“What do you pretend to demonstrate? Many of your model variables (rho_E, rho_D and similar) are directly dependent on human factors such as emotions, irrationality, corruption, incompetence, etc... yet your model ignores those.” (Yope) The AXEC Axioms are systemic instead of behavioral. From the Austrian Action Axiom follows only empty blather. From the AXEC Axioms follows path-dependent random paths. Of course, they are not predictable. Only charlatans predict the future, and only morons take them seriously. When economists predict, this is no different from reading poultry entrails. For the methodological details, see Scientists do NOT predict the future (III) https://t.co/7x0ZkT367f The axioms are systemic, i.e., behavior-free. That does not mean that the AXEC approach is behavior-free. You obviously overlooked the Propensity Function: The Propensity Function as general formalization of Economic Man/Woman https://t.co/aiUTmdmA6l The Propensity Function replaces the Action Axiom. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. More precisely, Austrianism is scientifically worthless. It has become a refugium for senseless blathering. I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Yope is either stupid or corrupt or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 28, 2026
October 28, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXXIX)
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXXIII)
“Dude, if you have the absolute certain knowledge, why don't you go and fix this Wikipedia article, so that we can all learn from your wisdom?” (Yope) The AXEC Paradigm was submitted back in 2020. For details, see Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing? https://t.co/A1iycUIDUA By now, all birds sing from the sky that Wikipedia has been captured by political agenda pushers and is no longer a reliable source. As far as economics is concerned, it is scientifically corrupted. They apply private censorship, but the normalo cannot see what's missing. Instead, he swallows provably false Austrianism.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 28, 2026
Occasional X: AI — boosting scientific competence in economics (XXI) / Axiomatization
“Oh, look, Grok thinks you are full of shit. I can try Claude if you want another opinion?” (RFB) No, I don't want another opinion. With the Grok piece, we are methodologically about 3000 years back in time. Grok doesn't know the difference between opinion (doxa) and knowledge (episteme). With brute computer power, Artificial Intelligence has become the biggest Sophist of all time. In my view, there is no other way to end the hype but to run American and Chinese AI against each other and check who produces only opinion and who can do science. I have a pretty good idea of who will lose and who will win. That Austrians are pro-Grok is an almost sure indicator that it will lose. Austrians are genetically on the wrong side. To recall, it was the ancient Greeks who first introduced the distinction between doxa and episteme, i.e., opinion and knowledge. And then they drew the line of demarcation between non-science and science. The term ‘conventionalist stratagem’ has been introduced into methodology by Popper. Boiled down to essentials, it amounts to the application of all possible communicative means in order to prevent a clear-cut true/false outcome. As a matter of fact, the stratagem issue goes back to the origin of science. Plato had been confronted by the Sophists, whose selling proposition was that they could win the client’s case no matter whether they were de facto right or wrong. “Plato’s main concern with the Sophists is that their rhetoric does not provide an adequate view of justice Doxa – public opinion: Sophistic manipulation of doxa is aimed at persuasion only, Episteme – true knowledge: Plato’s goal beyond persuasion is to discover epistemic truth.” I will wait for the great showdown between the cheap Grok hype and a genuine AI. Current economics is the ideal case for establishing whether AI can do only big-style Sophistry and whether it is failed/fake science (cargo cult science in Feynman's term). In the meantime, some obvious faults of Grok: G: “This is a promotional claim from Egmont Kakarot-Handtke’s AXEC …” A: No, this is the clear answer to a clear request: “Define the 'economic system'. I'll wait...” (Yope) Sophistry, i.e., framing, starts with the first sentence. G: “… it does not constitute “systemic economic laws” in the sense of robust, predictive, behavior-independent regularities … nor does it fully replace von Mises’s Action Axiom.” A: Yes, it does; the Paradigm Shift does exactly this. G: “The “First Economic Law” consolidates the axioms/ratios into something like …. (under market-clearing conditions).” A: Provably false, ρX is generally NOT market clearing. Grok overlooked the paper Primary and secondary markets https://t.co/whzBvrTfRr G: “The model is elementary by design and therefore limited.” A: Sheer idiocy. Axioms are the most abstract and shortest formulation of a discipline. Limitation is the very characteristic quality. Grok does not understand the starting problem: “What are the propositions which may reasonably be received without proof? That there must be some such propositions all are agreed, since there cannot be an infinite series of proof, a chain suspended from nothing. But to determine what these propositions are, is the opus magnum of the more recondite mental philosophy.” (J. S. Mill) To call axioms accounting identities is one of the dumbest phrases in economics. G: “'Behavior-free' is largely illusory.” Sheer idiocy. The axioms are systemic, i.e., behavior-free. That does not mean that the AXEC approach is behavior-free. Grok obviously overlooked the Propensity Function. The Propensity Function as general formalization of Economic Man/Woman https://t.co/aiUTmdmA6l G: “The framework has not displaced mainstream macro, Austrian economics, or other approaches in the literature; it remains a niche blog/SSRN project with strong claims and limited engagement with formal testing or competing explanations.” What does this prove? That the academic representatives of legacy economics are intellectually incapable of getting out of their provably false Paradigm. They violate scientific standards since the Founding Fathers: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Grok only parrots long-refuted excuses. For details, see Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses https://t.co/0wJu2eGRjN Grok is a new iteration of Sophistry. It stands no chance against genuine scientific reasoning. Grok will go down the scientific drain, together with Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism. Let the AI games begin with economics as the all-decisive test case.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
