PE01 A Critique of Neoliberal Economics – Part I

$10.00 every 5 years

A Critique of Neoliberal Economics, Part I – Quantitative Analysis & Assumptions

Capital as Power in Ergodic Economic Modeling – Hierarchical Position and Focused Rationality in an Analysis of Stocks & Flows – US Federal Reserve 4Q 1989 & 4Q 2019 Household Income and Net Worth Data

Access to this product is subject to copyright restrictions as stated here and allows printing of the pdf for personal use or teaching purposes but prohibits resale, scanning and electronic redistribution other than clearly cited quotation without permission of the author, Martin Gibson dab UniServEnt. Honor system. All rights reserved.


Access to this product is restricted to Political Economy and the three down stream general memberships for the purpose of printing the referenced pdf. On the honor system, of course.


Current macroeconomic structural analysis is heavily constrained quantitatively and qualitatively by nominal valuation of sector and subsector accounts in terms of the history of market transactions and a forecast of capital changes based on the sector trends. A focus on private sector rates of return, nominal and real, on GDP and on capital held as financial and real equities and interpreted as a prime indicator of the health of a national economy, ignores key factors as evidenced by the market collapse of 2008.

Apparently missing from this analysis are the following;

  1. The focus on maximization of returns as real over nominal rates encourages the reduction in taxes (for public outlays of indeterminant private benefit) and labor costs (deemed to be inflationary), with little consideration of the macroeconomic benefit derived. This is a straw man based on the true nature of modern monetary policy in which public outlays as issuance of a national fiat currency involve no direct borrowing or income tax transfer from the private sector. Instead of a currency flow from available private to deficient public sectors as generally portrayed, the use of borrowing and taxation is ostensibly meant to retire money thought to be circulating or looking for investment in the private sectors to offset the fiat issuance of public funding, to thereby avoid inflationary pressure from too much money chasing too few goods and services in either sector, though the obverse appears to be the case based on the ongoing lack of a balanced budget and almost zero inflationary pressure, at least for basic goods and services.
  2. The true structural picture of the economy is only seen by an analysis of sector and subsector changes over time as percentages of total national production with respect to capital and consumption flows and to stocks rather than for sector changes measured against same sector baselines.[1] This can be addressed by a variant of analytical modeling which ergodically constrains the average flows and stocks of individual economic microstates exhibiting focused rationality as decision making groups over time to the average of those microstate flows and stocks of the ensembled macrostate of that economy at a given point in time.
  3. There is no allowance in the national accounting for valuation of human capital on either a market-valued (MHC) or non-market-valued (NHC) basis. A 2010 study determines a range of 25-30% MHC to 75-70% NHC.[2]

Comparison of unbiased ergodicity in non-market and of weighted ergodicity in market modeling of human capital with 4Q 1989 and 4Q 2019 Household Income and Net Worth US Fed Data gives credence to this approach as indicated in quantitative analysis of the first section and summed up in the qualitative political economic analysis of the second.

[1] Link to working paper, The Browser Economy, Martin Gibson

[2] Human Capital: “Human Capital Accounting in the United States, 1994-2006”, a report by Michael S. Christian, published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.