“This debate between orthodox and heterodox economics may have been justified in the 2000s, but today economics is a diverse discipline in which a wide range of approaches are pursued.” (Mark Schieritz) True, the distinction between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is obsolete. Today, every economist produces his own approach. Diversity is the euphemism for inconsistency. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless (⇓ AXEC109k). Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. It has never been much more than the blather of confused confusers. The representative economist is NOT, and never has been, a competent scientist but an agenda pusher / useful idiot / impostor / phrase monger / storyteller / troll / pseudo-psychologist / self-gloryfier / 'good-cause' fighter / clown in the political Circus Maximus. Economics needs a Paradigm Shift. But the representative economist is too stupid for it: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990) In science, diversity is an almost sure sign of brain rot.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026
This blog connects to the AXEC Project which applies a superior method of economic analysis. The following comments have been posted on selected blogs as catalysts for the ongoing Paradigm Shift. The comments are brought together here for information. The full debates are directly accessible via the Blog-References. Scrap the lot and start again―that is what a Paradigm Shift is all about. Time to make economics a science.