Abstract This paper swaps the standard behavioral axioms for structural axioms and applies the latter to the analysis of the emergence of secondary markets from the flow part of the economy. Real and nominal residuals at first give rise to the accumulation of the stock of money and the stock of commodities. These stocks constitute the demand and supply side of secondary markets. The pricing in these markets is different from the pricing in the primary markets. Realized appreciation in the secondary markets is different from income or profit. To treat primary and secondary markets alike is therefore a category mistake.
This blog connects to the AXEC Project which applies a superior method of economic analysis. The following comments have been posted on selected blogs as catalysts for the ongoing Paradigm Shift. The comments are brought together here for information. The full debates are directly accessible via the Blog-References. Scrap the lot and start again―that is what a Paradigm Shift is all about. Time to make economics a science.
December 16, 2012
Primary and secondary markets {15b}
Abstract This paper swaps the standard behavioral axioms for structural axioms and applies the latter to the analysis of the emergence of secondary markets from the flow part of the economy. Real and nominal residuals at first give rise to the accumulation of the stock of money and the stock of commodities. These stocks constitute the demand and supply side of secondary markets. The pricing in these markets is different from the pricing in the primary markets. Realized appreciation in the secondary markets is different from income or profit. To treat primary and secondary markets alike is therefore a category mistake.
November 11, 2012
Intertwined real and monetary stochastic business cycles {36}
Working paper at ARCHIVE
Abstract There is no such thing as a ‘real’ economy. The task, therefore, is to consistently reconstruct the fluctuations of employment and output from the interactions of real and nominal variables. The present paper does exactly this. No nonempirical concepts like utility, equilibrium, rationality, decreasing returns or perfect competition are applied. The analysis runs rigorously in objective structural axiomatic terms. Therefrom follows that it is the factor cost ratio, i.e. the relation of the nominal variables wage rate and price and the real variable productivity that, for any given level of effective demand, drives the fluctuations of employment and output.
October 27, 2012
Make a bubble, take a free lunch, break a bank {35}
Abstract Standard economics is known to be incapable of integrating the real and the monetary sphere. The ultimate reason is that the whole theoretical edifice is built upon a set of behavioral axioms. Therefore, the formal starting point is moved to structural axioms. This makes it possible to formally track the complete process of value creation and destruction in the asset market and its consequences for the household and business sector. From the set of structural axioms emerge the well-known phenomena of a bubble from free lunches through appreciation to defaults due to a lack of potential next buyers.
August 16, 2012
Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster {34}
August 12, 2012
The common error of common sense: an essential rectification of the accounting approach {33}
Abstract The present paper takes the explanatory superiority of the integrated monetary approach for granted. It will be demonstrated that the accounting approach could do even better provided it frees itself from theoretically ill-founded notions like GDP and other artifacts of the equilibrium approach. National accounting as such does not provide a model of the economy but is the numerical reflex of the underlying theory. It is this theory that will be scrutinized, rectified, and ultimately replaced in the following. The formal point of reference is ‘the integrated approach to credit, money, income, production, and wealth’ of Godley and Lavoie.
July 12, 2012
General formal foundations of the virtuous deficit/profit symmetry and the vicious debt deflation {32}
June 13, 2012
Crisis and Methodology: Some Heterodox Misunderstandings {31a}
May 15, 2012
Geometrical exposition of structural axiomatic economics (I): fundamentals {30}
Abstract Behavioral assumptions are not solid enough to be eligible as first principles of theoretical economics. Hence all endeavors to lay the formal foundation on a new site and at a deeper level actually need no further vindication. Part (I) of the structural axiomatic analysis submits three nonbehavioral axioms as groundwork and applies them to the simplest possible case of the pure consumption economy. The geometrical analysis makes the interrelations between income, profit, employment, and money under the conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing immediately evident.
April 28, 2012
The Rhetoric of Failure: A Hyper-Dialog About Method in Economics and How to Get Things Going {29}
March 9, 2012
Zur axiomatischen Einheit von Kreislauf, Geld, Preis, und Verteilungstheorie (The Axiomatic Unity of Circuit, Money, Price and Distribution) {28}
Abstract This contribution to the Festschrift in memoriam of Karl Brandt and Alfred E. Ott establishes the axiomatic unity of circuit, money, price and distribution theory. From the history of economic methodology and from actual practice follows: one cannot not axiomatize. The crucial question is not axiomatization per se but the real world content of axioms which is not guaranteed by simply applying the method. Axioms can be empirically vacuous. This holds for the behavioral axioms of standard economics. In marked contrast, all structural axiomatic variables are measurable in principle. No metaphysical concepts like equilibrium are put into the premises.
March 2, 2012
Income Distribution, Profit, and Real Shares {27}
January 31, 2012
Taxes, profits, and employment: a structural axiomatic analysis {26}
Abstract Standard economics is regarded as the theory of the market system. Profit is the pivotal phenomenon of this system. Contrary to expectations, though, profit is neither well defined nor fully understood. The frailty of the theoretical core is passed on to the subfields. This paper provides a consistent definition of profit and applies it to the analysis of the effects of the government sector's budget on employment and the profitability of the business sector. Since the formal point of departure is different from the standard approach it is quite natural that we arrive at new conclusions on some fundamental issues.