Epstein Secrets

d considerable effort to applying the correct mathematics, statistical mechanics, to economics. Although primarily modelled in a static environment, Foley's work is profoundly insightful, and demonstrates very clearly how statistical mechanical approaches are more powerful than utility based approache

he details of income and wealth distributions have rarely been studied in mainstream theoretical economics, a notable and important exception being Champernowne. Champernowne was a highly gifted mathematician who was diverted into economics, he was the first person to bring a statistical mechanical approach

ure papers and vice-versa. The main reason for adopting classical economics was almost accidental. I had previously rejected the dabblings of both Foley and Wright into Marxian economics as misguided foolishness. I was wrong, they were right. My first reason for rejecting Marxian economics was becau

ater in economics, this area has attracted physicists and statistical mathematicians and engineers in significant numbers since at least the work of Champernowne. The reason is simple; to a statistical physicist, economics is obviously a multi-body phenomenon. It is messy. There are millions of agents in a t

ng entropic systems should also remove many of the theoretical problems associated with imaginary Walrasian auctioneers and other such difficulties. Foley has made very significant inroads into this way of carrying out pricing [Foley 1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2002]. 214 EFTA00625342 All of the above for

lots of boundary conditions, may be simple enough to be tractable to a traditional statistical mechanical analysis on the lines of Dewar, or indeed Champernowne. Before moving into further discussion I would first like to follow the maths through a little more. I would like to do two things. Firstly I would