This is a very sound idea. Simulation has penetrated science, starting from physics, continuing to chemistry and is having lots of applications in engineering. In my field, instrumentation for ionising radiation, simulation has revolutionised the approach of designing and exploiting instruments in the last 10 years. Economics Simulations will have a bright future.

I thought simulations are supposed to allow for systems to display emergent behavior. Economics is already abstract, and though this "rigor" provides a foundation, it's also alienating, and more importantly, simplistic. Simulations (already done by the likes of Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute and UMAss at Amherst) are interesting, but I'm afraid they'd pervade quickly in a field populated by people who enjoy technical things for (sometimes) the wrong reasons.

Simulations don't need to display emergent behaviour, if its not in the real system!I find only new Mathematics applications pervade quickly in the Economics field. Even Game theory is thought of a modern development with potential. Rather than a 55 year old comparative failure.

Biologists have created human heart simulations, and are working towards the whole body simulation linked to genetics.The economists "whole planet" micro-simulation would be the equivilent.

I think 'whole planet' simulations are a ways off. However, simulations are already used quite a bit in economics. Try searching on Google under "computational economics" or "agent-based".

I have found that one of the useful features of simulations and computaional methods in general is their ability to suggest new analytical theorems.

So would you agree that Economics now has three legs. Analysis, estimation and simulation.

While I agree with this idea, there's nothing in the "how" department. I voted "agree," but the explanation really needs to be cleaned up.

This is the equivalent of asking: "why not build manned cars that can crawl the deepest ocean floor?" A good idea, sure... but how can it be done in any real sense right now? This good idea quickly becomes computationally infeasible for all but the most trivial economies.

I would also add that the speed of the processor isn't what really matters here. Sure, it helps. But a very fast processor will still fall to its knees, begging for mercy with these types of programs.

The problem isn't processor speed or lack thereof; it's computationally complex algorithms. Look into complexity theory.