Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userMaximum Entropy, the Collective Welfare Principle and the Globalization Process
83
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Esteban Guevara Hidalgo
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Although both systems analyzed are described through two theories apparently different (quantum mechanics and game theory) it is shown that both are analogous and thus exactly equivalents. The quantum analogue of the replicator dynamics is the von Neumann equation. Quantum mechanics could be used to explain more correctly biological and economical processes. It could even encloses theories like games and evolutionary dynamics. We can take some concepts and definitions from quantum mechanics and physics for the best understanding of the behavior of economics and biology. Also, we could maybe understand nature like a game in where its players compete for a common welfare and the equilibrium of the system that they are members. All the members of our system will play a game in which its maximum payoff is the equilibrium of the system. They act as a whole besides individuals like they obey a rule in where they prefer to work for the welfare of the collective besides the individual welfare. A system where its members are in Nash Equilibrium (or ESS) is exactly equivalent to a system in a maximum entropy state. A system is stable only if it maximizes the welfare of the collective above the welfare of the individual. If it is maximized the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the collective the system gets unstable an eventually collapses. The results of this work shows that the globalization process has a behavior exactly equivalent to a system that is tending to a maximum entropy state and predicts the apparition of big common markets and strong common currencies that will find its equilibrium by decreasing its number until they get a state characterized by only one common currency and only one common market around the world.
rate research
Read More
The so called globalization process (i.e. the inexorable integration of markets, currencies, nation-states, technologies and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole) has a behavior exactly equivalent to a system that is tending to a maximum entropy state. This globalization process obeys a collective welfare principle in where the maximum payoff is given by the equilibrium of the system and its stability by the maximization of the welfare of the collective besides the individual welfare. This let us predict the apparition of big common markets and strong common currencies. They will reach the equilibrium by decreasing its number until they reach a state characterized by only one common currency and only one big common community around the world.
Many recent models of trade dynamics use the simple idea of wealth exchanges among economic agents in order to obtain a stable or equilibrium distribution of wealth among the agents. In particular, a plain analogy compares the wealth in a society with the energy in a physical system, and the trade between agents to the energy exchange between molecules during collisions. In physical systems, the energy exchange among molecules leads to a state of equipartition of the energy and to an equilibrium situation where the entropy is a maximum. On the other hand, in the majority of exchange models, the system converges to a very unequal condensed state, where one or a few agents concentrate all the wealth of the society while the wide majority of agents shares zero or almost zero fraction of the wealth. So, in those economic systems a minimum entropy state is attained. We propose here an analytical model where we investigate the effects of a particular class of economic exchanges that minimize the entropy. By solving the model we discuss the conditions that can drive the system to a state of minimum entropy, as well as the mechanisms to recover a kind of equipartition of wealth.
We apply the Principle of Maximum Entropy to the study of a general class of deterministic fractal sets. The scaling laws peculiar to these objects are accounted for by means of a constraint concerning the average content of information in those patterns. This constraint allows for a new statistical characterization of fractal objects and fractal dimension.
The use of equilibrium models in economics springs from the desire for parsimonious models of economic phenomena that take human reasoning into account. This approach has been the cornerstone of modern economic theory. We explain why this is so, extolling the virtues of equilibrium theory; then we present a critique and describe why this approach is inherently limited, and why economics needs to move in new directions if it is to continue to make progress. We stress that this shouldnt be a question of dogma, but should be resolved empirically. There are situations where equilibrium models provide useful predictions and there are situations where they can never provide useful predictions. There are also many situations where the jury is still out, i.e., where so far they fail to provide a good description of the world, but where proper extensions might change this. Our goal is to convince the skeptics that equilibrium models can be useful, but also to make traditional economists more aware of the limitations of equilibrium models. We sketch some alternative approaches and discuss why they should play an important role in future research in economics.
This paper analyzes the equilibrium distribution of wealth in an economy where firms productivities are subject to idiosyncratic shocks, returns on factors are determined in competitive markets, dynasties have linear consumption functions and government imposes taxes on capital and labour incomes and equally redistributes the collected resources to dynasties. The equilibrium distribution of wealth is explicitly calculated and its shape crucially depends on market incompleteness. In particular, a Paretian law in the top tail only arises if capital markets are incomplete. The Pareto exponent depends on the saving rate, on the net return on capital, on the growth rate of population and on portfolio diversification. On the contrary, the characteristics of the labour market mostly affects the bottom tail of the distribution of wealth. The analysis also suggests a positive relationship between growth and wealth inequality.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