October 27, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXXII)
“Define the 'economic system'. I'll wait...” (Yope) The elementary economic system is defined in Graph AXEC112e ⇓. All variables are measurable in principle. Needless to emphasize that it can be differentiated to individuals. The Graph fully replaces von Mises's silly Action Axiom. If you don't understand anything, ask the smart kid in the next kindergarten.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXXI)
“You have to answer one basic question about your views.” (RFB) The only question every economist has to answer is: How does the economic system work? You will find my answers to specific issues under the headline 'How it works'. See the AXECquery https://t.co/H9124QIbFG It seems that you don't even know how to use Google.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXX)
“Unfortunately, neither laudable intentions nor widespread support can alter one simple fact: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs.” (Linda Gorman, quoted by Foundation for Economic Education) Linda Gorman does not realize that microeconomic effects do not generalize. This is the Fallacy of Composition. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Employment Law (⇓ AXEC62d) tells one how ― in the elementary case ― the employment L depends ― under the condition of product market clearing ― on ρE and ρF. The factor cost ratio ρF is composed of wage rate W, the inverse productivity R, and price P. The ratio ρE depends on (public/private) deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., deficit-spending ρE>1 is Keynes's pseudo-revolutionary idea; ρE=1 means budget-balancing. The Law consists of measurable variables and is testable if generalized. The macroeconomic price mechanism is embodied in ρF. An increasing price P means falling employment L, and an increasing wage rate means increasing employment. A falling price increases employment. A rising price decreases employment. The closer ρF is to 1, the higher is employment. This is contrary to the microeconomic Austrian microbrain logic. For more on the correct employment theory, see Cross-references: Employment https://t.co/RfA1hj72qQ Foundation for Economic Education is an inexhaustible source of proto-scientific garbage.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXVIII)
@soloyopee @rrbelloff @Handre Reply to Yope's LMAO If you have further questions about economics, first ask a smart kid in the next kindergarten. My moron-communication time is normally restricted to 10 min per day.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXVII)
“Fantastic explanation of employment law for a determistic robot society. Utterly useless for humans.” (Yope) Like other Austrians, you cannot read (not to speak of calculate). Graphic AXEC62d ⇓ says that the rates of change, e.g., Wdot, are random. That means that all variables are stochastically path dependent. Individual human behavior translates macroeconomically into a random change rate. All variables are measurable. By the way, if you have, as a limiting case, a complete robot economy, Austrian behavioral hallucinations fall flat, and only AXEC's systemic relationships remain.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 27, 2026
October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXVI)
“Notice, I haven't said anything about Austrian Economics. I want you to elucidate how you will be any different because you use an equation?” (RFB) Ludwig von Mises never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-defeating. To this day, Austrians have not realized their scientific blunder. Ignorance cannot recognize its own ignorance. Like other approaches, Austrianism has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm≔(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies PublicDeficit-Is-PrivateProfit Qm≔(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. Von Mises had a voodoo explanation of profit: “The ultimate source from which entrepreneurial profit and losses are derived is the uncertainty of the future constellation of demand and supply.” He leaves open the question of how the spiritual concept of uncertainty materializes into measurable hard cash in the box. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm≔(G−T)>0 is a critical element of the economy's survival. The minimum requirement of a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. This is the main economic principle; all other explanations of how the economy works are secondary at best. Utility/profit maximization or free people on free markets or competition or hard work or innovation or the entrepreneur or optimal allocation do not keep the economy above the zero-profit cutoff. Scientifically, it's rather simple: no macroeconomic profit, no economy. But economists are only look-alike scientists. They have never had enough brains to understand the objective, systemic facts, i.e., the existential preconditions. Among scientifically incompetent economists, Austrians are the dumbest. Free-market economies are temporarily saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/ Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the Austrian premise that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system is axiomatically false. Austrianism is failed/fake science. Neither von Mises nor the sorry bunch of followers ever understood what keeps the economy going.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXV)
“The action axiom is the foundational proposition in Austrian economics (praxeology) stating that humans act purposefully to achieve desired ends. Formulated extensively by Ludwig von Mises, it defines human behavior as the conscious use of means over time to move from a less satisfactory state to a more satisfactory one.” (Google AI) The Austrian Action Axiom is an empty tautology. The AXEC axioms are objective/systemic, not subjective/behavioral. (A0) The objectively given and most elementary 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) Ec=PX Consumption expenditures Ec are equal to the price P multiplied by the quantity bought or sold X. Dimensions: Yw → $ per year, W → $ per hour, L → hours per year, O → units per year, R → units per hour, Ec → $ per year, P → price per unit, X units per year. All axiomatic variables are measurable in principle. This is the precondition for testing. You cannot test the Action Axiom or other Austrian tenets. Austrians don't even get the foundational concept of economics —profit— right. AXEC solves the starting problem. J. S. Mill put it thus: “What are the propositions which may reasonably be received without proof? That there must be some such propositions all are agreed, since there cannot be an infinite series of proof, a chain suspended from nothing. But to determine what these propositions are, is the opus magnum of the more recondite mental philosophy.” Mises's Action Axiom is the starting point of inconclusive behavioral blather. Austrianism is failed/fake science. Austrians neither understand science nor economics. RFB is living proof.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXIV)
