AXEC: New Foundations of Economics: Scientific Incompetence: cross-references

November 30, 2015

Scientific Incompetence: cross-references

Posts

Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing here
Clear thinking in economics: hahaha! here
Economists’ foundational conceptual blunder here
The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession here
Advancing humanity. Really? here
In the grand scheme of things, Lord Keynes was only a small-time crook here
Not all academic pursuits are science here
Psychologism: how morons explain the world here
Let's bury economics now here
Bang — the representative economist and supply-demand-equilibrium are dead here
The tragedy of economics: stupid/corrupt economists here
No False-Hero Memorials (II) here
All behavior-based economic textbooks are false here
Disgrace again ― is economics really that bad? here
Economists can hardly wait for their burial at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery here
Economics is a disgrace ― now more than ever here
Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing? here
Profit here
Mankiw vs Mitchell ― another clown show here
Microfoundations are dead for 150+ years: high time to move on here
Mission accomplished: Economists as useful idiots of the Oligarchy here
Trust in science? Yes, but economics is NOT a science here
Economics ― the science that never was here
Get it econ suckers: behavioral microfoundations ⇒ false, systemic macrofoundations ⇒ true here
New Economic Thinking ― the definitive results here
Ending the pluralism of provably false economic theories with the long-overdue Paradigm Shift here
Economics, philosophy, and the crapification of science here
Marx and Marxists ― too stupid for the elementary algebra of profit here
Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens here
The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption? here
Scrap the EconNobel here
Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind here
Homo oeconomicus: the never-ending folk-psychological shitshow here
Economics, math, pluralism, and corruption here
What’s wrong with DSGE models is the axiom set here
The end of Mankiw and his Phillips Curve here
Links on the Economics Nobel here
Deficit cheerleaders ― the Oligarchy’s useful idiots here
Economics: No method to the madness here
Economics ― not science, not ideology, just useful idiocy here
The apocalypse of stupidity here
After 200+ years even economics becomes a science here
Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion here
Profit analysis ― another exercise in economic deception here
The only thing we can learn from economic models is what proto-scientific garbage looks like here
How incompetent are economic methodologists? Very! here
The Palgrave Dictionary ― a comprehensive collection of False-Hero-Memorials here
Econ 101: Economists flunk the intelligence test at the first hurdle here
Are economics professors really that incompetent? Yes! here
Links on ‘Keynes: socialist, liberal or conservative?’ here
Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over here
You know you are in the political Circus Maximus when economists talk about Democracy/Liberty/Freedom here
Economics debate ― just another variant of hardcore wrestling here
Economics a science? Surely you are joking, Mr. Cochrane here
Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage here
Economics: The greatest scientific hoax in modern times here
Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is here
Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science here
The CCC ― a monument of economists’ utter scientific incompetence here
Yes, economists are really that stupid here
From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model here
Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers here
Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores” here
The public-debt and private-profit pushers here
To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards here
Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption here
Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook here
The clock runs down on economics here
Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both here
Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard here
Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (I) here
Economics as a cover for agenda-pushing here
What it takes to become a great economist here
Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong here
Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science here
Who is really a scientist? here
Economists/MMTers: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors here
Socialism and scientific incompetence here
What and where is profit? here
If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people here
Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses here
Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists here
There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists” here
Profit and macrofoundations here
False economic theory makes bad economic policy here
Econogenics in action here
Economics: A failed/fake science for 200+ years here
The end of political economics (II) here
Trust in economics as a science? here
#DrainTheScientificSwamp here
The failure of Post-Keynesianism here
MMT sucks here
Economics should never be a substitute for thinking here
“I never learned maths, so I had to think” ― another False-Hero-Memorial here
You don’t see what you don’t see: censorship in the econblogosphere here
The economist as useful political idiot here
Whatever this is, it is NOT economics here
The inexorable Paradigm Shift in economics here
Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II) here
And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization here
The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo here
Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled here
Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists here
Why is economics a total scientific failure? here
Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics here
Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics here
Forget Keynes here
Economics: a comedy of errors full of intrigue and aberration here
Time to retire political economists here
Down with idiocy! here
