The Futility of Utility: how market dynamics marginalize Adam Smith

Econometrics is based on the nonempiric notion of utility. Prices, dynamics, and market equilibria are supposed to be derived from utility. Utility is usually treated by economists as a price potential, other times utility rates are treated as Lagrangians. Assumptions of integrability of Lagrangians and dynamics are implicitly and uncritically made. In particular, economists assume that price is the gradient of utility in equilibrium, but I show that price as the gradient of utility is an integrability condition for the Hamiltonian dynamics of an optimization problem in econometric control theory. One consequence is that, in a nonintegrable dynamical system, price cannot be expressed as a function of demand or supply variables. Another consequence is that utility maximization does not describe equiulibrium. I point out that the maximization of Gibbs entropy would describe equilibrium, if equilibrium could be achieved, but equilibrium does not describe real markets. To emphasize the inconsistency of the economists' notion of 'equilibrium', I discuss both deterministic and stochastic dynamics of excess demand and observe that Adam Smith's stabilizing hand is not to be found either in deterministic or stochastic dynamical models of markets, nor in the observed motions of asset prices. Evidence for stability of prices of assets in free markets simply has not been found.Comment: 46 pages. accepte

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

Making dynamic modelling effective in economics

Mathematics has been extremely effective in physics, but not in economics beyond finance. To establish economics as science we should follow the Galilean method and try to deduce mathematical models of markets from empirical data, as has been done for financial markets. Financial markets are nonstationary. This means that 'value' is subjective. Nonstationarity also means that the form of the noise in a market cannot be postulated a priroi, but must be deduced from the empirical data. I discuss the essence of complexity in a market as unexpected events, and end with a biological speculation about market growth.Economics; fniancial markets; stochastic process; Markov process; complex systems

What Economists can learn from physics and finance

Some economists (Mirowski, 2002) have asserted that the neoclassical economic model was motivated by Newtonian mechanics. This viewpoint encourages confusion. Theoretical mechanics is firmly grounded in reproducible empirical observations and experiments, and provides a very accurate description of macroscopic motions to within high decimal precision. In stark contrast, neo-classical economics, or ‘rational expectations’ (ratex), is a merely postulated model that cannot be used to describe any real market or economy, even to zeroth order in perturbation theory. In mechanics we study both chaotic and complex dynamics whereas ratex restricts itself to equilibrium. Wigner (1967) has isolated the reasons for what he called ‘the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics’. In this article we isolate the reason for what Velupillai (2005), who was motivated by Wigner (1960), has called the ineffectiveness of mathematics in economics. I propose a remedy, namely, that economic theory should strive for the same degree of empirical success in modeling markets and economies as is exhibited by finance theory.Nonequilibrium; empirically based modelling; stochastic processes; complexity

Thermodynamic analogies in economics and finance: instability of markets

Interest in thermodynamic analogies in economics is older than the idea of von Neumann to look for market entropy in liquidity, advice that was not taken in any thermodynamic analogy presented so far in the literature. In this paper we go further and use a standard strategy from trading theory to pinpoint why thermodynamic analogies necessarily fail to describe financial markets, in spite of the presence of liquidity as the underlying basis for market entropy. Market liquidity of frequently traded assets does play the role of the ‘heat bath‘, as anticipated by von Neumann, but we are able to identify the no-arbitrage condition geometrically as an assumption of translational and rotational invariance rather than (as finance theorists would claim) an equilibrium condition. We then use the empirical market distribution to introduce an asset’s entropy and discuss the underlying reason why real financial markets cannot behave thermodynamically: financial markets are unstable, they do not approach statistical equilibrium, nor are there any available topological invariants on which to base a purely formal statistical mechanics. After discussing financial markets, we finally generalize our result by proposing that the idea of Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand is a falsifiable proposition: we suggest how to test nonfinancial markets empirically for the stabilizing action of The Invisible Hand.Economics; utility; entropy and disorder; thermodynamics; financial markets; stochastic processes;

The Futility of Utility: how market dynamics marginalize Adam Smith

General Equilibrium Theory in econometrics is based on the vague notion of utility. Prices, dynamics, and market equilibria are supposed to be derived from utility. Utility is sometimes treated like a potential, other times like a Lagrangian. Illegal assumptions of integrability of actions and dynamics are usually made. Economists usually assume that price is the gradient of utility in equilibrium, but I observe instead that price as the gradient of utility is an integrability condition for the Hamiltonian dynamics of an optimization problem. I discuss both deterministic and statistical descriptions of the dynamics of excess demand and observe that Adam Smith's stabilizing hand is not to be found either in deterministic or stochastic dynamical models of markets nor in the observed motions of asset prices. Evidence for stability of prices of assets in free markets has not been found.Utility; general equilibrium; nonintegrability; control dynamics; conservation laws; chaos; instability; supply-demand curves; nonequilibrium dynamics

Fokker-Planck and Chapman-Kolmogorov equations for Ito processes with finite memory

The usual derivation of the Fokker-Planck partial differential eqn. (pde) assumes the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation for a Markov process [1,2]. Starting instead with an Ito stochastic differential equation (sde), we argue that finitely many states of memory are allowed in Kolmogorov’s two pdes, K1 (the backward time pde) and K2 (the Fokker-Planck pde), and show that a Chapman-Kolmogorov eqn. follows as well. We adapt Friedman’s derivation [3] to emphasize that finite memory is not excluded. We then give an example of a Gaussian transition density with 1-state memory satisfying both K1, K2, and the Chapman-Kolmogorov eqns. We begin the paper by explaining the meaning of backward time diffusion, and end by using our interpretation to produce a very short proof that the Green function for the Black-Scholes pde describes a Martingale in the risk neutral discounted stock price.Stochastic process; martingale; Ito process; stochastic differential eqn.; memory; nonMarkov process; 2 backward time diffusion; Fokker-Planck; Kolmogorov’s partial differential eqns.; Chapman-Kolmogorov eqn.; Black- Scholes eqn

Economic system dynamics

We provide the reader with a qualitative summary of the main ideas from econophysics and finance theory, starting with a thorough criticism of the standard ideas taught in typical economics textbooks. The emphasis is on the Galilean or physicists' approach to market synamics, as opposed to the standard nonempirical postulatory one.Utility; equilibrium; supply and demand curves; business cycles; market dynamics