How Randall Wray takes the piss out of the House Budget Committee

Comment on New Economic Perspectives on ‘Wray Appearing Before Congress’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference (Link) and Blog-Reference on Nov 21 and Blog-Reference on Nov 22

In section 5. Sectoral balances of his testimonial Randall Wray states: “One of the concepts that Modern Money Theory economists use to elucidate the impact of budget deficits on the economy is the sectoral balance identity developed by Wynne Godley (1996). At the level of the economy as a whole, aggregate spending is identically equal to aggregate income ― every dollar spent is received as income. It is useful to divide the economy into three sectors: government (national, state, and local), domestic private (households and firms), and foreign (rest of the world). If one sector spends more than its income (deficit), at least one other must spend less than its income (surplus) to maintain the aggregate identity that total spending equals total income. The balances (income minus expenditure) of the three sectors have to add up to zero since we are adding up all the income in the economy and subtracting all the spending, which are equal by identity. We can then write the aggregate identity as: government balance + domestic private balance + foreign balance = 0. For the US, the government balance taken as a whole is usually negative (government spending is greater than its revenue ― mostly taxes), the domestic private balance is usually positive (approximated as saving is greater than investment ), and the foreign sector balance is positive (the rest of the world has a surplus in relation to the US since our current account balance is a deficit). Figure 7 shows the US sectoral balances, with each sector’s balance presented as a percent of GDP.”#1

The scientific blunder is in the sentence “At the level of the economy as a whole, aggregate spending is identically equal to aggregate income ― every dollar spent is received as income.”

This leads to the false MMT sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0. The true balances equation reads (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0.#2-#5

Because the foundational macroeconomic relationship is ill-defined the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false. The testimonial of Randall Wray is scientifically worthless.#6

Worse, MMT either ignores or deliberately hides the distributional consequences of the policy of deficit-spending/money-creation: “Although MMT has a set of policy prescriptions to achieve full employment and price stability, what I have discussed here is largely descriptive. MMT allows us to look at the economy through a different lens. While economists and policymakers may advocate for reducing government deficits and debt, MMT cautions that what we might be reducing is economic growth, as well as the private sector’s surpluses and net financial wealth.”

For “the private sector” read “the Oligarchy”. The MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation = growing public debt is to the advantage of the Oligarchy and to the disadvantage of WeThePeople ― not only in the present but even more so in the future.#7

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Levy Economics Institute Publications
#2 Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT fund private savings
#3 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#4 Down with idiocy!
#5 The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption?
#6 The state of MMT? Stone-dead!
#7 Gosh! the One Percent have gotten $21 trillion richer: Links on Distribution

Preceding Mr. Wray goes to Washington

***

Figure 7 or How the profit rabbit vanishes in the MMT top hat: household sector and business sector are merged into the Domestic Private Sector. For more examples see Down with idiocy! See also Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick. The crucial point is that there are four sectors (household, business, government, rest of the world) with saving as the balance of the household sector and profit as the balance of the business sector. By merging the household and the business sector and reducing the four sectors to three macroeconomic profit vanishes. This blunder/fraud invalidates the whole of MMT. MMT policy guidance has NO valid scientific foundations. Needless to emphasize that the House Budget Committee does NOT understand what Figure 7 says but is very impressed by the PowerPoint competence of its economic experts.

***

REPLY to Mike Norman on Nov 21

You say: “He [Randall Wray] sat there silently as Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina repeated a laundry list of completely inapplicable and grossly ignorant characterizations of U.S. debt and government finance.”

To be fair, Randall Wray was invited to give his MMT expert testimony and not to fight other participants. Therefore, his testimony has to be judged on its own merits.

True, what the others presented was garbage. But nobody ever expected anything else given the scientific incompetence and the substandard IQ in economics.

***

Wikimedia AXEC143 Macroeconomic Profit Law (with increasing complexity) and Balances Equation

     

Bill Mitchell’s pure MMT teachings for British Labour

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘Invoking neoliberal framing and language is a failing progressive strategy (British Labour)’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Bill Mitchell claims to be a Progressive. In this capacity he fights British Labour: “I have never supported so-called ‘progressive’ parties that choose, for ‘political’ purposes, to lie to the electorates by adopting neoliberal framing and language as a way of minimising any difficulties that might arise, initially, from the dissonance that accompanies exposure to the truth, after years of believing in lies.”

At some point, Bill Mitchell tells the world, he has realized that British Labour plays a con game: “Over the years it’s been clear to me that we live in a fictional world when it comes to economic matters. … Which tells you that he [Paul Mason] either doesn’t understand what MMT is about (ignorance) or deliberately deceives his audience (fraud).”

