Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder

Note on Barkley Rosser’s ‘Parsing the Poland Problem Paradox: Local Versus National Outcomes’ and sequel to Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Economics claims to be a science but is not. There are 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 (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years.

Accordingly, in their research and communication, economists are not guided by the principles of Science but by the principles of Circus Maximus. As a consequence, in the econblogosphere, the best stuff is hidden in the spam folders, and what is openly recycled ad nauseam is soft soap, blather, gossip, propaganda, disinformation, and proto-scientific garbage.

It is at anybody’s guess to what extent the econblogosphere is corrupted. The problem, of course, is that spam folders are invisible to the general public. Private censorship is built into the blogging software and works without any traces.

Occasionally, there are exceptions. For those who appreciate the privilege of casting a glance into Mark Thoma’s spam folder, here is a sample of comments he suppressed over the last six months.

• Is Nick Rowe stupid or corrupt or both?
• I is never equal S and even Nick Rowe will eventually grasp it
• Rethinking macro
• Yes, economics is a bogus science
• Dani Rodrik, fake scientist
• Rethinking the Phillips curve
• When non-thinkers rethink
• Proof of the inherent instability of the market economy
• The economics Cargo Cult Prize
• Why is MMT so false?
• Setting the history of economic non-thought right
• Profit and the decline of workers’ nominal share
• Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?
• CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig
• The moralizing economist is not a good guy but a fake scientist
• Walrasian micro and Keynesian macro need to be flushed away
• In search of new economists
• Sending Solow’s growth model to the dump of proto-scientific history
• The five pathetic blunders of Roger Farmer
• Inflation: back to basics
• Going beyond No-Idea economics
• Milton Friedman, fake scientist
• After-Keynesian zombie interbreeding
• Why economists have not been effective in economics

Needless to emphasize that Mark Thoma represents not more than the tiny tip of the iceberg. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. As a result, almost all of the econblogosphere consists of fake news, attention management, brown-nosing, wrestling exercises, buddy back-scratching, PR, slander, and cheer-leading.#1

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Economics: a science without scientists

Immediately following Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake scientists.

***

#PointOfProof