Sir, I wholeheartedly agree with Gillian Tett’s column covering the connections between finance and social sciences.
Since the early writings of 13th-century theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, what we call economics had been taught as a broad discipline covering politics, society, ethics, husbandry and moral philosophy. But by the end of the 19th century, academics such as Vilfredo Pareto, Alfred Marshall and Thorstein Veblen had jettisoned humanistic thinking for their quantitative models based on equilibrium, efficiency and rationality. By co-opting methods from the physical sciences, a bewildering array of fancy-looking graphs and complex equations was soon spawned. Having stripped out the fuzziness of mortal endeavours, these neo-economists were freed to use their slide-rules on a quantitative version of our world.
Modern financial theory has been built on the conceit that complicated equations and back-tested data can predict the human markets. While some economic theories may be logically coherent, they are unduly perplexing and horribly incomplete. Their Möbius-strip models go everywhere and arrive nowhere. Like faulty brakes, they don’t work when they are most needed — during a crash. For the rest of the 20th century, the cult of quants purged humanity from the study of finance. This was a big mistake. We don’t build businesses, work in offices, service customers or sell products to satisfy arcane algorithms.
We pursue a very human set of needs: food, shelter, status, community and wellbeing. Economics needs to be re-entered on human and societal conduct — however messy and irrational it actually is.Aron Miodownik
“Modern financial theory has been built on a conceit” | Financial Times New York, NY
US Copyright | The Financial Times Limited 2018. All rights reserved.