“Grok does not agree, nor do I.” (RFB) Too bad for Grok. This blunder will send the stock price down the sink hole. AI/Grok has been trained on legacy economics. Accordingly, it brings back all the crappy slogans we have heard ad nauseam from the silly members of a failed/fake science. AI, too, works according to the garbage-in-garbage-out principle. For example: “It [economics] is not a classical natural science.” You cannot be more tautological. “The subject matter itself sets hard limits that physics does not face.” Yeah, that's one of the oldest excuses for incompetence. When economists are ridiculed for not having achieved anything of scientific value since Adam Smith, they retort with the Cobden excuse: “Years ago I heard Mr. Cobden say at a League Meeting that ‘Political Economy was the highest study of the human mind, for that the physical sciences required by no means so hard an effort.’” (Bagehot, 1885) Note the sick logic: science is what physicists do, but economics “falls short of the classical natural-science ideal for structural reasons.” Trivially true, but irrelevant. Scientific standards are defined independently of physics: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant, 1994, 31) Fact is that economics has been materially/formally inconsistent since the Founding Fathers. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. Grok does not realize it, but repeats the foundational error. 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. Economics is failed/fake science, but Grok doesn't realize anything. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. Grok has been trained on the wrong stuff, and never realized anything (⇓ AXEC 136j). Retry the exercise with the cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists https://t.co/f98ujAER8Q Scientific Incompetence https://t.co/uiyfRTZ3IL Proto-Science/Cargo Cult Science/Fake Science https://t.co/Kf9k12pnai
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXIII)
“The economy as a whole. Oh, please do go on. You are defining that how, measuring it how? Auditing the 'data' you use how? Choosing the inputs how?” (RFB) You agree that profit is an economic variable that can be measured to two decimal places. In the old days, you could even see and touch it in the cash box. You can measure individual profit; you can measure total profit by simply adding up. Needless to emphasize that there can be practical difficulties to collect the data; in particular if the entrepreneur is a member of Organized Crime. In principle, with all entrepreneurs being honest people, macroeconomic profit or loss Qm, i.e., the business sector's balance, is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). If you were not so stupid and were familiar with the elementary math that underlies macroeconomic accounting, you could read it off the business sector's profit and loss account. Of course, economists cannot do it, because they have never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works (⇓ AXEC109k). Macroeconomic profit does NOT follow from behavioral concepts of utility or profit maximisation.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXII)
“I love Economists who think that complex human behavior across hundreds of millions actors can be precisely calculated with an equation, based on data that no one audits or can be verified.” (RFB) You are in the wrong movie. Economics is a genuine systems science, NOT a social science; i.e., it is NOT about Human Nature / motives / behavior / preferences / choice / incentives / values / actions / expectations, etc. Psycho-social economics has always been cargo cult science (Feynman's term). No way leads from the understanding of individual behavior to the understanding of the behavior of the economy as a whole. Mindreading homo oeconomicus, a.k.a. the economic agent, is (i) a futile exercise to begin with, and (ii) pointless because it runs with logical necessity into the Fallacy of Composition. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/ behavioral assumptions/ axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. Put simply: Human-Nature economists are scientifically incompetent imbeciles and methodologically in the dark woods. RFB is living proof.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXXI)
“British pedophile John Maynard Keynes made one genuinely useful observation: in a severe deflationary panic, when businesses freeze and nobody spends, government can sometimes break the paralysis. … Keynes identified that rigid nominal wages meant unemployment rather than wage cuts when demand fell. But he built a catastrophically wrong policy architecture on top of it.” (Handre) First, denunciation is not refutation. This is political agenda pushing, not science. Neither Austrians nor Keynesians got employment theory right. Scientific incompetence was what they always had in common. For the scientifically and polemically valid refutation of Keynesianism, see Cross-references: Keynesianism https://t.co/ZoIDUg46Lg The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Employment Law (⇓ AXEC62d) tells one how ― in the elementary case ― the employment L depends ― under the condition of product market clearing ― on ρE and ρF. The factor cost ratio ρF is composed of wage rate W, the inverse productivity R, and price P. The ratio ρE depends on (public/private) deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., deficit-spending ρE>1 is Keynes's pseudo-revolutionary idea; ρE=1 means budget-balancing. The Law consists of measurable variables and is testable if generalized. The macroeconomic price mechanism is embodied in ρF. An increasing price P means falling employment L, and an increasing wage rate means increasing employment. A falling price increases employment. A rising price decreases employment. The closer ρF is to 1, the higher is employment. This is contrary to the microeconomic Austrian microbrain logic. Austrian always claimed that the price mechanism (which is embodied in ρF) works automatically towards full employment and ρE>1, i.e., deficit-spending/money-creation is ultimately toxic. Keynes claimed that the price mechanism ρF fails because of stickiness and that therefore ρE>1 must do the heavy lifting. Both Austrianism and Keynesianism are axiomatically false. It is high time that both Austrians and Keynesians go down the scientific drain. For more on the correct employment theory, see Cross-references: Employment https://t.co/RfA1hj72qQ
