The use of equilibrium models in economics springs from the desire for parsimonious models of economic phenomena that take human reasoning into account. This approach has been the cornerstone of modern economic theory. We explain why this is so, exto
lling the virtues of equilibrium theory; then we present a critique and describe why this approach is inherently limited, and why economics needs to move in new directions if it is to continue to make progress. We stress that this shouldnt be a question of dogma, but should be resolved empirically. There are situations where equilibrium models provide useful predictions and there are situations where they can never provide useful predictions. There are also many situations where the jury is still out, i.e., where so far they fail to provide a good description of the world, but where proper extensions might change this. Our goal is to convince the skeptics that equilibrium models can be useful, but also to make traditional economists more aware of the limitations of equilibrium models. We sketch some alternative approaches and discuss why they should play an important role in future research in economics.
We study an evolutionary game of chance in which the probabilities for different outcomes (e.g., heads or tails) depend on the amount wagered on those outcomes. The game is perhaps the simplest possible probabilistic game in which perception affects
reality. By varying the `reality map, which relates the amount wagered to the probability of the outcome, it is possible to move continuously from a purely objective game in which probabilities have no dependence on wagers, to a purely subjective game in which probabilities equal the amount wagered. The reality map can reflect self-reinforcing strategies or self-defeating strategies. In self-reinforcing games, rational players can achieve increasing returns and manipulate the outcome probabilities to their advantage; consequently, an early lead in the game, whether acquired by chance or by strategy, typically gives a persistent advantage. We investigate the game both in and out of equilibrium and with and without rational players. We introduce a method of measuring the inefficiency of the game and show that in the large time limit the inefficiency decreases slowly in its approach to equilibrium as a power law with an exponent between zero and one, depending on the subjectivity of the game.
