- Lack of empirical confirmation of theoretical assumptions (see paragraph 1 where he criticizes macroeconomists who believe that the monetary policy has no impact on the economy)
- Insertion in DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models) of a large number of external shocks for many economic parameters.
- Many unknown parameters in DSGE models that are set by the "expectations " that economists. Leads to predictions that can be tweaked ad nauseam in order to conform to reality.
- Tendency to hide such assumptions behind a large quantity of mathematics in order to make the models look more realistic.
- Loyalty to leaders in the field of macroeconomists as a fact that corrodes the pursuit of truth in the economics science.
The representative agent (modeling the behaviour of all the different supposed-rational agents by a single "representative agent") is a common paradigm that has been criticized by \cite{Bouchaud_2009}, using an analogy with complex physical systems that not behave like a single atom or electron, they can exhibit very strange phase-transition patterns that must surely also arise in economic systems.
Historical account of the notion of equilibrium
Looking at papers (Kirman papers) and lectures (Nobel lectures) reflecting on economic equilibrium, we always see the figure of Leon Walras emerging. Leon Walras (1834-1910) is credited to be the first mathematical economist. Much like Einstein or Newton in physics, even though he is used as a figure of authority, it is important to dig deeper that the mere linguistics used by authors and to try and understand the social context of the emergence of such a man (who undoubtedly had a profound impact on economics). In the same way goes the reference work of Georgio Israel, The Invisible Hand. Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science \cite{giorgio2015} which states that : "No one studying the theory's origins in contemporary manuals can help seeing Walras as an isolated peak rising from a plain broken only by a few modest foothills" before trying to point out a research program to investigate the conditions of emergence of Walras's work which they coined : "Walras's forerunners"
p.7 - When talking about the supposed link between physics and economics and Samuelson describing Walras as "the greatest of all economists", and considering "his system the only work in economics comparable with the achievements of theoretical physics.", the authors, a few lines later : "And this is no mere question of metaphor. One actually discovers that the history of general economic equilibrium theory is intimately bound up with a vast and complex chapter of the history of science : i.e. the arduous and controversial attempts to mathematize the non-physical sciences such as biology and economics which are fundamentally distinguished from the physical sciences bu their concern with freedom of choice, self-regulation and finalism."
Parler de Montesquieu avant lui et des physiocrates.
Parler de Cournot et dire qu'il le cite énormément dans ses textes.
Talk about the fact that equilibrium was not taken seriously before the 1940s, he published his major work in [FIND THE DATE AND CITE THE WORK] but never had a great audience. However he pursued his agenda very thoroughly and even wrote an article 1909 still with some positivist thought : \cite{walras} article assez intéressant de Walras défendant une mathématisation de l'économie, avec une utilisation d'une "fonction d'utilité" quantifiant la satisfaction d'un agent et l'utilisation d'EDO pour résoudre un problème économique, en faisant d'après lui une science "physico-mathématique".
Citation : "Et il me semble facile de faire voir aux mathématiciens, par deux exemples décisifs, que sa manière de procéder est rigoureusement identique à celle de deux sciences physico-mathématiques des plus avancées et des plus incontestées: la mécanique rationnelle et la mécanique céleste."
Dans le lien on trouve ensuite une réponse de Poincaré. --> Il faut la mettre dans la rubrique suivante sur les early criticisms de la notion d'équilibre.
Breedt fait une liste intéressante d'idées dans son review:
At page 23, he writes : "Economics and physics have however had ample reciprocity in forming, shaping and guiding the other."
He cites three examples: Bernoulli, Quetelet and Laplace. Quetelet was cited in \cite{giorgio2015}, however not the other ones. We should think about going back to the source to understand their role, although it seems highly probable that he only quoted them because he saw there names in the three article he cites in this "Origins" section, (Chen and Li, 2012), (Farmer, Smith and Shubik, 2005) and (Burda, Jurkiewiz and Nowak, 2003). These articles all have the name econophysics in their title, correlating the fact that he cited them not as history but only passing by as he was writing his thesis.
Plus institutionnalisé, on peut prendre Kirman mais il parle surtout directement de Walras.
Paragraph on Mark Blaug, using two articles he wrote :
- Was there a marginalist revolution ?
- The formalist revolution of the 1950s
\cite{Weintraub_2002} a book on the history of economics as a mathematical science. What is fairly interesting is that it starts by discussing mathematical thought at the end of the 19th century, when Euclidean geometry was thought of as the most solid mathematics and mathematical rigour was synonymous with grounding on physical phenomena and observations. Talks about the emergence of bourbakism as a reaction to the discovery of non-euclidean geometries and Hilbert's set-theoretical foundations projects, and consequently on Gerard Debreu's formation as a bourbakist. On equilibrium, it discusses the Arrow-Debreu paper and its acceptance by the economic community. Speaks of equilibrium as, at first, a consequence of the walrasian tâtonnement process, and of a system of equations satisfied by prices with as many unknown free parameters as equations, and having thus a solution.