Peter St-Onge argues that microeconomics, based on classical supply and demand, is largely true and useful for business. In contrast, he claims macroeconomics is dominated by Keynesian theory, which justifies government intervention and often functions as propaganda rather than objective science.
Related Insights
Macroeconomics can be understood by evaluating a leader's performance across five core domains: taxation, government spending, monetary policy, regulations, and international trade. This framework provides a clear scorecard for assessing economic policy effectiveness.
Despite behavioral economics producing multiple Nobel laureates, undergraduate microeconomics textbooks remain fundamentally unchanged since the 1970s. This highlights a significant inertia within academia, where foundational curriculum often fails to incorporate revolutionary, field-altering discoveries even years after they are widely accepted.
Economic theory is built on the flawed premise of a rational, economically-motivated individual. Financial historian Russell Napier argues this ignores psychology, sociology, and politics, making financial history a better guide for investors. The theory's mathematical edifice crumbles without this core assumption.
Runaway costs in education, housing, and healthcare stem from government intervention. When the government promises to provide a service (e.g., student loans), it becomes a massive "buy-only" force with no price sensitivity, eliminating natural market forces and causing costs to balloon.
Nobel laureate Robert Solow critiques modern macroeconomic models (DSGE) for being overly abstract and failing to represent an economy with diverse actors and conflicting interests. By modeling a single representative agent, he argues, the field has detached itself from solving real-world economic problems.
Policies like price caps (e.g., for insulin) or price floors (e.g., minimum wage) that deviate from market equilibrium create distortions. The economy then compensates in unintended ways, such as companies ceasing production of price-capped goods or moving to under-the-table employment to avoid high minimum wages.
The idea that government should "stay out of" markets is a flawed model. The government is an inherent economic actor, and choosing deregulation or non-intervention is an active policy choice, not a neutral stance. This view acknowledges politics and government are inseparable from market outcomes.
In an era of financial repression and heavy government intervention, the most effective investment strategy is to identify sectors receiving direct government support. By positioning capital near these "money spigots," investors can benefit from policies designed to manage the economy, regardless of traditional market fundamentals.
Contrary to its capitalist branding, the U.S. economy functions as a Keynesian system. It relies on money printing and implicit market support (a 'plunge protection team') to inflate asset prices and maintain the illusion of growth, masking real-term devaluation.
For a period, a perverse norm developed in economics where the 'better' academic model was one whose theoretical agents were smarter and more rational. This created a competition to move further away from actual human behavior, valuing mathematical elegance and theoretical intelligence over practical, real-world applicability.