To make the matter short here, it is Bill Mitchell and his MMTers who are the fraudsters.#1, #2

Proper economic analysis shows beyond any doubt that the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is to the advantage of the Oligarchy and to the disadvantage of WeThePeople. The macroeconomic Profit Law entails Public Deficit = Private Profit and this entails that financial wealth is roughly equal to the public debt. In the fictional world of economics, the fictional Progressives are the real agenda pushers/useful idiots of the Oligarchy.

This should be pretty obvious, Bill Mitchell argues vehemently against budget-balancing and taxing the rich and tells Labour that they are stuck in neoliberal thinking.

• “This is the classic ‘soft’ mainstream macroeconomics that assumes the government is financially constrained and is thus not dissimilar to a household. It is ‘soft’ because, unlike the hard mainstream positions, it allows for deficits (‘funded’ by debt) to occur in a non-government downturn but proposes them to be offset by surpluses in an upturn, irrespective of the overall saving position of the non-government sector.”#3
• “The incomes of the rich are therefore essential to provide the capacity for the government to fund the provision of services to health care and welfare.”
• None of this framing or language is what I would call ‘progressive’.

According to MMT, budget-balancing is unexcusable but taxing the rich is of the devil: “It is false to claim that it is virtuous to ‘tax the rich’ in order to fund essential health and welfare services. This is one of the worst frames that the progressives now deploy.”

Obviously, the whole MMT thing is a shell game with the word progressive.#4

Political take-away for British Labour: MMT is bad science, MMT is bad policy, MMTers are bad people. Bill Mitchell’s MMT teachings for British Labour are a gaslighting exercise.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Billy Blog
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
#2 MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople
#3 Exploding the Household Fallacy
#4 See also Mr. Wray goes to Washington

Related 'The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption?' and 'A beginner’s guide to MMT' and 'How Bill Mitchell stalks Jeremy Corbyn'.

Mr. Wray goes to Washington

Comment on New Economic Perspectives on ‘Wray Appearing Before Congress’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference Nov 18

MMT is two things: a novel theoretical approach that claims scientific superiority compared to the mainstream and political activism with a progressive agenda. This dual strategy violates the principle of the separation of politics and science. This First Principle of Science has been clearly formulated by J. S. Mill#1 but economists of all stripes have it forgotten. Today, economists are, with few exceptions, first agenda-pushers and second scientists.

The strict separation of the scientific realm and the political realm is non-negotiable because science cannot improve politics but politics always and everywhere corrupts science.

Contrary to their progressive appearances, MMTers are agenda-pushers for the Oligarchy.#2, #3, #4 The common denominator of all MMT policy proposals is deficit-spending/money-creation. This amounts to stealth taxation of WeThePeople and free lunches for the Oligarchy.#5

Needless to emphasize that MMTers play down all negative consequences of MMT policy. Here is what Randal Wray is going to tell in Washington: “His goal is to explain a) why we needn’t fear sovereign government deficits and debt; b) why in some important sense, deficits and rising debt are ‘normal’; c) the deficit is in any case largely outside the control of Congress; d) deficits and rising debt ratios will not lead to government insolvency or bankruptcy; e) all government payments can be made on time, unless f) Congress forces a default (due to the debt ceiling it imposes).”

It is important to notice that the lethal effect of MMT policy is is NOT inflation or bankruptcy. Because of Public Deficit = Private Profit the lethal effect is on the distribution of income and wealth. You will not learn much about distribution in Randall Wray’s testimony.

In essence, Wray tells Congress not to worry about the public debt but to do the bidding of Wall Street and to get out of the way of increasing deficit-spending/money-creation.#6-#9

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* New Economic Perspective
#1 “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.”
#2 Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?
#3 Deficit cheerleaders ― the Oligarchy’s useful idiots
#4 How MMT enlightens Washington
#5 MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy
#6 Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers
#7 Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents
#8 MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia
#9 MMT and the overall political corruption of economics

Related 'Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss' and 'No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it' and 'How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists' and 'Some nasty MMT surprises behind the time horizon' and 'Controlled demolition of MMT ― an exercise in elementary logic' and 'Links on Austerity' and 'The state of MMT? Stone-dead!'.

Immediately following How Randall Wray takes the piss out of the House Budget Committee.

