Economics textbooks ― tombstones at the Flat-Earth Cemetery

Links on Peter Dorman on ‘CORE and Periphery in the Reform of Econ 101’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

“I often wonder whether other subjects suffer as much from textbook writers.” (Hahn, 1980)

► CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig
► To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards
► Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook
► Economists have no brain
► False on principle
► Where economics went wrong (II)
► The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids

► For details of the big picture see cross-references Econ 101/Old Curriculum/New Curriculum

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***

REPLY to Owen Paine on Jun 13

You say “And yes the core text is a big step.”

NO. In the section ‘9.6 Wages, profits, and unemployment in the whole economy’ the determination of macroeconomic profit is provably false. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law reads Q≡Yd+I−S+(G−T)+(X−M).

Because the foundational concept of economics, i.e. profit, is ill-defined the CORE textbook is scientifically worthless.#1

That the whole thing is not more than proto-scientific garbage, storytelling, gossip, and name-dropping may be gleaned from such references as

“Arguably the most famous scientific controversy of all time was between Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over who invented calculus.

Newton first used calculus methods in a manuscript published in 1666. The methods were used in his book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, which was published in 1687. He completed his book on calculus, Method of Fluxions, in 1671, but did not publish it until 1736.

Newton’s supporters accused Leibniz of plagiarism in his work on calculus. By the time of his death, his reputation was in decline and he died in poverty. His reputation has subsequently been rebuilt by both mathematicians and philosophers.

Modern historians accept that Newton and Leibniz invented calculus independently, at about the same time. Therefore, to decide whom to name the calculus supplements after, we tossed a coin. Leibniz won.”

The fact is that modern historians have found out that Newton was a fraudster.#2

More exercises in the erection of False-Hero Memorials can be found in the section ‘Great economists’.#3

#1 CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig

#2 Kollerstrom, N. (2018). The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science’s Greatest Fraud? Pen and Sword Books.

#3 For details see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

***

Wikimedia AXEC106k