Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
There is no such thing as economics. There are TWO economixes: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, and 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) has been hijacked early on by political agenda pushers.
Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. Economics is a failed/fake science.
But there is nothing to worry about with regard to education. It is a fact that economics students swallow proto-scientific garbage hook, line, and sinker for generations. They are not particularly smart. Whoever accepts supply-demand-equilibrium as an explanation of how the market system works flunks the entry-level intelligence test of science.
For details see:
- Are economics professors really that incompetent? Yes!
- The economist as storyteller
- To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards
- Economics textbooks ― tombstones at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery
- Econ 101: supply-demand-equilibrium is dead for 150+ years
- The real trouble with Econ 101
- How to overcome the manifest silliness of Econ 101 and save the economy
- Econ 101: Dull teachers and dull students in the endless loop
- The disutility of debunking Econ 101
- What’s wrong with Econ 101? Economists, of course!
- Economism, vulgar economics, and the curse of goofy critics
- Econ 101 — worse than useless
- Econ 101 or How to train morons
- How to get out of the Econ 101 PsySoc woods
- Economists still don’t get Econ 101 right
- Econ 101 is dead ― and now?
- Methodology 101, economic filibuster, and the mother of all excuses
- Economics: Two centuries of scientific incompetence
- False on principle
- There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”
- The tragedy of economics: stupid/corrupt economists
- For details of the big picture see cross-references Econ 101/Old Curriculum/New Curriculum
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
† Inside Higher Ed
Related 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Fact of life: Your econ prof is scientifically incompetent' and 'The economist’s pick: liar, moron or what?' and 'The false foundations of economics' and 'How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down' and 'The real problem with the economics Nobel' and 'Econogenics in action' and 'Bang — the representative economist and supply-demand-equilibrium are dead' and 'Let's bury economics now' and 'The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession' and 'Profit: The most powerful formula of economics' and 'The new economic Paradigm requires a new textbook'.
***
Wikimedia AXEC144c
***
Twitter May 11, 2021 Constrained optimization: the making of an economist
Twitter May 15, 2022 No idea how the economy works
Twitter Dec 29, 2022
