November 30, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The MMTers are running out of arguments

 
at

Occasional Tweets: Schizophrenia ― the main representative of MMT complains about the smashing success of their policy

 


For more about distribution see AXECorg.
For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.
at

Occasional Tweets: The Classics in Economics were not scientists but political agenda pushers

 


For more about cargo cult see AXECorg. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Dear idiots, learn algebra

 


For more about I=S see AXECquery. 
at

November 29, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economists ― dim-witted moralizers since the founding fathers

 

For more about science see AXECquery. 


*


at

Occasional Tweets: To this day, economists do not know the difference between opinion and knowledge

 
at

November 28, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The economist

 


at

November 27, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The fatal flaw

 


at

November 26, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economic textbooks ― pulp science

 


at

November 25, 2021

Occasional Tweets: What killed macroeconomics? Economists?

 
at

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Bastiat

 




***

Screenshot from Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis



at

November 24, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Saving equals investment ― the methodological suicide of economics

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Refutation of I=S.
at

Occasional Tweets: Wage inflation, price inflation, and employment

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve. 
at

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle homo eeconomicus (I)

 



For more about homo oeconomics see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Success! Success! For whom?

 
at

November 23, 2021

Occasional Tweets: MMT ― bad science, bad policy, bad people, but massive promotion

 


For more about MMT see AXECquery.
For more about Stephanie Kelton see AXECquery.
at

November 22, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Academic economics ― excellent at self-hype but too stupid for elementary algebra

 

at

Occasional Tweets: Economists do not know how the economy works but they can tell you so much about the art of living

 

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption. 
at

Occasional Tweets: MMT ― trolling for the Oligarchy

 
at

November 21, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Behavioral economics is long dead

 


For more about behavior see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: The counterfeiter never runs out of money (II)

 
at

Occasional Tweets: Economics in the final stage of stupification

 


For more about emoji economics see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Yeah, deficit-spending/money-creation works just fine for ...

 


For more about MMT see AXECquery. 
at

November 20, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Scientifically, economic textbooks have always been worthless

 



For more about textbooks see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Marginalism is dead

 
at

November 19, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics looks like science but is not

 



For more about cargo cult science see AXECquery. 
at

November 18, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Milton Friedman (I)

 


For more about Milton Friedman see AXECquery.
at

Occasional Tweets: Economics is not science, never was

 
at

November 17, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics is not science, economists are in the disinfotainment business

 


For more about PsySoc see AXECquery.
For more about disinfotainment see AXECquery. 
at

November 16, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics is dead ― move on

 


For more about Steve Keen see AXECquery.
For more about Paradigm Shift see AXECquery.
For more about New Economic Thinking see AXECquery.
at

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Keynes (II)

 
at

November 15, 2021

Occasional Tweets: How the economy works ― in simple terms

 
at

Occasional Tweets: Economics is fake science, economists are political agenda pushers

 
at

November 14, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The young generation of economists ― same as the old

 



at

Occasional Tweets: The economist's self-description ― hallucination in overdrive

 
at

November 13, 2021

Occasional Tweets: That 17 Nobelists support Biden tells one that economists are not scientists but clowns in the political Circus Maximus

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Yes, Bernie Sanders, it's rigged

 


Academia, too, is rigged

at

November 12, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Inequality

 


Inequality

at

Occasional Tweets: The inevitable breakdown of Communism/Capitalism has nothing to do with calculation/coordination

 


For more about breakdown see AXECquery.
at

Occasional Tweets: Economics and the foul rhetoric of happiness

 


For more about profit see AXECquery. 
at

November 11, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The foul spirit of political economics (I)

 


For more about math see AXECquery.
For more about ethics see AXECquery.
at

The sense of economics is agenda-pushing for the Oligarchy

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Making sense of economics’


We know that economics has a science problem. The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The major approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT — are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong. To this day, economists are NOT scientists but clowns/useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.



Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
at

November 10, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics as folk psychology

 


For more about PsySoc see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Economics has a science problem

 


For more about science see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: COV, climate, deficit ― what drives inequality?

