bangstrom » March 30th, 2017, 2:35 pm wrote:
His observations may apply to some economics law where the rich get richer but he is cherry picking examples from physics and biology to make a case and then calling it a “law.” I can’t think of any law in either physics or biology that supports his thesis but the Peter principle, which is outside of either, does come to mind.
This is why I asked if he is serious. There is a game they play where you prove something you want to prove by stating things that are totally unrelated but work up to your proof.. The game is all just silly fun. We used to hear a lot of it on television. But I don't think he is playing a game. The only thing I can think of is that he wants us to compare the two and see how economics does the same thing that we see in physics. But surely he isn't saying one causes the other. I did find the constructal law of physics: "In order to survive, any flowing system must evolve to increase its access to flow."
That's physics and I think you hit on it: The rich get richer. The rich make the economy increase and then they have to get richer to keep up with it. The rest of us just look on and wonder what happened.
Does that make sense?