General equilibrium frameworks can only explain change through outside intervention, not internal dynamics

Evidence

Geanakoplos likes to phrase his commentary in terms of “cycles,” but in fact, general equilibrium forces him to posit separate and unconnected sequential states of equilibrium, driven in a Rube Goldberg fashion by the arbitrarily sequenced arrival of asset issuance→“news”→valuation. Each state along the way is in “equilibrium,” as defined by constrained optimization and market clearing. Because everything is always already in equilibrium, the only reason anything changes is the deus ex machina imposed from outside by the model builder. — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 814

Categorization

• XREF: Reinforces the broader thesis that neoclassical formalism structurally cannot model endogenous crisis, connecting to Mirowski’s overall critique of the ‘thought collective’ and to earlier chapters on orthodox economics’ theoretical constraints. — connects to: Austrian theory holds that government intervention, not markets, causes boom-bust cycles — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 316; Even sharp critics of DSGE refuse to reject its general equilibrium foundations — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 795; A social equilibrium persists when agents lack incentives to change it (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• A social equilibrium persists when agents lack incentives to change it #qualifies (0.80)
• Capitalist modernity cannot be understood from its internal dynamics alone #corroborates (0.75) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 487
• Economic determinacy operates through overdetermination, not simple mechanical causation #complicates (0.75)
• Hegemonic systems are neither seamless nor fully determinative of individual agency #complicates (0.72) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 855
• Social change resists explanation within any single social science #corroborates (0.72) — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 28