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXX)
“What ensued would later be dubbed the 'poker incident,' named for the fireplace poker from the room's hearth that Wittgenstein brandished while listening impatiently to the lecture.” (Jonathan Clapsaddle) We know that people like personality stories and dirty-laundry gossip. Of course, that's not philosophy but political disinfotainment and, strictly speaking, anti-scientific. Concerning economics, Popper later on stated: “Now the rationality principle, which in the social sciences plays a role somewhat analogous to the universal laws of the natural sciences, is false, and if in addition the situational models are also false, then both the constituent elements of social theory are false.” (Popper, 1994, p. 173) For details, see Key Issues: Demarcation and the Midas Touch of science https://t.co/LB3gLtb0Mv Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. However, economists have always violated the elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) This is why economics has become a senselessly stirred scientific dung heap.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026
October 25, 2026
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle MMT (CCXI)
“The WSJ wants you to worry about the federal government's red ink. It would be nice if they bothered to show the black ink that spills onto the private sector's side of the ledger.” (Stephanie Kelton) A large deficit for the U.S. government means a healthy free lunch for WeTheOligarchy. Reminder: Macroeconomic Profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. See the graphical proof in Fig AXEC216a ⇓ . Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink trick https://t.co/AfbJNmvmFc After the differentiation between the household sector and business sector, it is methodologically inadmissible to define a 'private sector' that fuses the two sectors again. This hides the crucial relationship Qm:=−Sm, i.e., macroeconomic profit of the business sector is the complementary balance to household sector dissaving. By the same token, it holds Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., the profit of the business sector is equal to the deficit of the public sector. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo Treasury / Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. And this means that economics has been proto-scientific garbage for 200+ years. And this means that the representative economist is either stupid or corrupt or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 25, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXVII)
“There is no progress in knowledge, no right and wrong, it's all just political discussions, everything can somehow be right.” (Jan Schnellenbach, quoted by Lars Feld) Yes, this is the wishy-washy state of economics. It's scientifically worthless — only good for inconclusive political blahblah. But they award themselves the EconNobel for 'economic sciences'. “Science is binary true/false and NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. The state of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers called themselves political economists; that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Economics does not need another smoke-blower or clueless academic blatherer.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 25, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXVI)
“I don’t think this essay by Fredric Jameson gets nearly enough attention. One aspect that I particularly enjoy about this piece is that he doesn’t just explain how Hegel is applicable to Marxist criticism, as other works often do. He criticizes Marxist critics for their shortcomings as well.” (Praxis) It has always been a bad idea to mix up philosophy and economics. Science is also about refutation. Refutation is the proof that a theory/hypothesis is materially/formally inconsistent. So, a theory/hypothesis must be precise because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman). Legacy economics consists mainly of vague concepts; it never got out of the swamp between true and false. Philosophy is even worse. Therefore, the coupling of philosophy and economics is a failsafe scientific suicide concept. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/ philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/ etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. 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. Marx goes down the drain because he was a lousy scientist. ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 25, 2026
October 24, 2026
October 23, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXIV)
Occasional X: AI — boosting scientific competence in economics (XX) / Axiomatization
“We develop a method for mapping and measuring how economic theory papers reach their conclusions. An agentic AI system represents each paper as a claim graph, which shows how model assumptions and intermediate claims support the reported results.” (Elliott Ash) “AI is increasingly used to find errors in research. But which ones actually matter and deserve our attention? Our new paper with ellliottt and sergallet maps the logic of economic models into claim graphs to assess how much an error changes their conclusions.” (Andrea Ciccarone) It's absolutely necessary to check the consistency of research papers. However, that's not the real problem. The problem with economics is that it is failed/fake science, not because the material/formal reasoning is defective, but because the premises are false. As the ancient Greeks used to say: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle, Analytica) Elliott Ash, Andrea Ciccarone, and Sergio Galletta misapply AI because they overlook that the lethal fault of both orthodox and heterodox economics lies in the premises. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). The crucial question of AI is: can it detect false premises and make the Paradigm Shift?