 


For more about distribution see AXECquery. 
at

November 9, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Cross-over exploitation and internal class struggle

 


For more about class see AXECquery,
For more about cross-over exploitation see AXECquery.
at

Occasional Tweets: It is not Capitalists who produce profit but the State

 


For more about profit see AXECquery. 
at

November 8, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Some folks are still stuck with Austrianism

 

For more about Profit see AXECquery.
For more about Austrianism see AXECquery. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Some folks are still stuck with Keynes

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Keynesianism. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Some folks are still stuck with the rational expectation equilibrium

 

For more about microfoundations see AXECquery.
For more about macrofoundations see AXECquery.  
at

November 7, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics after 200+ years ― a pile of proto-scientific garbage

 


For more about Austrianism see AXECquery. 
at

November 5, 2021

Where MMT goes wrong

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘MMT economists do not seek to enumerate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’


Bill Mitchell characterizes the New Keynesian paradigm: “The summary point … is that the mainstream macroeconomics paradigm claim they are rigourous because they begin with a set of first principles based on stylised assumptions of human behaviour that no psychologist or sociologist would recognise. These assumptions about rationality and maximising strategies, individually pursued (devoid of social influence) are mathematically specified to allow a ‘solution’.”

Bill Mitchell then shows in detail that New Keynesianism is proto-scientific garbage: “One of the major issues with this approach is that it is inherently dishonest ― persuading us that it is scientific and worthy of authority yet being so compromised as to be worthless.”

So, clearly, there is no use in criticizing mainstream economics for the umpteenth time. The task is, as Joan Robinson put it: “Scrap the lot and start again”. This is what Bill Mitchell does: “Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) economists are clearly developing a new paradigm, which we believe is incommensurate with the old New Keynesian approach.” and “It is not an imaginary approach that deals with imaginary problems. It is about the real world and starts with some basic macroeconomic principles like ― spending equals income.”

Now, this was also Keynes' macroeconomic starting point and it is provably false. To recall: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, 1973, p. 63)

Both Keynes and MMTers got the foundational concepts wrong and from this follows that the whole theoretical superstructure is false and from this follows that Keynesian and MMT policy prescriptions have NO sound scientific foundations.

Macroeconomics has to be based on a set of objective and consistent axioms:
(A0) The objectively given and most elementary systemic configuration of the economy consists of the household sector and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm.
(A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L,
(A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L,
(A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

The price P follows as the dependent variable under the conditions of budget-balancing, i.e. C=Yw, and market-clearing, i.e. X=O, as P=W/R, i.e. the market-clearing price is for a start equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand.

By lifting the condition of budget-balancing (i.e. spending equals income) one gets the saving/dissaving of the household sector as S≡Yw−C and the profit/loss of the business sector as Q≡C−Yw. S and Q are the balances of two flows. It holds Q≡−S, that is, the profit of the business sector is equal to dissaving/deficit-spending of the household sector and loss of the business sector is equal to saving of the household sector. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

Profit Q is a balance, i.e. the difference of flows, and NOT a flow like wage income Yw. So, profit is NOT income. The Flow-Balance Inconsistency makes the whole of established economics proto-scientific garbage.

It is inadmissible to speak of profit/loss as a type of income. This blunder carries over to the concept of National Income and thus ruins National Accounting and the concept of GDP.#1

Because the foundational concepts of macroeconomics ― profit and income ― are ill-defined, the whole analytical superstructure is provably false. Economics is a failed science for 200+ years. MMT is no exception.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke




***

Wikimedia AXEC172

at

November 4, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Chicago boys never had any idea how the economy works

 


For more about microfoundations see AXECquery.
For more about macrofoundations see AXECquery.
at

November 3, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Thank you for the earnings rally, Mr. President

 


For more about Public Deficit = Private Profit see AXECorg. 
at

Occasional Tweets: Oeconomica ancilla oligarchiae est ― how the university lost science

 

For more about academia see AXECquery.  
 
at

Occasional Tweets: Supply-demand-equilibrium ― the economist's main contribution to the pile of proto-scientific garbage

 


For more about supply-demand-equilibrium see AXECquery. 
at

November 2, 2021

Occasional Tweets: What is economics? (II)

 


at

Occasional Tweets: Economists as peddlers of life philosophy

 


at

November 1, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Taxpayer money and stealth taxation

 



For more about stealth taxation see AXECquery.
at