Again and again: economists are incompetent scientists here
Economics: Defending the indefensible here
Freedom for fake scientists? here
The economist as amateur journalist here
Lethal criticism of economics? Here it is! here
Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation here
How the representative economist gets it wrong big time here
Economists understand neither Capitalism nor Socialism here
Fact of life: Your econ prof is scientifically incompetent here
Mission impossible: economists join WeThePeople here
Legitimacy lost here
Heterodox economics: When stupidity becomes a public danger here
Stephanie and Noah ― economics at the intellectual zero lower bound here
Economics as tireless production of proto-scientific garbage: inflation theory as an example here
Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit here
MMT = Modern Monetary Trash here
Both Mainstreamer and MMTer are either stupid or corrupt or both here
Forget mainstream economics, scrap MMT, move on to the new paradigm here
Both mainstream economics and MMT are axiomatically false here
MMT and the single most stupid physicist here
Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law here
Economists simply don’t get it here
Lock them up here
The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists here
The economist as useful political idiot here
MMT, Bill Mitchell, and the lack of basic scientific integrity here
#DeleteKeynes #ExpelAllKeynesians here
Economics, too, is pre-truth here
Economics: Math is NOT the problem, scientific incompetence is here
The Magic Money Tree is real ― too bad that the magic is fraud here
The present non-existence of economics here
What’s the use of economists? here
The inexorable paradigm shift in economics here
There is no soft science only soft brains here
Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II) here
And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization here
The Theory of Value and the worthlessness of economics here
The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo here
Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled here
Beware of the moralizing economist here
Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods here
Do first your macroeconomic homework! here
Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling here
How economists missed out on the essential relationship of economics here
The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false here
Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists here
Marx’s bicentennial ― nothing to discuss, nothing to celebrate here
Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it! here
Why is economics a total scientific failure? here
Profit: after 200+ years still elusive here
Neoclassical growth theory: modeling gone nuts here
Infantile model bricolage, or, How many economists can dance on a non-existing pinpoint? here
Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics here
Stop beating mainstream economics ― it is long dead here
Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics here
MMT: Just another political fraud here
New insight from Meta-Learning: delete economics here
Economists ― standing on the shoulders of dwarfs here
Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation here
Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole here
Behavioral economics ― forever stuck at the proto-scientific level here
Economics: When the scientifically unfit blather about science here
Economists: political trolls for 200+ years here
Economics: communication without content here
Fiscal policy and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy here
Economists never understood how the price mechanism works here
Macro for retarded economists here
Silly criticism of economics: 11 signs that you are the imbecile here
Again and again: economists are incompetent scientists here
False models and true incompetence here
Mr. Corbyn and the perils of political economics here
Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit here
Economics: Defending the indefensible here
MMT is ALWAYS a bad deal for the 99-percenters here
Dilettantes at the end of the coal-pit here
Yes, economics is a bogus science here
How to make economics a science here
Lethal criticism of economics? Here it is! here
Everything you know about MMT is wrong here
How the representative economist gets it wrong big time here
Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics here
Why does Heterodoxy not abolish the fake Nobel? here
A social science is NOT a science but a sitcom here
Setting the history of economic non-thought right here
The ethics of science is consistency ― economics is inconsistent here
10 steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good here
Solving Mill’s starting problem here
The new macroeconomic paradigm here
New Economic Thinking = old scientific garbage here
Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment? here
CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig here
Economics: the emancipation of science from politics here
What makes economics a failed science? here
Post-Keynesianism, too, is indefensible here
The flat-earth realism of economists here
Why economists don’t know what profit is here
Hunting down the economics body snatchers here
Robert Solow and Lars Syll, fake scientists here
Economics: a ‘science’ from suckers for suckers here
Barkley Rosser, fake scientist here
In search of new economists here
The five pathetic blunders of Roger Farmer here
Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent here
Economics, philosophy, and mathematics here
Milton Friedman, fake scientist here
After-Keynesian zombie interbreeding here
Economists: just too stupid for counting here
Macro for dummies here
Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific rubbish here
We are not yet out of the wood; in fact, we are not yet in it here
Keynesianism ― the economists’ senile dementia here
Economists: scientists or political clowns? here
The minimum wage debate: a showpiece of economists’ hereditary idiocy here
Empiricism, or looking through the microscope at the universe here
Economics and the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction here
Have we reached the bottom of gossip economics? here
Morons on math here
The long genealogical tree of economic storytelling here