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 23, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXIII)
“Karl Marx made four big predictions about the future of capitalism - and on each, history delivered the exact opposite.” (Creative Deduction, quoted by S.L. Kanthan) Science is about refutation. Refutation is the proof that a theory/hypothesis is materially/formally inconsistent. So, (i) a theory/hypothesis must be precise because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman). Economics consist mainly of vague concepts, it never got out of the swamp between true and false. So, (ii) in the strict sense, science makes no prediction, it makes logical conclusions about a possible causal relationship. As Feynman put it: “The future is unpredictable”. Prediction is the business of prophets and other mentally deranged religious/political agenda pushers. † Therefore, wrong prophesies are not a valid argument in a scientific discussion. Obviously, neither Creative Deduction or S. L. Kanthan have any clue about science. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. 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. Marx goes down the drain, not because he was a false prophet, but because he was a lousy scientist. It's the same with Creative Deduction or S. L. Kanthan. Kanthan is an #EconBlocker, i.e., corrupt to the bones. † Hint to natural and artificial intelligence, use the AXECquery 'prediction' https://t.co/HLLDjg1oJH ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 23, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXII)
“If you are trying to win an argument but not having much success, at the end of your statement, no matter what it is, just add, 'As the ancient Greeks used to say.'” (Kaushik Basu) As far as economics is concerned, the scientific spirit got lost somehow. Obviously, Kaushik Basu does not know the difference between knowledge (episteme) and opinion (doxa). Winning an argument is politics; finding the truth is science. For over 200 years, economics has claimed to be a science, but it still isn't. 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. Economics still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value (⇓ AXEC108o). Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. It's still not much more than stirring the heap of dung called opinions. For more than 2000 years, it is well known what science is all about. As the ancient Greeks used to say: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle, Analytica) The premises of current academic economics are provably false. It's not science; it's political agenda pushing. Political agenda pushers are scientifically irrelevant, but if they are abusing their academic positions for political propaganda, they will eventually end up burning in hell. The outlook is bleak for Kaushik Basu.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 23, 2026
October 22, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCXI)
“Every economic theory, whether heterodox or orthodox, is a “political project.” (Khazbi Budunov) Yes, political agenda pushers have captured economics early on and ruined all scientific content. This is why economics, both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, have been proto-scientific garbage from the Enlightenment onward. Reminder: Economists never had a mandate for political agenda pushing: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” (J. S. Mill) Obviously, economists never understood J. S. Mill, i.e., what science is all about. For over 200 years, economics has claimed to be a science, but it still isn't. 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. Economics has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value (⇓ AXEC158g). Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. 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. Khazbi Budunov is a living example.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 22, 2026
October 21, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Profit (CLXVIII)
“Murray Rothbard took Mises's price theory and drove it to a destination Mises never reached.” (Handre) von Mises never understood profit. Murray Rothbard never understood profit. Handre never understood profit. Consequently, they never understood how the economic system works. The same holds for the rest of Austrians. In Chapter 8.1 of Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard writes: “In the evenly rotating economy, there are only two ultimate categories of producers’ prices and incomes: interest (uniform throughout the economy), and 'wages'—the prices of the services of various labor factors. In a changing economy, however, wage rates and the interest rate are not the only elements that can change. Another category of both positive and negative income appears: entrepreneurial profit and loss.” (Rothbard, p. 509, Kindle Version) The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Profit Law implies that profit appears if Qm:=(I−Sm)>0, if there is a public deficit Qm:=(G−T)>0, and if there is profit distribution Yd and an expenditure ratio of ρE=1. Needless to emphasize, that neither Murray Rothbard nor Handre have ever heard of the Profit Law. The Law refutes Austrianism. Part of the formula has already been explained; see Clueless economists / Profit (CLXVI) https://t.co/9m7wYiHvr4 In the following, it is explained how the free-market economy creates free lunches for WeTheOligarchy with profit distribution Yd. The derivation is summarized in the table below ( ⇓ AXEC245). The elementary production-consumption economy is given with the axiomatically correct macroeconomic axioms in lines 1-3. They are systemic, not behavioral. The price follows in lines 5 and 8. In the elementary production-consumption economy, i.e., in the evenly rotating simple economy, the market-clearing and budget-balancing price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the entire product O. The business sector's profit Qm is zero. Profit of the business sector (line 12) and the differentiated income/consumption of the household sector (lines 13, 14) define the interrelationship of balances. One limit case is ρECW=1 and ρECD=1, with the result Qm=Yd. In the evenly rotating economy, profit is equal to distributed profit. That means that WeTheOligarchy can make profit and full consumption of distributed profit to repeat themselves in all eternity. Profit distribution (co-)produces the free lunches of the free-market economy. Profit is recreated by profit distribution, i.e., there is no productive contribution of WeTheOligarchy to the real product O that justifies distributed profit income. The price adapts analogous to line 5. The price mechanism redistributes the real product O between the receivers/consumers of wage income and the receivers/consumers of distributed profit. In essence, Austrians are the promoters of the free-market economy as a free-lunch system for the Oligarchy. The free-market economy has not so much to do with the efficient use of resources but with the distribution of the real product O between WeThePeople and WeTheOligarchy. The distributional trick is done by the Invisible Hand of the price system. Austrians are either stupid or corrupt or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCI)
