Blog-Reference
Merijn Knibbe asks: “Is it possible to model unemployment in neoclassical ‘DSGE’ macro-economic models? I’m occupied with a project which compares neoclassical macro concepts with statistical macro concepts.”
The question is rhetorical because it is widely known by now that neoclassical economics in general and DSGE, in particular, is one of the greatest scientific blunders of all time.
Merijn Knibbe is well aware of this: “There is a momentous literature about this, even when people like Thomas Sargent and Robert Lucas and Edward Prescott and Christopher Pissarides, al winners of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Honor of Alfred Nobel, all use the word ‘leisure’ when they mean ‘unemployment’.”
Yes, neoclassical economics is proto-scientific garbage and the economics Nobel is plain fraud. Mainstream economists are stupid or corrupt or both, and more is NOT to say about it. The critique of mainstream economics has run its course: “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)
Merijn Knibbe could know this. #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6
The only reason why DSGE is still around despite the fact that even its dullest proponents have realized by now that it is indefensible proto-scientific garbage is that Heterodoxy has failed to develop a suitable alternative: “... we may say that ... the omnipresence of a certain point of view is not a sign of excellence or an indication that the truth or part of the truth has at last been found. It is, rather, the indication of a failure of reason to find suitable alternatives which might be used to transcend an accidental intermediate stage of our knowledge.” (Feyerabend)
Both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is proto-scientific garbage. Why economists are engaged in this senseless and endless quarrel about “neoclassical platitudes” and plain NONENTITIES like utility and equilibrium is a problem for the couch doctor, it is not a problem for the scientific community. Economists have been thrown out of the sciences long ago and are only admitted as useful idiots and clowns to the political Circus Maximus.#7
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model
#2 From subjective weighing of motives to objective systemic properties
#3 When numbers don’t add up
#4 Economists: Jacks-of-all-trades ― except economics
#5 Sumner’s proto-scientific garbage
#6 The future of economics: why you will probably not be admitted to it, and why this is a good thing
#7 For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment
***
#PointOfProof
Apr 26
***
Rob Reno maintains: “The entire science of mathematics, the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance ― liquid water.”
The first popular misconception about science relates to prediction. See
► The brouhaha about prediction: which Feynman is right?
Bottom line: scientists do NOT predict, only political/religious manipulators and sociopaths predict.
Second popular misconception: economics suffers from mathiness. The fact is that economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics. See
► Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
► Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science
► Heterodoxy’s popular but silly math denial
► For details of the big picture see cross-references Math/Mathiness and cross-references Accounting
Bottom line: If mathematics is a tool then economists are the dumb folks that stubbornly hammer their thumbs and as bad workmen blame the tool.