Simpleminded losers here
Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs here
Think deeper here
Textbooks and the mental cloning of dumb economists here
Just another wreck here
Just revealed: IS-LM is dead for 80+ years here
Soapbox economics here
Garbage economics here
Hijackers, agenda pushers, PsySocs, and other morons here
Equilibrium and the violation of a fundamental principle of science here
Post Keynesianism, too, is proto-scientific garbage here
Needed: the Top Ten of substandard economics blogs here
Getting out of the economics swamp here
Economists ― blinded by political balloons here
Make econ true here
Economics’ lack of scientific legitimacy here
Failed critique of failed economics here
Economics ― a doctor worse than the disease here
The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy here
Ditch scientific incompetence! here
Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro here
Toward the New Academy here
How to overcome the manifest silliness of Econ 101 and save the economy here
The Law of Economists’ Increasing Stupidity here
Redefining economics here
What is REALLY wrong with macro here
From the pluralism of false models to the true economic theory here
The fundamental problem of economics: scientific incompetence aka stupidity here
The non-existence of economics here
Bad economics, futile critique, and illusive new thinking here
In economics, the scientific breakthrough is always just around the next corner here
Where economics went wrong here
There is no scientific elite in economics here
Economics between mathiness, dyscalculia and idiocy here
Schizonomics here
Modern macro moronism here
Pants kicking is over, let’s do serious economics now here
The methodological blunders of fake scientists here
If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics here
Economics is a science? You must be joking! here
Why not simply throw all economists under the bus? here
Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show here
New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig here
Paul the Menace here
Economists and the destructive power of stupidity here
Macroeconomics without Keynes here
Friedman and the cluelessness of fake scientists here
Economism, vulgar economics, and the curse of goofy critics here
Traditional Heterodoxy’s paradigmatic impotence here
Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt? here
Gossip economics here
Delusions of useful idiots here
Mass unemployment: The joint failure of orthodox and heterodox economics here
Economics ― worse than fake here
Ideology? Incompetence? Fake? Or all this together? here
Strange noise in the graveyard of economics here
Economics: Poor philosophy, poor psychology, poor science here
Economics is indefensible here
The united tribe of the scientifically incompetent here
Inequality: Market failure or theory failure? here
Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom here
Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses here
Complexity and stupidity here
When fake scientists call out on fake politicians here
How to finally hammer down the nails in the coffin of Monty Python economics here
Economics: The pluralism of false theories is over here
The futile synthesis of neoclassical rubbish and Keynesian garbage here
Economists and their silly excuses here
The one stone that kills orthodox and heterodox employment theory here
Economics: The pathetic story of two failures here
The IS-LM macro imbeciles here
Economic policy advice has never had sound scientific foundations here
Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes here
Economics ― a Zombie wrestling show here
Economics, methodology, and the Molehill Impossibility here
Economics is not post-truth but pre-truth here
Ground Control to David Glasner here
Heterodoxy and the re-invention of science here
Nick Rowe: Bury me at the end of coal-pit here
Economists: the Trumps of science here
Why economists know nothing here
The economist as standup comedian here
Economists: Jacks of all trades ― except economics here
A new curriculum for swampies? here
How to end the futile economics zombie ping-pong here
Political economics: a deadhead sitcom here
It is better to be precisely right than roughly wrong here
There is NO such thing as an economic expert here
The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids here
Unemployment is high because economics is false here
Economics: the simple logic of failure here
How economists murdered the economy and got away with it here
The final implosion of MMT here
How the mainstream vanished in the gutter here
Not big news: political economics is a failure here
The truth about truth in economics here
Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy: the squabbling of quacks here
Economics: a science without scientists here
Heterodoxy ― a new paradigm or just another political sect? here
Economics between physics and psychiatry here
New economic thinking ― false promises and hopes here
A new episode of one of the worst blunders of economics here
Keynesian macrofoundations are defective here
Stuck with the economics prisoner’s dilemma here
NAIRU ― a folk psychological hallucination here
The Cambridge crap curriculum here
The very serious blunders of very serious people here
Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: the perennial misery of economics here
Cheerleading the cargo cult here
Just for the record: economics is dead here
ICYMI Prediction/Forecasting here
It’s in the hardcore, stupid here
When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific here
The general theory of scientific incompetence here
The real problem with the economics Nobel here
How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right here
All models are false because all economists are stupid here
Kick out the king and don’t forget the jesters here