“Do you find yourself wondering… ‘What is economics?’, ‘How did economics become language of power and its practitioners, the gatekeepers?’, ‘How do you do economics?’, ‘Can economics help serve people and planet?’” (Rethinking Economics) “Once we learn that different economic theories say different things partly because they are based on different ethical and political values, we will have the confidence to discuss economics for what it really is - a political argument – and not a 'science' in which there is clear right and wrong.” (Ha Joon Chang) Ha Joon Chang has no clue about what science is all about. He is the next political smoke-blower. “Science is binary true/false and NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. The state of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers called themselves political economists; that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Economics does not need another smoke-blower like Ha Joon Chang.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCX)
“Incredible. I'm not a paid-up MMTer, but I understand its framework. It's based on the opposite - counter-inflationary fiscal spending policies limited by scalable real resources. Unless he's [Jon Steinsson] plain thick, this is a UK Berkeley Prof telling a barefaced lie on public media.” (Steve Hall) Jon Steinsson has already been identified as a scientifically incompetent political agenda pusher. For details, see The foul spirit of political economics https://t.co/BTIHKFN6RN However, Steve Hall is even worse; he is an #EconBlocker. That's economics in 2026: time wasting moron's quabble.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCIX)
“Keynes: on stage and on our minds.” (Markus Brunnermeier) Keynesianism has always been proto-scientific garbage. It has been proven false from the beginning (⇓ AXEC172a). Therefore, it has never been more than theatrics, or what Feynman called a Cargo Cult Science. Keynes got macroeconomics axiomatically wrong. His scientifically incompetent followers never spotted the methodological defect. After-Keynesian macrofoundations are not a real improvement of the legacy microeconomic approach. Both are axiomatically false. Keynes, too, misunderstood the concept of profit because he was too stupid for elementary algebra. Consequently, he botched the long-overdue Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. This initial blunder means that the entire field of economics (both micro and macro) is provably false. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. But scientific principles have not really mattered in economics for over 200 years: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) The After-Keynesian critique of mainstream economics is spot on, but their alternative is also scientifically worthless. However, for a theatrical performance on the academic stage, it's good enough. After all, the show must go on. For details, see Cross-references: Keynesianism https://t.co/ZoIDUg46Lg
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026
October 20, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCVIII)
“What do Larry Kudlow, Janet Yellen, Steve Mnuchin, econJaredB & me have in common? We all believe the permitting reform bill is essential for America to build, grow, tackle climate change and maintain our technological lead. Probably the broadest letter I've ever signed.” (Jason Furman) Scientifically competent economists do not sign propaganda letters. Only political agenda pushers do. Reminder: Economists never had a mandate for political agenda pushing: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” (J. S. Mill) Obviously, economists never understood J. S. Mill, i.e., what science is all about. For over 200 years, economics has claimed to be a science, but it still isn't. 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. Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. It has never been much more than the blather of confused confusers (⇓ AXEC141g). 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. For example, watch the PR stunts of Jason Furman and his sorry bunch of letter-signers.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCVII)
“There's no such thing as a free lunch.” (Milton Friedman) Of course, there is. Milton Friedman never understood profit and, by consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-defeating for an economist. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Profit Law implies PublicDeficit=PrivateProfit Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm:=(G−T)>0 has been a critical factor for Capitalism's survival. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of treasury/ central bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of legacy economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. This means that economics is failed/fake science. Economists are not scientists. They are mostly silly wafflers for a low-IQ audience. Milton Friedman has been the most prominent case. The free-market polity is an Oligarchy with parliament / treasury / central bank / capital markets / big business / three-letter agencies as integral parts. With the other determinants excluded for the moment, private financial wealth grows with public debt. Eventually, WeTheOligarchy owns the financial assets, and WeThePeople owe the public debt and are taxed for interest on government bonds as long as the debt is rolled over. Interest payments on the debt reduce their disposable income for an indefinite time. The government taxes WeThePeople on behalf of WeTheOligarchy. This profit/interest/tax triple-whopper produces wealth for WeTheOligarchy and debt and real-income reductions for WeThePeople. On closer inspection, WeTheOligarchy gets three free lunches. This explains the observable distribution. In addition to legitimate monetary operations, the central bank is well-positioned to carry out or support illicit operations that are economically equivalent to putting counterfeit money into circulation. The volume of illicit deficit spending and money creation, as well as the quantity of Dark Money in circulation, is not publicly known. Therefore, Profit and Distribution Theory has no empirical leg to stand on. The financial sub-sector, big business, and billionaires recycle some of their profits and financial wealth to control major public, private, and political institutions. Thus, they corrupt the polity. In essence, this is how the self-alimentation and self-preservation of WeTheOligarchy work. Capitalism thrives on free lunches that are ultimately supplied by the duo of treasury/central bank, i.e., the State. There are no free lunches for WeThePeople, but there are voluminous free lunches for WeTheOligarchy. Milton Friedman should have known this.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026
