June 28, 2017

Marx, the moron

Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘Why libertarians should read Marx’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 4 adapted to context and Blog-Reference

There is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

Theoretical economics consists of four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― which are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and which got the foundational economic concept profit wrong.

Marx, clearly, was NOT a scientist but a political agenda pusher. However, after the scientific triumphs of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Leibniz etcetera agenda pushing had to be dressed as science. This gave rise to what Feynman famously called cargo cult sciences.

What Marx did was sociology, history, storytelling, prophesy and agenda pushing. He had NO idea how the monetary economy works because he never figured out what profit is.* That is rather bad for an economist but what is worse is that After-Marxians did not spot and rectify Marx’s blunders in the past 130+ years.

What we actually have is the pluralism of provable false theories. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism look antagonistic on the surface but have one essential thing in common: they are all fake science.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

* See ‘Profit for Marxists


Related 'Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud' and 'The end of political economics' and 'Profit and stupidity' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?'

***
REPLY to Tom Hickey on Jun 30

Your profit theory is false and because of this your whole economic theory is false and as a consequence all your policy proposals are worthless or even counterproductive. For details see:
Profit and stupidity
Economists: scientists or political clowns?

***
COMMENT on Jun 30

Why libertarians should NOT read Marx ― and vice versa ― and why both should get out of economics and switch on TV and look sitcoms instead:
Profit and stupidity
Economists: scientists or political clowns?

***
REPLY to B. L. Zebub on Jul 1

“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)

Economists do NOT have the true theory. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and ALL got the pivotal economic concept profit wrong.#1

Economics is scientifically worthless. Marx and Smith and the rest are storytellers: “… in fact he [Adam Smith] disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter). Same with Marx.

Economics claims to be a science but is NOT. Economists claim to know how the economy works but do NOT. Neither Libertarian nor Marxian economic policy guidance ever had sound scientific foundations. From the Wealth and the Capital up to the present economic texts have less scientific content than the Beatles’ Songbook.#2

#1 See also ‘Economists: scientists or political clowns?
#2 For the details of the bigger picture see cross-references Political economics