Response to worrying trends in econophysics

This article is a response to the recent “Worrying Trends in Econophysics” critique written by four respected theoretical economists [1]. Two of the four have written books and papers that provide very useful critical analyses of the shortcomings of the standard textbook economic model, neo-classical economic theory [2,3] and have even endorsed my book [4]. Largely, their new paper reflects criticism that I have long made [4,5,6,7,] and that our group as a whole has more recently made [8]. But I differ with the authors on some of their criticism, and partly with their proposed remedy.General equilibrium; uncertainty; conservation laws; money nonconservation; nonintegrability of dynamical systems; financial markets; stochastic processes

Economics: The next physical science?

We review an emerging body of work by physicists addressing questions of economic organization and function. We suggest that, beyond simply employing models familiar from physics to economic observables, remarkable regularities in economic data may suggest parts of social order that can usefully be incorporated into, and in turn can broaden, the conceptual structure of physics.Comment: 9 pages, 6 figures, to appear in Physics Toda

Is it "natural" to expect Economics to become a part of the Natural Sciences?

We are in the middle of a complex debate as to whether Economics is really a proper natural science. The 'Discussion & Debate' issue of this Euro. Phys. J. Special Topic volume is: 'Can economics be a Physical Science?' I discuss some aspects here.Comment: 7 pages; EPJ-ST special issue on 'Can Economics be a Physical Science?' Edited by S. Sinha, A. S. Chakrabarti & M. Mitr