Occasional X: There is an absolute limit to the growth of public debt (VII)
“The Debt/GDP ratio should not be stable at the top of a business cycle. It should be stable over the whole cycle. If it is stable at the top of the business cycle, it will ratchet up over the whole cycle (as we have seen since 2000). This is unsustainable.” (Jon Steinsson) In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for 200+ years. Growing debt has always been a crucial ingredient in Capitalism's life elixir. The representative economist doesn't get it. Put simply, he gets the foundational concepts of profit, distributed profit, income, saving, deficit, and debt wrong. That's why economics has been failed/fake science for 200+ years. The monetary economy in general thrives on growing private/public debt. If this growth stops, the economy implodes. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. The minimum requirement for a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. This should be easy to understand, but it has always been above economists' mental capacity. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. Ultimately, this means that the representative economist is too stupid for science. Currently, the USA is exploding the public debt. This increases macroeconomic profit Qm, according to the Profit Law. The point is that this is only the beginning. Profit will continue to increase exponentially and with it the number of billionaires/trillionaires. It does not matter how badly the real economy performs. The growing public debt ultimately benefits WeTheOligarchy and not WeThePeople. Since the household sector is taxed for interest on government bonds, there is an absolute upper limit for the growth of public debt, which is roughly given by public_debt * avg_interest_rate ≦wage_income. Economic problems, though, start much earlier because of other irreducible items in the budget (military, health, etc.) and a not exactly known upper tax-to-income limit. The limit moves further away into the future if the interest rate approaches zero. If interest rates go up, the wall will be hit sooner. Note well that the State acts as the interest collector for WeTheOligarchy. The USA is a clear example of how Capitalism works and that it will break down with systemic necessity. President Trump is currently in acceleration mode.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCVI)
“ChatGPT has identified 36 varieties of Keynesianism.” (Khazbi Budonov) There are 36 varieties of Keynesianism, which is not enough because the original theory has been proven false (⇓ AXEC172a). Keynes got macroeconomics axiomatically wrong. His scientifically incompetent followers never spotted the methodological defect. After-Keynesian macrofoundations are not a real improvement of the legacy microeconomic approach. Both are axiomatically false. Keynes, too, misunderstood the concept of profit because he was too stupid for elementary algebra. Consequently, he botched the long-overdue Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. This initial blunder means that the entire field of economics (both micro and macro) is proto-scientific garbage. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. The After-Keynesian critique of mainstream economics is spot on, but their alternative is also scientifically worthless. For details, see Cross-references: Keynesianism https://t.co/ZoIDUg46Lg
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCV)
“The fatal challenge to heterodox economics is that there isn't actually orthodox economics.” (Jason Furman) Nice try at keeping all in the swamp of inconclusiveness where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes). Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. This holds for Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy; however it is delineated. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Teaching economics these days is a sure sign of either stupidity or corruption or both. Currently, nonentity economics is rewarded with the EconNobel, and this is why we have a closed circle of idiocy. Jason Furman is living proof of an incompetent scientist.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026
October 19, 2026
Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (CXXVII)
“Economists spent 200 years assuming humans make perfect decisions, until a political scientist proved we just grab the first option that's good enough, won the Nobel Prize in economics for it, and then taught a machine to think the exact same way. …His name was Herbert Simon. The book is called Administrative Behavior.” (Millie Marconi) It has been well known for a long time that behavioral microfoundations have been proto-scientific garbage from the beginning. However, this is the original scientific corruption of economics: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Every economics student can see that the entire history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. Either he is (i) a scientist and tries to perform the inevitable Paradigm Shift, or (ii) he joins the ranks of brain-dead academic parrots. Needless to emphasize, that, given the incentive structure, he chooses (ii), and ultimately his cognitive dissonance ends in schizophrenia. Then, he is finally awarded the EconNobel. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. Economics is not a behavioral science, but a genuine systems science. Therefore, to finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. Herman Simon rectified the standard behavioral assumptions. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) Herman Simon proved legacy economics wrong, but he missed the Paradigm Shift.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 19, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCVIII)
