Sam Dyson says:
September 10 2025 at 5:23 pm
If you strip away the ‘quantum woo-woo’ window dressing, all you’re saying is “economics deals with complex systems full of uncertainty, so forecasts are necessarily limited and incomplete.”
Hardly new. Hayek set this out in his lecture, “The Pretence of Knowledge”, in 1974. That was a Nobel lecture, by the way.
A summary of what Hayek said would be “Economics is complex, full of unknowables, and forecasts must be approached with humility”.
You’re re-branding this by saying “Economics is complex, full of uncertainty, so let’s borrow the language of quantum mechanics to make that sound radical and claim to have invented something new”.
What you’re claiming as some amazing new insight is a 50 year old idea which has been absorbed into mainstream economic methodology for decades.
‘quantum economics’ is just Hayek’s ‘pretence of knowledge’ with a coat of science-fiction paint.
+3
Reply
Richard Murphy says:
September 10 2025 at 5:36 pm
Politely, none of the followers of Hayek have ever notcied what he had to say in that case, so it needs resaying all over again, even presuning you are right (which I leave open to doubt).
What you have actually highlighted is the the inadquancy of neoliberal thinking and thinkers as a rsult. I find that rather amsuing.
All the followers of Hayek have grasped this point. It’s the very point that the followers – or those who have understood him – of Hayek make.
It’s even at the heart of this – really very good, I am still in awe of this essay – discussion of Kantorovich. https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/
I was gonna link to that crooked timber piece on the other discussion but couldn’t find the link. And crooked timber isn’t exactly known for its right-wing neoliberalism…
https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/
You’re right, it isn’t. On the other hand that’s a stonkingly good essay.
It’s not just that this is Hayek, it’s that this is why we believe government planning of the economy can never work – the very thing he’s trying to use his supposed new idea to disprove.
Typical of Murphy to not just think he’s invented something new when it’s a decades-old standard part of economics that all economists know, but to also think it means completely the opposite to what it actually does.
His combination of ignorance and arrogance is truly amazing.
Richard
that’s why sometimes I have to presume it’s satire. Surely no one could be as simultaneously ignorant and believe, against all evidence that they have some unique insight? However, I find myself seeing him on video and realising this to him is reality. He truly believes his sub GCSE standard analysis is somehow ground breaking. We’re he not the embodiment of evil in human form then one would almost feel sorry for him.
Further to @Gamecock…
I prefer “Economic forecasters were only put on this earth in order to make astrologers look respectable.” 🙂