***

REPLY to Matt Franko on Nov 18

I say: “MMT is a novel theoretical approach that claims scientific superiority compared to the mainstream …”

You say: “Keep dreaming they claim no such thing …”

Bill Mitchell says: “The voodoo, I am afraid is actually on the other foot! There are some fundamental errors in the logic in the article that highlight why MMT is a superior paradigm for understanding how the monetary system actually operates in comparison to the mainstream logic that the author uses against it.”#1


#1 Voodoo economic revisionism abounds – and it is not MMT doing the voodoo

***

Twitter Nov 20

Source: Twitter

Economics, philosophy, and the crapification of science

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Why philosophy and methodology matter for economics’

Blog-Reference

Tom Hickey, the philosopher in the econoblogosphere recently drew the sum of his insights: “All of us have a world view. World views differ, perhaps slightly but perhaps a great deal. We affiliate based on shared world views. If one beings to groups that don’t share a common world view. this creates some double binds and cognitive dissonance, or role-playing, These world views are ‘programed’ into the brain functioning. At the social level this results in group think and conflict within and among groups.”

Well, this is known since time immemorial: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides … was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other …” (Popper)

Most people are satisfied with the pluralism of opinions and only want tolerance for their own. The ambition of the genuine scientist/philosopher, though, is to advance from doxa = opinion to episteme = knowledge: “That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.” (Peirce)

The guiding principle for establishing knowledge is the distinction between true and false. Scientific truth is well-defined: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)

The problem with economics is that it is NOT a science to this day. The major approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT — are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept profit wrong.

Economics is what Feynman called cargo cult science: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”

Some economists frankly admit that economics does not satisfy scientific standards but point out that it is influential nonetheless: “… the great economists pursued an inquiry as exciting — and as dangerous — as any the world has ever known. The ideas they dealt with, unlike the ideas of the great philosophers, did not make little difference to our daily working lives; the experiments they urged could not, like the scientists’, be carried out in the isolation of a laboratory. The notions of the great economists were world-shaking, and their mistakes nothing short of calamitous. ‘The ideas of economists and political philosophers,’ wrote Lord Keynes, himself a great economist, ‘both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.’” (Heilbroner The Worldly Philosophers)

All this is historically correct but entirely beside the point. To recall, the criterion of science is true/false and NOT influential/ineffective. The latter is the chief criterion of propaganda. Propaganda, though, has NOTHING to do with episteme = knowledge. What we know from history and the content of so-called holy books is that people accept/believe/ defend any intellectual/moral perversion. The history of ideas is the history of scientifically worthless follower-generating opinions.

This holds also for the history of economic thought. There is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

The fact is that theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Economics is fake science. Worse, economics is political fraud.

True: “All of us have a world view”. True, this “world view” informs our actions. True, “world views” count in the political realm. However, “world views” count for NOTHING in the scientific realm.

To call economists worldly philosophers is a silly euphemism. Economics is neither science nor philosophy but political agenda-pushing. Economists are neither scientists nor worldly philosophers but clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.

There is no such thing as an economist who works for the welfare or enlightenment of humanity. According to their own behavioral axiom, economists maximize their individual utility, which means — more often than not — that they are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the incumbent Oligarchy.

Economists have corrupted science and therefore have to be expelled from the scientific community.#1-#14

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Economics: Poor philosophy, poor psychology, poor science
#2 Economics, philosophy, and mathematics
#3 Economics is NOT about Happiness but about Profit
#4 Economists: scientists or political clowns?
#5 Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics
#6 The irrelevance of economics
#7 Economics is NOT a social science
#8 Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
#9 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#10 The economist as storyteller
#11 Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion
#12 Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens
#13 Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought
#14 What it takes to become a great economist

***

REPLY to Ikonoclast on Nov 19

You say: “Lars Syll is correct. Philosophy and methodology (the study of methods) do matter for economics.”

It is pretty obvious that philosophy and methodology have NOT helped Lars Syll much to advance economics. Lacking any understanding of elementary mathematics he still has not realized that Keynes messed up macroeconomics 80+ years ago.#1

Worse, Lars Syll constantly violates the first practical rule of philosophy, that is, Be Honest, which includes (i) NOT to manipulate debate and to suppress critique#2, (ii) to exclusively apply logical/empirical refutation and NOT political insinuation, (iii) to openly admit having been refuted, (iv) to accept the consequences of scientific failure and to retire from academia.


#1 Keynesianism is broke: Get over it!
#2 Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Lars Syll’s spam folder

***

REPLY to Ken Zimmerman on Nov 20

You say: “People make economies and explain what they make. Talk with them, Observe their daily actions. And be respectful. They have the answers for which we search.”

