AXEC: New Foundations of Economics: Proto-Science/Cargo Cult Science/Fake Science: cross-references

November 30, 2015

Proto-Science/Cargo Cult Science/Fake Science: cross-references

Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing? here
There are NO crank scientists in economics because economics is NOT a science here
Economics, MMT, and the corruption of science here
Trust in science? Yes, but economics is NOT a science here
Economics ― the science that never was here
Economics ― not science, not ideology, just useful idiocy here
Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science here
The retirement of a fake scientist and real agenda pusher here
Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption here
Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook here
The clock runs down on economics here
Austrians, too, are either stupid or corrupt or both here
MMT-Refutation for Dummies here
Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk here
Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both here
Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (II) here
Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard here
Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong here
Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science here
Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation here
Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom 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
What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong? 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
Heterodox economics: When stupidity becomes a public danger here
MMT = Modern Monetary Trash here
“I never learned maths, so I had to think” ― another False-Hero-Memorial here
#DeleteKeynes #ExpelAllKeynesians 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
MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud here
The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo here
Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled here
Nick Rowe’s soapbubbling about money here
Is Lars Syll’s stupidity really infinite? here
Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists here
Why is economics a total scientific failure? here
Neoclassical growth theory: modeling gone nuts here
Economics between misguided and lethal critique here
Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics here
Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole here
Bill Mitchell, MMT’s fake scientist here
Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading here
Economics: a comedy of errors full of intrigue and aberration here *
Political economists ― the village idiots of science here
Right troll left troll pack your bag and get out of economics here
Do first your macroeconomic homework! here
Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling here
The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false here
Does economics matter more for bread or for circuses? here
The brouhaha about prediction: which Feynman is right? 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
Economists ― standing on the shoulders of dwarfs here
Economics is NOT about what Happiness is but about what Profit is here
Behavioral economics ― forever stuck at the proto-scientific level here
Economies are culturally different but economic laws are universal here
Economics: When the scientifically unfit blather about science here
Economists: political trolls for 200+ years here
Forget Keynes here
Economics: communication without content here
The perennial conundrum: profit and distribution here
MMT: Academic snake oil for the people here
Heterodoxy ― an axiomatic failure just like Orthodoxy here
Ricardo and the invention of class war here
From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations here
I is never equal S and even Nick Rowe will eventually grasp it here
Time to retire political economists here
Economists never understood how the price mechanism works here
Freedom for fake scientists? here
Dear philosophers, economics is a systems science here
A brief history of soapbox economics here
Dilettantes at the end of the coal-pit here
Why Heterodoxy is no real alternative to mainstream economics here
Yes, economics is a bogus science here
How to make economics a science here
Lethal criticism of economics? Here it is! 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
Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific rubbish 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
Hunting down the economics body snatchers here
Scientists do NOT predict the future here
Economics: a "science" from suckers for suckers here
In search of new economists here
Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent here
Economics, philosophy, and mathematics here
New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points here
Economists: scientists or political clowns? here
Economics and the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction here
The long genealogical tree of economic storytelling here
Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud here
Make econ true here
What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure here
Economics’ lack of scientific legitimacy here
Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere here
True macrofoundations: the reset of economics here
What genuine scientists believe about economics here
Ditch scientific incompetence! here
Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro here
How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum here
Toward the New Academy here
How to overcome the manifest silliness of Econ 101 and save the economy here
Economics — from storytelling to science here
Economists’ proto-scientific shell games here
The Law of Economists’ Increasing Stupidity here
Redefining economics here
From the pluralism of false models to the true economic theory here
Economists ― medics or barber surgeons? here
The economist as moralist here
Economists’ eternal problem with methodology here
The non-existence of economics here
Economics and truth here
Pre-truth and post-truth in economics here
New economic thinking = old political fake here
The thinking economist here
Economics ― from attention and reputation management to science here
Humble pie economics: the next fake here
Economics between cargo cult, farce, and fraud here
How Arrow pushed economics over the cliff here
In economics, the scientific breakthrough is always just around the next corner here
Where economics went wrong here
Economics is NOT a misunderstanding but cargo cultic crap here
There is no scientific elite in economics here
Economics between mathiness, dyscalculia, and idiocy here
Schizonomics here
Modern macro moronism here
NAIRU and the scientific incompetence of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy here
The methodological blunders of fake scientists here
Why you should NEVER use supply-demand-equilibrium here
If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics here
Economics is a science? You must be joking! here
Windmill economics 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
Economists and the destructive power of stupidity here
Macroeconomics without Keynes here
Economism, vulgar economics, and the curse of goofy critics here
Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt? here
If You Meet the Storyteller on the Road, Kill Him here
Econ 101 or How to train morons here
Profit and the collective failure of economists here
How to be a good scientist here
Doomed and damned here
The happy end of the social science delusion here
Confounding Is and Ought: the economist as moralist here
At last, mathiness problem settled here
False on principle here
Freshwater, saltwater, scientific dishwater here
Lucas’s humbug here
Modern Moronomic Theory here
Here it comes: the sexit here
Yes, it's proto-scientific garbage, so leave it behind for good here
Knowledge vs. Belief here
Cartoon science here
The case for pure economics here
Sexit here
Mental messies and loose losers here
Science and travesty here
Freaky games here
Make no mistake: there can be only one true theory here
Separation of politics and economics here
True/false is different from good/bad here
From economics to politics to idiotism here
Flight of ideas and the dead end of all econtalk here
Heterodoxy at the crossroads here
Wake up: economics is not a science of behavior here
Science or Circus Maximus? here
From obscurity to enlightenment here
Lacking the Midas touch of science here
The subtle distinction between storytelling and science here
Economics: science for the confused here
Time to get out of gossip economics here
Politics vs. Science here
Agenda pushers and hijackers vs scientists here
What economics is all about here

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.