The Chimera of Macroeconomics

  Certain celebrity macroeconomists are fond of playing with GEMs for general equilibrium models. They must be kidding!              Equilibrium in the paradigm of particular market does not necessarily lead to equilibrium in the model of general economy. On the contrary, what is true between a definitive few is never and nowhere true of indefiniteness, much less infinity. More simply, the market has nothing whatsoever to do with the economy: consequentially, the distance between economics and macroeconomics is no shorter than from Here to Eternity.                Now, “for the sake of convenience” as usual among those macroeconomists, we copy from somewhere else:   (Quote) The Fallacy of Generality How many parts do we think our body, for instance, is composed of? The only feasible answer is “infinity.” We cannot manage the infinity because...

  What? Well, the rest of us well aware owing to Benjamin Franklin that an organism if in equilibrium would be dead or otherwise unmoving.              One of the most typical cases of equilibrium might be of the balance: when the two sides weigh the same to a certain acceptable extent, we declare the system is “in equilibrium.” The other cases would include the clock, the vending machine, the “driving machine,” the robot, the sewage system (?) and the solar system. Supposedly they are in equilibrium as at the moment of interest. The generic name for such systems is the mechanism with a definable number of namable parts, each moving as designed or otherwise presupposed.               The mechanism might be opposed to the organism, which will be “finished when it finishes changing.” At any rate, a changing mechanism would be called “Out of Order” while an ...