a blog account set up)

Did you read the essay? What did you think of the idea of quantitative and objective costing?

This IS a closed system. All we do is transform the things within it. Everything you do, every thought, every breath is bound by the energy in the system. It is an illusion to think that our activity is not bound by conservation of energy. Economics is a system layered on top of the physical activity. All economics does is "count" what is done in the physical world.

Is utility bounded? Is entropy bounded?

ruveyn

Did you read the essay? Utility and entropy are not mentioned and irrelevant to the argument.

There is an input to the system in terms of human effort and exploitation of natural resources. If you want to nitpick and say that it's still overall a closed system, I recommend you go outside and look at the giant yellow ball of nuclear reactants in the sky. That's definitely an input of energy to the Earth.

The energy available within the earth is in equilibrium with the input of the sun else we would melt. So it is STILL a closed system.

Did anybody read the essay? It is pointless to discuss this otherwise.

Utility is CENTRAL to economics and entropy is CENTRAL to physics, particularly thermodynamics. I bring up relevant matters which you ignore, showing that your approach is shallow and superficial.

ruveyn

Did you read the essay?

I did. The math was trivial so it could not have been good physics.

ruveyn

Incorrect. Plants and other photosynthetic organisms capture and store energy from the sun.


Your essay is a massive pile of fail. Take an introductory calculus-based physics course and intermediate micro/macro economics, and then re-evaluate your ideas.

Calling it fail and pointing out the errors in it are two different things. The massive failure here is that nobody has addressed ANYTHING actually in the essay, instead, issuing mindless proclamations like "FAIL" and "shallow" Do you care to address the actual the logic in it or not? Or can you not actually follow the logic and because it contradicts notions you hold as truth you instead reject it out of hand??

What is wrong with the first assumption about cost and objectivity? Do you disagree that an objective and quantitative system of costing is desirable?

For what it's worth, "utility" is subjective. This is not about subjective measures. While any economic theory would need to address valuation, utility and other matters, this is a single idea, not an all encompassing theory.

Look, it's just wrong on pretty much every level. It demonstrates that you don't have a solid grounding in either field.


I disagree that it is possible, and the economics profession agrees with me.

You clearly failed to apply the most basic test of "does it make any sense?" to your conclusions. Economic growth happens; by your theory it should not. The facts and your theory are in contradiction, therefore your theory is wrong.

I'll do this REAL slow, mr calculus based physics. Even if plants capture energy from the sun (they do) the NET energy in the system is in equilibrium. Energy is constantly being radiated back into space. If it were NOT radiating back into space then the temperature of the earth would continue to rise until we vaporized. Even Mercury is in equilibrium as an energy system. It's just at a much hotter equilibrium.

And I got straight A's in calculus, differential equations and physics.

I can see there is no use here.

Getting A's in a class does not necessarily speak to actual understanding, much less ability to apply the knowledge.

Clearly no use.

Maybe calculus based physics is too much for you. Try some baby food at Wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget