V.R. wrote:...Which is the one I was addressing.

All models simplify. "Chaotic nonequilibrium game with unreliably rational actors chasing payoff tables" is something Duelix just regurgitated.

I didn't regurgitate; it's a concept I came up with myself because it makes the most sense. It's a very loose model that is oversimplifying; nevertheless it's a kind of useful summary of economics, which is way more complicated than that.

Game theory, bounded rationality and "payoff tables" (whatever those are) are still oversimplifying assumptions.

Payoff tables represent some sort of payoff for taking any action, usually in the form of capital. IE if you have multiple decision makers and multiple possible actors. Economics represents an exceedingly complicated set of decision makers, actions, and payoffs, which is why the players typically use irrational but simplifying heuristics to determine their choices.

In fact, modeling markets as chaotic systems seems to be a kneejerk reaction too strong in the opposite direction. You're assuming overly high sensitivity to initial conditions and disregarding individual preferences and the entrepreneurial function for error correction and self-stabilization.

Except it's pretty apparent that markets aren't self stabilizing. Ever heard of bank runs? Or the Great Depression? Or the financial markets collapsing in 2008? If there's no intervention or capital controls on a market it tends to become increasingly volatile. Markets are quite sensitive to initial conditions, although they have self stabilizing mechanisms built in. Just because a system is chaotic doesn't mean it isn't self correcting; it just means that the trajectory of the correction isn't predictable or explicitly modelable. For example, consider a double rod pendulum or a lorentz attractor. It's pretty much empirical fact that it's possible to model the short term trajectory of an economy but not the long term trajectory; look at the margins of error in GDP growth predictions, for example.

Instead this would lead to the unrealistically pessimistic assumption of Circular Cumulative Causation, a sort of destructive anti-equilibrium that needs an exogenous entity like government to correct it (never mind now you're reckoning with public choice theory and government failures).

Now you're using an ideology to justify a theory rather than deriving the underlying theory from reasonable assumptions and fact.

In fact, the game theory approach commits a grave fallacy by modeling uncertainty (in the kaleidic sense) as unidentified risk. Not the same.

Game theory doesn't identify uncertainity (in the kaleidic sense) as unidentified risk. Not sure where you get this from. Read a book on game theory: here's a suggested one:

https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/game-theory

From the winner of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Economics.