Outside of science here
Dead men tweeting here
Scientists and science actors here
No future for axiomatically false economics here
Micro and macro inconsistency here
Marshall and the Cambridge school of plain economic gibberish here
Keynesianism: The triumph of blathering over thinking here
Clueless about money and profit here
Economists: No legitimacy whatever here
Causa finita: the end of I=S/IS-LM here
Krugman is not an economist here
Turning the bananatization of economics around here
Demystifying employment theory and policy here
Nothing to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy here
Failed institutions here
How to get rid of an obsolete theory here
Economics and Project Augean Stable here
A heap of scientific rubbish here
Eclecticism, anything goes, and the pluralism of false theories here
Economics is NOT a social science here
Economists’ full-scale retreat here
Heterodoxy’s scientific self-burial here
Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy here
The unfinished Keynes (III) here
Economics: The chief demerit is inconsistency here
Economic policy guidance out of the scientific kindergarten here
Substandard reasoners here
Making the economy the focus of the economists’ dialogue here
Why J. S. Mill had no friendly word for the bigots and votaries of common sense here
The bigots of common sense here
Misled by ordinary intuition and common sense here
Appearances and evidence here
Economics, too, has been almost ruined by the bigots of common sense here
Low-IQ economics: the beginner’s guide here
Common sense is worse than misleading here
Common non-sense here
Yeah, it makes sense here
Krugman is not an economist here
Economists and the economy ― a nonstarter since 200 years here
Sumner’s proto-scientific garbage here
Nothing to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy here
Failed institutions here
A heap of scientific rubbish here
Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy here
Economics: The chief demerit is inconsistency here
Substandard reasoners here
Feeble minds, shaky assumptions, and the inevitable failure of economics here
Enough! Economists, retire now! here
What is dead certain in an uncertain world: economists’ abysmal incompetence here
Not a question of simplicity but of stupidity here
What’s wrong with Econ 101? Economists, of course! here
Economics is locked in idiocy: How could this happen? here
Economics: A cargo cult science from the very beginning here
Forget Chicago, and also Cambridge here
When substandard thinkers dabble in science it is called economics here
Methodological wrong-way drivers here
Cranks? What cranks? That’s economics! here
Econ 101: Dull teachers and dull students in the endless loop here
Neo-Paleo-Stupidicism here
Economics: From proto-science to freak show here
A science without scientists here
The economist as storyteller here
Why don’t economists simply shut up for a while? here
The economic Sisyphus: Forever kicking the can down the wrong road here
Marginalism is the landmark of scientific incompetence here
Mathiness is NOT the problem — scientific incompetence is here
Econ 101 or How to train morons here
Economics: ‘a tale told by an idiot ... signifying nothing’ here
The monstrous utility-supply-demand-equilibrium failure here
As Napoleon said: don’t listen to economists here
Stanley Fischer: Rewarding scientific incompetence here
Economics: neither craft nor science here
Macro of and for the scientifically blind and deaf here
Quixotic Keynes exegesis here
How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down here
How economists became the scientific laughing stock here
The ur-blunder of economics and its rectification here
The Fisher Effect — a specimen of scientific incompetence here
The tragedy of Heterodoxy here
Profit and the collective failure of economists here
Still behind the curve here
Humpty Dumpty is back again here
Getting out of moronomics here
Stop knowing nothing, start knowing something here
Moronomics here
Is Keynes acceptable? here
The irrelevance of economics here
How to be a good scientist here
Exponentially growing garbage here
Trapped in false alternatives here
Disoriented and lost in folk psychology here
The philosophy of know-nothingers here
Whatever it is, let's call it conservatism here
Much change, no progress here
How to stop idiot-breeding here
No future for the representative economist here
Secular intellectual stagnation here
Economics: the honeypot for know-nothingers here
Worthwhile Canadian filibuster? here
Economics as scientific South Seas here
The Hicks drive here
The Phillips curve as intelligence test here
Modern Moronomic Theory here
Back at Keynes' problem here
How to save the economy from storytelling economists here
Oh no! How could this happen? here
The end of storytelling here and here
Stubbornly in the wrong research program here
How to consistently start off on the wrong foot here
Cartoon science here
Mental messies and loose losers here
All economists together now: Solow’s Swan Song here
More than two centuries of waffling in the dark here
Flight of ideas and the dead end of all econtalk here
McCloskey and the lizard's tail here
Sloppiness as economic methodology here
Ditch it all here
Methiness here
Sitcom economics here
From one roadside ditch straight into the other here
The science that never was here
Market blunder here
No license for drivel here
Science and travesty here
What economics is not about here
The epic ping-pong of empty problem and vacuous solution here
Economics is not what most economists think it is here
Walrasian double-blunder here
Unfit in all dimensions here
Mortifying scientific headstands here
Science or Circus Maximus? here
The intelligent student's predicament here
Methodology as Force Majeure here
Bygones are bygones here
Angels-on-a-pinpoint scholasticism here
MIT dilettantes here

