October 13, 2015

New thinking, new teaching

Comment on ‘Real world economists and the economics curriculum’


Keynes's great merit was to speak out clearly that something was deeply wrong with economics. In this he was far ahead of his fellow economists. However, he did not succeed in developing a satisfactory alternative. “But Keynes, too, sometimes gave the impression of not having fully grasped the logic of his own system.” (Laidler, 1999, p. 281)

The deeper reason is that Keynes — just like his predecessors and fellows — did not come to grips with profit (2014). What is worse, neither did the Post Keynesians (2011) nor Heterodoxy (including Minsky) until this very day.*

Because neither Keynes nor his followers nor his opponents understood that deficit spending has a one-to-one positive side-effect on the overall profit of the business sector Keynesian policy is ultimately responsible for the extreme distortion of income and wealth distribution that we see today.**

Because they lack the correct economic theory, economists in effect produce the problems they are supposed to solve.

The most important tasks of Heterodoxy are (i) to develop the materially and formally consistent economic theory, (ii) to develop the appropriate curriculum***, (iii) to fully replace Orthodoxy in academic and non-academic teaching.

At the moment, scientifically incompetent orthodox and heterodox economists are probably the greatest menace to their fellow men.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2489792: 1–13. URL
Laidler, D. (1999). Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* See ‘Heterodoxy, too, is scientific junk
** See ‘Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine
*** For a start see cross-references New curriculum