No. That is NOT how science works. And this is known for 2300+ years.

“People fancied they saw the sun rise and set, the stars revolve in circles round the pole. We now know that they saw no such thing; what they really saw was a set of appearances, equally reconcileable with the theory they held and with a totally different one. It seems strange that such an instance as this, ... , should not have opened the eyes of the bigots of common sense, and inspired them with a more modest distrust of the competency of mere ignorance to judge the conclusions of cultivated thought.” (J. S. Mill)

“It [Political Economy] is an abstract science which labours under a special hardship. Those who are conversant with its abstractions are usually without a true contact with its facts; those who are in contact with its facts have usually little sympathy with and little cognisance of its abstractions. Literary men who write about it are constantly using what a great teacher calls ‘unreal words,’ — that is, they are using expressions with which they have no complete vivid picture to correspond. They are like physiologists who have never dissected; like astronomers who have never seen the stars; and, is consequence, just when they seem to be reasoning at their best, their knowledge of the facts falls short. Their primitive picture fails them, and their deduction altogether misses the mark — sometimes, indeed, goes astray so far, that those who live and move among the facts boldly say that they cannot comprehend ‘how any one can talk such nonsense.’ Yet, on the other hand, these people who live and move among the facts often, or mostly, cannot of themselves put together any precise reasonings about them. (Bagehot)

The very characteristic of science is to TRANSCEND the common sense of “people who live and move among the facts”. Economic methodology suffers since Adam Smith from the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction.


Related 'How Heterodoxy got lost in the methodological woods'

***

#PointOfProof

Nov 21

Posts missing

Marx and Marxists ― too stupid for the elementary algebra of profit

Comment on Michael Roberts on ‘Marx’s double-edge law’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Marx got Profit Theory wrong and his followers did not get it right to this day.#1 This, of course, does not hinder them to give policy advice about how to better the economy and humanity. Needless to emphasize that economic policy that is not based on valid theory tends to worsen the situation.#2 As Stigum put it: “In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.”

To this day, Marxianism is merely opinion and NOT science, just like mainstream economics. Both get the foundational magnitude of economics ― profit ― wrong.#3

To make matters short, the axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law is given by Q=Qm+Qn with Qm=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) Legend: Qm monetary profit/loss of the business sector, Yd distributed profit, I investment expenditure, Sm monetary saving/dissaving of the household sector, G government expenditures, T taxes, X exports, M imports. Total profit Q is the sum of monetary and nonmonetary profit/loss. Roughly speaking, monetary profit Qm is determined by the excess of business sector investment over household sector saving, the government’s deficit and the excess of exports over imports.

In order to derive the profit rate π the Profit Law is first simplified to Q=I−Sm which says that macroeconomic profit is equal to the difference of business sector investment I and household sector monetary saving Sm.#4 Note that profit is gross, i.e. that depreciation D has been set to zero, i.e. Qn=−D=0. The point to notice is that investment is NEVER equal to saving and this means that Keynes’ I=S is false and with it the whole of Keynesianism.

To simplify further, household sector saving is set to zero. As a result, one gets Q=I, i.e. (gross) profit is equal to (gross) investment.

The profit rate is defined as π≡Q/K, i.e. profit in relation to capital. Now capital in period t is the sum of all previous investments, i.e. K≡ ∑ I. Mathematically, investment is the change of the capital stock, i.e. the derivative, and the capital stock is the sum of the changes, i.e. the integral. In the most elementary case, the profit rate depends alone on investment I.

This, though, gives one a positive feedback loop: “If company management see their profits or earnings slowing, they reduce their investment expansion and employment hiring and even reverse it.” But because of Q=I this reduces profit further. The analog holds for increasing profit. And this positive feedback explains the business cycle. The market economy is NOT an equilibrium system because of the positive feedback between profit and investment. This means that the whole of Walrasianism and Austrianism is false. All equilibrium models are proto-scientific garbage.

Whether the profit rate falls or rises depends in the most elementary case on the time profile of investment expenditures I. In the early phase of Capitalism investment, i.e. the growth of the capital stock, drives profit. For late Capitalism, the Profit Law tells one Qm=(I−Sm)+(G−T), i.e. profit is mainly driven by public deficit spending. This means that the profit rate depends on the growth rate of public debt. The so-called free market economy is on the full life support of the State.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Michael Roberts Blog HM1 ― Marx’s double-edge law
#1 Links on Karl Marx
#2 Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens
#3 The real trouble with Capitalism: stupid/corrupt economists
#4 For more details see section 6.2 of Squaring the Investment Cycle

Related 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics'

***

#PointOfProof

Nov 14

Post missing
#EconBlocker

Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘The evidence from the sociologists against economic thinking is compelling’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Bill Mitchell summarizes: “One of the stark facts about the academic economics discipline is its insularity and capacity to deliver influential prognoses on issues that affect the well-being of millions with scant regard to the actual consequences of their opinions and with little attention to what other social scientists have to say. The mainstream economists continually get things wrong but take no responsibility for the damage they cause to the well-being of the people.”