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ or about the modus operandi of the invisible hand than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

"Economics of the last 200+ years is the most embarrassing failure in the history of modern science." For explanation and proof see here

Meta references

Knowledge only — no opinion

Science does not explain everything, but non-science explains nothing.

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.

Economists cannot explain how the economy works. The Profit Theory is false since Adam Smith. There is much opinion and little knowledge.

Opinion is the realm of political economics, knowledge is the realm of theoretical economics.

Political economics is scientifically worthless.

Theoretical economics is built upon clearly stated premises, i.e., upon a set of axioms.

Orthodoxy got the axiomatic foundations wrong and Heterodoxy has none at all.

Economics is a failed science. Economists are incompetent scientists.

Profit

Neither Classicals, nor Walrasians, nor Marshallians, nor Marxians, nor Keynesians, nor Institutionialists, nor Monetary Economists, nor MMTers, nor Austrians, nor Sraffaians, nor Evolutionists, nor Game theorists, nor EconoPhysicists, nor RBCers, nor New Keynesians, nor New Classicals ever came to grips with profit. Hence, they all fail to capture the essence of the market economy.

Because of this, economists have nothing to offer in the way of a scientifically founded economic policy guidance.

The hybrid science

As a first approximation, one can agree on the general characteristic that the economy is a complex system.

However, with the term system one usually associates a structure with components that are non-human. In order to stress the obvious fact that humans are an essential component of the economic system the market economy should be characterized more precisely as a complex hybrid human/system entity.

The scientific method is straightforwardly applicable to the sys-component but not to the hum-component. While it is clear that the economy always has to be treated as an indivisible whole, for good methodological reasons the analysis has to start with the objective system-component.

