The Economics of Time and Ignorance
Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. and Mario J. Rizzo (with Roger W. Garrison) · 1985 · 265 pages
A graduate-level Austrian economics text arguing that markets never settle into equilibrium because time keeps producing genuine surprise, not just risk you can price. It sharpens how you read forecasts and models. It gives you nothing to trade.
The one idea
The authors' target is the idea, borrowed from physics, that an economy tends toward a single knowable equilibrium state if you just wait long enough. They argue this treats time the way Newton treated it: as a neutral backdrop where the future is already implicit in the present, just not yet calculated. Real economic time, they say, is not like that. It runs one direction only, and every moment can produce something genuinely new, not merely something uncertain in the actuarial sense but something nobody, including the people acting in the market, could have listed in advance.
That distinction, between calculable risk and what they call radical ignorance, is the spine of the book. If the future is radically open, then equilibrium is not a state the market reaches and rests in. It is, at best, a pattern the market is always moving toward and never quite achieving, because every entrepreneurial act that closes one gap between supply and demand opens new ones by changing what other people know and expect. Competition, in this reading, is not the tidy diagram of price meeting quantity. It is an unending discovery process, and disequilibrium, not equilibrium, is the normal condition of a market economy.
The book spends most of its length building this case against neoclassical general equilibrium theory and against economists in its own Austrian tradition (Israel Kirzner gets extended, respectful pushback) who treated markets as tending reliably toward a single determinate outcome. Roger Garrison's contributed chapter applies the same time-and-ignorance lens to capital structure and the Austrian theory of the business cycle: booms are what happens when interest-rate signals mislead entrepreneurs about the real availability of savings, and the correction is the market rediscovering, in real time, that the capital structure it built does not match what people actually want.
What it actually teaches
The book has no numbered technique. It builds its case through four interlocking arguments, each a lens rather than a step.
STATIC VS DYNAMIC SUBJECTIVISM
Economics has always agreed that value is subjective, in the sender's head, not baked into the good itself. The authors split that idea in two. Static subjectivism just means preferences vary between people at a point in time (chapter 2). Dynamic subjectivism means the same person's expectations and plans can change from one moment to the next, purely because time has passed and something unanticipated occurred. Most economic models, they argue, quietly only use the static half.
REAL TIME, NOT CLOCK TIME
Chapter 4 borrows Henri Bergson's durée reelle, real duration, to argue that the present moment is never a clean instant. It is always shot through with memory of the past and anticipation of the future, and that anticipation is where ignorance lives: you cannot fully specify what you don't yet know you don't know. A model that treats time as just another coordinate on a graph, the way Newtonian physics does, strips out the one feature, novelty, that makes economic action meaningful in the first place.
EQUILIBRIUM AS A MOVING PATTERN, NOT A RESTING STATE
Chapters 5 and 6 replace 'the market clears' with what the authors call pattern coordination: plans mesh well enough, in a general shape, most of the time, but exact coordination never happens and errors are a normal by-product of the same entrepreneurial process that produces gains. Their worked illustration is rent control in New York City: even after excess demand is eliminated by decades of price ceilings, plans stay frustrated (renters can't bid for better units, movers can't relocate for jobs) because the price signal that would coordinate them has been switched off. The book's point is that this discoordination has no stopping point, no equilibrium it settles into, only an ongoing chain of evasions and counter-regulations.
COMPETITION AS A DISCOVERY PROCESS
Chapter 6 argues 'perfect competition,' the textbook model with infinite buyers, sellers, and perfect knowledge, describes a world in which competitive activity has already stopped, not one where it is happening. Real competition is entrepreneurs acting on partial, mistaken, and constantly revised information, which is exactly what perfect competition assumes away. Garrison's chapter 7 extends the same logic to capital: a boom driven by artificially cheap credit misallocates the economy's capital structure toward projects that do not match real time preferences, and the bust is the market discovering that error, not an external shock hitting a previously stable equilibrium.
What it looks like Monday morning
This is not a book that changes what you do at the open. It changes how you read the tools other people hand you: a GDP forecast, a Fed model, a consensus estimate. The authors' argument is that any model built on an equilibrium the economy is assumed to be near or tending toward is describing a snapshot of a process that has already moved on by the time you read it. That is a reason to treat a macro forecast as a story about what people currently expect, not a prediction of a stable resting point the data will eventually confirm.
The concrete carryover is narrower than the book's ambitions: when a rate cut, a supply shock, or a policy change hits, expect the adjustment to generate its own further adjustments (new prices, new expectations, new distortions) rather than a clean return to some prior equilibrium. The rent control chapter is the clearest illustration of that chain reaction, and it is worth reading even if you skip everything else.
Competition is most fruitfully viewed as a process rather than a state of affairs.O'Driscoll and Rizzo, The Economics of Time and Ignorance
Where it fails
- There is no method here, only a critique. There is no numbered technique, no threshold, no formula, and no case study with real prices or dates you could apply to a position. The one extended concrete example, rent control in New York City, is used to illustrate a concept, not to teach a reproducible model. Anyone shelving this under 'Economic Indicators' expecting an indicator will be disappointed.
- It assumes graduate training you probably don't have. Chapters 2 through 5 argue directly with Husserl's phenomenology, Bergson's durée reelle, Hayek, Kirzner, Lachmann, and general equilibrium theory, often citing specific page numbers of other academic works. Without that background, long stretches read as commentary on a conversation you were not part of.
- Half the book is a decade-old argument about an argument. The 1996 introduction, added ten years after the 1985 original, spends most of its length tracking how Israel Kirzner's position on disequilibrium shifted between his 1973 and 1992 books. That is a live methodological dispute inside Austrian economics circa the mid-1990s. It has itself been overtaken by thirty more years of the same internal debate, which this edition cannot address.
- The one chapter closest to markets stays abstract. Garrison's capital-theory chapter (7) is the book's best shot at something an economic-indicators reader could use: an Austrian account of how a credit-driven boom misallocates capital and why the bust follows. But it never leaves capital-theoretic terms, no interest rate levels, no named cycle, no data. You get the logic of the Austrian business cycle theory, not a way to spot one forming.
- The edition reviewed is a straight reprint, not a revision. This is the Routledge 1996 reissue with a new Rizzo introduction bolted onto the unchanged 1985 text (digitized for the Taylor and Francis e-Library in 2002). The core chapters were not updated for anything that happened in markets or in economic theory after 1985, so any claim in chapters 2 through 8 about the state of the field is frozen at that date even where the introduction itself notes the field has moved on.
Who it is for
Buy it if
You want the philosophical case for why equilibrium-based forecasting misdescribes markets, and you are comfortable reading dense academic prose that cites Hayek, Kirzner, and Bergson on nearly every page. It rewards someone building a macro worldview, not someone looking for a signal.
Skip it if
You want an indicator, a threshold, or a worked trading example. You also want to skip this if you have no patience for a book that spends thirty pages relitigating one economist's shifting definition of disequilibrium between two of his own earlier books.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It costs you nothing extra, and it does not change what gets recommended or what the verdict says.