May 21, 2015

If anyone has better foundational equations, please come forward

Comment on ‘Why the ergodic theorem is not applicable in economics’


There is no way around it: each theory rests on a tiny set of foundational propositions.

“The highest ambition an economist can entertain who believes in the scientific character of economics would be fulfilled as soon as he succeeded in constructing a simple model displaying all the essential features of the economic process by means of a reasonably small number of equations connecting a reasonably small number of variables.” (Schumpeter, 1946, p. 3)

Orthodoxy's behavioral axioms are now generally known to be false.

Constructive Heterodoxy's reasonably small number of equations is given here.

As long as you [Dave Taylor] cannot state your premises clearly with a few simple equations you cannot go beyond political filibuster. It is pretty clear by now, that economics has had more than enough of this stuff.

Political economics is part of the entertainment industry. Traditional Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy are sitcoms. Only theoretical economics is science. Science is about the real world.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Schumpeter, J. A. (1946). The Decade of the Twenties. American Economic Review, 36(2): 1–10. URL