In gestalt-psychological terms the economic system is the foreground, individual behavior the background. Common sense wrongly insists that the hum-component must always be in the foreground. This fallacy compares to geo-centrism. The economic system has its own logic which is different from the behavioral logic of humans. The systemic logic is what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

There are systemic laws but no behavioral laws. Systemic laws have the same methodological status as physical laws.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy can tell what the systemic laws of the actual monetary economy are.

Whether the outcome of the human/system-interaction is good or bad is a politcal question that lies outside of theoretical economics. Theoretical economics explains how the actual economy works - no less, no more.

Narrative vs.Theory

Psychological, sociological or behavioral assumptionism cannot yield anything other than a gossip model of the world. Second-guessing the agents is not economic analysis.

Science deals exclusively with propositions that can in principle be decided by objective means. The rest is opinion, faith, phantasy, motive speculation, allegation, hallucination, myth, paranoia, ink-blot association, psychology, philosophy, in one word: storytelling.

Storytelling is the original mode of communication in the social realm — except science.

Political economics is storytelling and, by default, the natural habitat of confused confusers. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are social narratives and not scientifically valid representations of reality.

"The truth is, most persons, not excepting professional economists, are satisfied with very hazy notions." (Fisher)

In marked contrast, theoretical economics lives up to the standards of material and formal consistency. A scientific theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible.

Theory starts with a set of objective and consistent axioms.

Paradigm Shift

"The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy." (Feynman)

"As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction." (Nell)

"The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory." (Blaug)

"Is it not a fact, which stares at us from the histories of all sciences, that it is much more difficult for the human mind to forge the most elementary conceptual schemes than it is to elaborate the most complicated superstructure when those elements are well in hand?" (Schumpeter)

"The task of producing knowledge against the grain requires imagination." (Mirowski)

"A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination." (Feynman)

"The scientific imagination dreams of explanations and laws." (Peirce)

"It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science." (Evans)

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

Selftest and to watch for

You apply one of these items

• supply-demand-equilibrium,

• general equilibrium,

• marginal utility,

• well-behaved production functions,

• total income = value of output,

• total income = wages + profits,

• I=S,

• wage rate down - employment up,

• behavioral axioms?

Then you are out of science because of unnoticed material or formal inconsistency.

Every economist who uses the concept of equilibrium is scientifically incompetent because she/he failed to notice that equilibrium is an economic nonentity.

Practically this means: as soon as the word equilibrium appears in an economic text it can be thrown into the waste basket. The same holds for all other nonentities.

The vast majority of economists deals mainly with nonentities. This is why Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is scientifically worthless.

Since Adam Smith, economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations.

To be replaced (1)

The core premises of Orthodoxy are uncertain and false and this fully explains the failure of the research program.

“As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: 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)

The inescapable Paradigm Shift consists of the move from this obsolete hard core to the superior set of structural axioms.

To be replaced (2)

The fundamental equations of macroeconomics have been formulated by Keynes in two lines.

"Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."

This elementary syllogism is demonstrably false. The demonstration consists in the proof that Keynes could not solve the Profit Puzzle. Neither did Post-Neo-New-Keynesians.

In the most general terms, the economics Paradigm Shift consists in switching from the behavior-centric bottom-up approach to the structure-centric top-down approach. This is comparable to the Copernican turn from geo-centrism to helio-centrism.

Consensus

Economics is a science without scientists. Because they are ignorant of the elementary difference between profit and income, the present generation of economists has not made and cannot make a significant contribution to the discussion about how the actual economy works.

Every orthodox or heterodox economist can convince himself/herself that their profit theory is defective.

Every non-economist can — by applying elementary logic — convince himself that conventional profit theories are false. See 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down'.

Because the profit theory is false the whole of conventional economic theory has to be rejected.

"What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse." (McCauley)

No scientist will ever accept Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, or Austrianism. These approaches are logically and/or empirically refuted. This is the actual methodological state-of-art. Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, or Austrians are still at the proto-scientific stage. These approaches cannot be improved, only abandoned.

Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.