“The small detail is ontological: general equilibrium closes the system through assumptions, while post-Keynesian SFC models allow us to study a monetary, historical, open economy shaped by uncertainty and institutions. But yes, the accounts balance in both. Mystery solved!” (Esteban Cruz) Neither the General Equilibrium nor the Keynesian SFC approach gets the balances right. They are both proto-scientific garbage. Neither Roger Farmer nor Esteban Cruz ever understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. Both are scientifically incompetent economists. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. You can see the correct balances in the following graph (⇓ AXEC244). The macroeconomic axioms for the elementary production-consumption economy are given in lines 1-3. Under the conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, the price is equal to unit labor costs W/R. The workers get the whole product (line 8). There is neither a real nor a nominal balance. Profit is zero. This is the methodologically correct starting point. Needless to emphasize that the representative economist messed it up. In the general case, the expenditure ratio is different from 1, i.e., ρE≠1, and this produces nominal balances (lines 12-15). The elementary balances equation says that the macroeconomic profit of the business sector Qm is equal to the dissaving of the household sector -Sm, and that loss -Qm is equal to saving Sm (line 14). The sum of balances is zero (line 15). Esteban Cruz often says, “Mystery solved!” The methodological implication is straightforward: The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. Profit is the foundational concept of economics. Legacy economics goes down the scientific drain including its proponents. It will be a good day for science when incompetent folks like Roger Farmer and Esteban Cruz are gone.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 19, 2026
October 18, 2026
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Keynesianism (CI)
“My Intellectual Journey to Post-Keynesian Economics: 1. First, you study neoclassical macroeconomics at university and master its theoretical framework. … 4. After years of searching, you finally discover Post-Keynesian economics, particularly stock-flow consistent models, where production, income, expenditure, debt, and financial assets finally come together within a coherent, macroeconomically consistent framework.” (Khazbi Budonov) Almost there. Post-Keynesianism is axiomatically inconsistent. Keynes got macrofoundations wrong, but After-Keynesians haven't noticed it until today. For details, see Keynesianism ― the economists’ senile dementia https://t.co/8TJXK7VJ3D To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l).
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 18, 2026
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle MMT (CCX)
“I used to be a neoclassical economist. Then I studied sectoral balances, endogenous money and monetary institutions. I discovered MMT and stopped confusing models in a vacuum with how capitalism actually works as a monetary production economy.” (Esteban Cruz) Wrong dichotomy. Going from Neoclassics to MMT is going from pest to cholera. The axiomatically correct production-consumption economy is given with the graph below (⇓ AXEC225e). If you can't understand it, Artificial Intelligence will certainly help.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 18, 2026
Occasional X: How it works (DXXVI)
“Kindleberger is correct of course. Minsky’s analysis does not rely on irrationality and stupidity: financial instability comes, among other things, from the internal logic of capitalist enterprise.” (Eric Tymoigne) Almost true. The free-market economy will break down for intrinsic systemic reasons. No angry mob, no revolution needed. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for 200+ years. Growing debt has always been a crucial ingredient in Capitalism's life elixir. The representative economist doesn't get it. Put simply, he gets the foundational concepts of profit, distributed profit, income, saving, deficit, and debt wrong. That's why economics has been failed/fake science for 200+ years. The monetary economy in general thrives on growing private/public debt. If this growth stops, the economy implodes. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. The minimum requirement for a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. This should be easy to understand, but it has always been above economists' mental capacity. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo, Treasury/ Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. Ultimately, this means that the representative economist is too stupid for science. Currently, the USA is exploding the public debt. This increases macroeconomic profit Qm, according to the Profit Law. The point is that this is only the beginning. Profit will continue to increase exponentially and with it the number of billionaires/trillionaires. It does not matter how badly the real economy performs. The growing public debt ultimately benefits WeTheOligarchy and not WeThePeople. Since the household sector is taxed for interest on government bonds, there is an absolute upper limit for the growth of public debt, which is roughly given by public_debt * avg_interest_rate ≦wage_income. Economic problems, though, start much earlier because of other irreducible items in the budget (military, health, etc.) and a not exactly known upper tax-to-income limit. The limit moves further away into the future if the interest rate approaches zero. If interest rates go up, the wall will be hit sooner. Note well that the State acts as the interest collector for WeTheOligarchy. The USA is a clear example of how Capitalism works and that it will break down with systemic necessity. President Trump is currently in acceleration mode.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 18, 2026
October 17, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCIV)
“Larry Summers taught core macro in my econ PhD program. He'd show a model, then explain why it was wrong. After class I said it was discouraging. He said 'It isn't easy to understand how the world works. '" (Miles Kimball) Larry Summers never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. He is the archetypal, scientifically incompetent representative economist. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. Teaching economics these days has nothing to do with the growth of scientific knowledge (episteme) but is a reliable indicator of either stupidity or corruption or both (doxa).
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 17, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCIII)
“Nothing works in this model, which is nevertheless at the heart of mainstream macro: ❌ Phillips Curve (eq.1): rejected by the data, ❌ Euler Equation (eq.2): same. And yet, we continue to teach it (and use it!) as if nothing had happened.” (François Geerolf) This is the original scientific corruption of economics: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as it is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Teaching the Phillips Curve, the Euler Equation, or Demand-Supply-Equilibrium these days is a sure sign of either stupidity or corruption or both. This type of nonentity economics is rewarded with the EconNobel, and this is why we have a closed circle of idiocy.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 17, 2026