&gt; you know not all theoretical models are equilibrium based<p>Depends what you mean. I would love to see a macroeconomic model, which is not just an assumption of equilibrium subjected to external shocks. I have only seen such models from postkeynesians. (Austrians do not count - they pretty much throw hands to the air and say &quot;it does whatever it does, we cannot know anything, therefore it&#x27;s OK&quot;.)<p>&gt; can you rephrase it in a way that has some meaning<p>Well, assuming you want to show that some self-organizing system should be a moral guide, for instance, claiming that free markets lead to &quot;efficient&quot; (whatever that means) outcomes, then necessarily this self-organizing system has to have a stable unique outcome (which pretty much rules out chaotic behaviour that dynamical systems love to exhibit). If it had two different outcomes, then it couldn&#x27;t be a unique source of morality (someone would have to come and decide which outcome is better).<p>For example, that&#x27;s why economists, who believe in free market, cling so much to idea that there cannot be endogenous unemployment (and instead explain it as some sort of reaction to external &quot;shock&quot; which will eventually pass). If existing unemployment was endogenous, it would mean that at some point in the past there was a choice (bifurcation), which would set us to path of either unemployment or full employment, and the self-organizing system of free market &quot;made&quot; the morally wrong choice, or at least it was indifferent (meaning it is not a good moral guide).