About me

“Bottom line is that your profit law is just a definition you made up nobody else agrees with, nobody. You are all alone with your precious tautology.” Barkley Rosser

“In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with.” Brian Romanchuk

"Your stuff is at least original: it's quite cool after a couple of decades at this to see a fresh Economics. But real promises are not advanced: they were around for millennia until the Greeks obscured them with Metaphysics." Chris Cook

"No mate, they're you-blockers. You have all the personality traits of a crank, and the rest of them have tired of you. You could be 100% right, and you'd still die as your only follower." Steve Keen

"What you are doing fills is all with joy, your constructive critique is most welcome!"

Achim Truger,

German Council of Economic Experts,

in a failed attempt to be ironic

"200+ years of thought and yet you are the only one who gets it—or even understands your argument. Thank god we have you, pseudonymous Twitter user. Otherwise no one would know."

William Luther

Assistant Professor of Economics

in a failed attempt to be funny

"Egmonts profit law is the perfect equation that demonstrates this in action. Put the equation into a spreadsheet and then add government spending and watch how it flows into profits. Enter in some debt (-Sm) and watch too how that flows into profits. It can't go anywhere else."

Dean

About the rest of economics

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent. Economics is a failed science.

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” Leonardo da Vinci

In economics, the overwhelming majority belongs to Class III. This explains why economics is after 200+ years still at the proto-scientific level.

The obvious task for every economist is to advance from cargo cult science and political agenda-pushing to science. This is absolutely beyond the means of Class III people.

For 200+ years now, economists are not scientists but agenda pushers, useful idiots, clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Nopopop

This blog does not add to any popular/un- popular opinion.

This blog does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup of society, to get out of national/global depression, nor about how to save humankind or any subgroup thereof.

This blog is about the true theory of the actual monetary economy.

"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." (Stigum)

Focus

Science is of primary interest and importance. Scientists are of secondary interest.

With regard to science, most people lose focus easily because of a natural preference for anecdotes and gossip over facts or subjectivity over objectivity.

Hence, Schumpeter once considered it necessary to remind his habitually disoriented fellow economists: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”

Science is about true/false and nothing else.

Disclaimer

Missing Blog-Reference links: AXEC does not guarantee that their comments can at any time be recovered from where they have been posted intitially because the availability depends on the publication policy of the blog owner which is implicitly accepted on entering a debate. See also: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?'

Texts: Parts of arbitrary length of any of the author's texts is and will be used again by the author in papers, books, websites, blogs, and other media without explicit reference. The right to make corrections or minor textual improvements on reutilization is reserved. Therefore, it is always a good idea to double-check for the latest version.

Caution: Do not expect a corroboration of your political view. Neither a refutation. Political economics has been scientifically worthless since Adam Smith. Politics has to be separated from economics because it is categorically different from science. The best science can do and has always done is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been objectively wrong or ignorant until now. Science goes beyond the naive common sense of today and becomes the sophisticated common sense of tomorrow.

See also Terms of Use and Legal at www.AXEC.org

Outlook

To recall, while political economics is storytelling, theoretical economics adheres to scientific standards.

The first task of theoretical economics is to get the axiomatic foundations right. This is what J. S. Mill called the opus magnum. Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy came up with a reasonable solution to this day. This explains the secular stagnation of economics.

There is no serious alternative to structural axiomatic economics. This is not a matter of opinion but of proof. The sole criteria are material and formal consistency.

All of economics has to be reconstructed from the ground up.

Major economic policy implication

The price mechanism does not work as standard economics hypothesizes. The axiom-based Employment Law states that overall employment increases if the average wage rate increases relative to average price and productivity. This gives one the lever to improve the employment situation all over the world and to fend off deflation without rising debt and without artificial capacity growth. To increase the average price relative to the average wage rate and productivity increases unemployment.

Right policy depends on true theory.

“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.” (Stigum)

Lacking the true theory, economists promote for more than 200 years opinion instead of knowledge.