Joe McCauley said on 10 November 2011: Score: 1
I am far less enthusiastic about the prospects for econophysics now then I was then. In retrospect Paul Ormerod was right: too many econophysics have been seduced by the mathematics of neo-classical economics, or by the notion of cooperating with people who believe those notions. Worse, we are two years into the spectacular, unprecedented financial catastrophe that was programmed by thirty years of deregulation (Italy's collapse, which was foreseen several years ago, will make Greece look like a fluctuation) and yet there is no meaningful discussion by econophsicists of the underlying problems. We live in the era when events expose the lie that the long-reigning economic theory is, and it's as if nothing is happening. I wrote analytically and qualitatively about the causes of the disaster that emerged 9/2007-08 and it's as if I wrote nothing, that work is roundly ignored by the econophysics community. Instead, econophysicists have internal discussions that consider whether there might be some sort of equilibrium or another. There isn't, there never was, and there never will be. If we have nothing to say about current events facing the world then we have little reason to exist as a field.