And this is how it is done “So we get a formulaic approach to publications in macroeconomics that goes something like this:

• Assert without foundation ― so-called micro-foundations ― rationality, maximisation, RATEX.
• Cannot deal with real world people so deal with one infinitely-lived agent!
• Assert efficient, competitive markets as optimality benchmark.
• Write some trivial mathematical equations and solve.
• Policy shock ‘solution’ to ‘prove’, for example, that fiscal policy ineffective (Ricardian equivalence) and austerity is good. Perhaps allow some short-run stimulus effect.
• Get some data ― realise poor fit ― add some ad hoc lags (price stickiness etc) to improve ‘fit’ but end up with identical long-term results.
• Maintain pretense that micro-foundations are intact ― after all it is the only claim to intellectual authority.
• Publish articles that reinforce starting assumptions. Knowledge quotient ― ZERO ― GIGO.”

Not only mainstream economics, though, is proto-scientific garbage. The major approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism — are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept profit wrong. With their provably false theories, economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens. However, the same holds for MMT, the approach Bill Mitchell represents.#1-#13

Bill Mitchell is right in his critique of what passes as economics but he has drawn the wrong conclusion from obvious scientific failure: “A mainstream professor who was supervising my economics graduate program once said to me: ‘Bill you are a bright boy but you should be doing sociology’, which was an example of the negative control mechanism designed to weed out dissidents (like me). It didn’t work. But I always considered the disciplines of sociology and anthropology (not to mention psychology, political science, social welfare etc) to be important in my journey to become ‘well read’.”

The correct conclusions from the lethal methodological blunders of economists are:

• Leave sociology to the sociologists and psychology to the psychologists.
• Take their findings whenever needed.
• Focus instead on how the economic system works.
• Economics is NOT a social science but a system science.#14, #15

From this follows that economics needs a full-blown Paradigm Shift. In concrete terms, this means that false Microfoundations#16 have to be replaced by true Macrofoundations#17.

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and Bill Mitchell’s MMT have to be buried at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery.#18

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Billy Blog
#1 Econogenics in action
#2 How the representative economist gets it wrong big time
#3 Economics: The greatest scientific hoax in modern times
#4 Economics ― worse than fake
#5 Economics ― a doctor worse than the disease
#6 Economists and the destructive power of stupidity
#7 MMT: The economics moron as problem solver
#8 Mass unemployment: The joint failure of orthodox and heterodox economics
#9 No culpa, only stultitia
#10 As Napoleon said: don’t listen to economists
#11 Why do workers not tar and feather economists?
#12 Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion
#13 Scrap the EconNobel
#14 PsySoc — the scourge of economics
#15 Homo oeconomicus: the never-ending folk-psychological shitshow
#16 Microfoundations are verbally given by: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)
#17 The true Macrofoundations are given by (A0) The objectively given and most elementary systemic configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X. See True macrofoundations: the reset of economics
#18 The real trouble with Capitalism: stupid/corrupt economists

Related 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?'

Swimming naked: economists and the Paradigm Shift

Comment and links on Lars Syll on ‘The essence of neoliberalism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Craig says: “Steve Keen recently gave a presentation to the shifting paradigms conference at the Aberdeen Political Economy Group he called The Incredible Inertness of Paradigm Changes in Economics.”

As Warren Buffett once remarked: “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”

The tide has gone out, the Paradigm Shift has happened, and one discovers that not only Orthodoxy but also Steve Keen, Lars Syll, the basket of RWER deplorables, and Heterodoxy as a whole has been swimming naked.

► For details of the big picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift
► CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig
► The inexorable Paradigm Shift in economics
► Reverse Alchemy: from scientific gold to political shit
► Real-World Economics: The sanctuary of stupidity and corruption
► Links on Neoliberalism
► Where advanced Heterodoxy — represented by Steve Keen — took the wrong turn
► Scrap the EconNobel
► First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
► New Economic Thinking: The 10 crucial points

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***

AXEC106i

***

#PointOfProof

Nov 14

Post missing

#EconBlocker