  Econometrics is based on the nonempiric notion of utility. Prices, dynamics,
and market equilibria are supposed to be derived from utility. Utility is
usually treated by economists as a price potential, other times utility rates
are treated as Lagrangians. Assumptions of integrability of Lagrangians and
dynamics are implicitly and uncritically made. In particular, economists assume
that price is the gradient of utility in equilibrium, but I show that price as
the gradient of utility is an integrability condition for the Hamiltonian
dynamics of an optimization problem in econometric control theory. One
consequence is that, in a nonintegrable dynamical system, price cannot be
expressed as a function of demand or supply variables. Another consequence is
that utility maximization does not describe equiulibrium. I point out that the
maximization of Gibbs entropy would describe equilibrium, if equilibrium could
be achieved, but equilibrium does not describe real markets. To emphasize the
inconsistency of the economists' notion of 'equilibrium', I discuss both
deterministic and stochastic dynamics of excess demand and observe that Adam
Smith's stabilizing hand is not to be found either in deterministic or
stochastic dynamical models of markets, nor in the observed motions of asset
prices. Evidence for stability of prices of assets in free markets simply has
not been found.
