A modern economy presents a picture of millions of people, either as individuals or organized into groups and firms, each pursuing their own disparate interests in a rather limited part of the environment. Somehow, these varied individual activities are more or less coordinated and some relative order emerges. Economists commonly explain that this is due to Adam Smith's "invisible hand," and that despite the conflicting interests of individuals, the result of the pursuit of their selfish ends is socially satisfactory. The market provides the mechanism which links and coordinates all the activities being pursued by individuals.Paradoxically, the sort of macroeconomic models which claim to give a picture of economic reality (albeit a simplified picture) have almost no activity which needs such coordination. This is because typically they assume that the choices of all the diverse agents in one sector-consumers for example-can be considered as the choices of one "representative" standard utility maximizing individual whose choices coincide with the aggregate choices of the heterogeneous individuals.My basic point in this paper is to explain that this reduction of the behavior of a group of heterogeneous agents even if they are all themselves utility maximizers,is not simply an analytical convenience as often explained, but is both unjustified and leads to conclusions which are usually misleading and often wrong. Why is this? First, such models are particularly ill-suited to studying macroeco-