Krugman vs MMT ― like the blind talking about colors

Comment on Brian Romanchuk on ‘Functional Finance Versus New Keynesian Economics, Krugman Edition’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Feb 16 adapted to context and Blog-Reference on Feb 18

The characteristic of economic debates is to talk about everything except the point at issue.

Krugman starts the talk show with: “Well, it looks as if policy debates over the next couple of years will be at least somewhat affected by the doctrine of Modern Monetary Theory, …” Then he realizes that he is not up-to-date but this does not matter because: “The good news is that MMT seems to be pretty much the same thing as Abba Lerner’s ‘functional finance’ doctrine from 1943.” And off he goes parroting the worn-out stuff about inflation and crowding-out with the finale: “The bottom line is that while functional finance has a lot going for it, it’s not the kind of axiomatically true doctrine that Lerner ― and, I think, modern MMTers ― imagined it to be.”

No word about that MMT is just proto-scientific garbage. And, of course, no state-of-the-art refutation of the MMT approach, no proof of material/formal inconsistency.

Brian Romanchuk’s answer remains on the same low level and consists of pointing out that Krugman himself clings to a rather crappy approach: “The fundamental problem with the New Keynesian approach of Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Simon Wren-Lewis, etc., is that the model is fundamentally neoclassical rather than Keynesian, only departing somewhat in assumptions but not methodology. This methodology falls into the class of formal (mathematical) rather than empirically based, and it ignores the role of institutions and operations.”

Both parties are spot on in their critique of the other approach. The irony is that both approaches share a common blunder. Krugman refers via the IS-LM model back to Keynes and MMT via the sectoral balances equation, i.e., via (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0, which boils down to I=S when the public sector and the foreign sector are taken out of the picture for a moment.

The common blunder can be exactly located in the GT: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

“His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Keynes, like his academic colleagues, NEVER understood what profit is and thus ended with I=S ― one of the greatest blunders in the history of modern science. Neither New Keynesians nor MMTers, though, have realized anything for 80+ years. #1 Both are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.

The correct macroeconomic relations are given by Q≡−S for the elementary production-consumption economy and Q≡I−S for the elementary investment economy, with Q the business sector’s monetary profit, S the household sector’s monetary saving, business sector’s I investment expenditures. From this follows that all I=S/IS-LM models and their derivatives are scientifically worthless. #2

Both New Keynesianism and MMT are provably false.#3 By consequence, the economic policy arguments of both sides have NO scientifically valid foundations. What Krugman advertises as wonkish is just the usual brain-dead blather of failed/fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* NYT, Paul Krugman, What’s Wrong With Functional Finance? (Wonkish)
#1 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It
#2 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Refutation of I=S
#3 See cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references MMT

Related '#DrainTheScientificSwamp' and 'Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp'.

***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 15

You say: “You’re defining profits wrong.”

Macroeconomic profit is defined for the most elementary case as Q≡C−Yw.

Stop waffling, just write down your definition with 6 or 7 characters. This is what a real mathematician would do.

***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 15

Just write down YOUR definition with 6 or 7 characters.

***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 16 and Blog-Reference

You say: “The cost of goods sold is itself complicated, since it depends on the valuation of inventory. … Depreciation is also based on the historical cost of capital. In summary, way more complex than the junk you blather on about.”

The alleged complexity is merely a projection of your own confusion.

(i) Total macroeconomic profit Q is composed of monetary profit Qm and nonmonetary profit Qn.

(ii) Nonmonetary profit Qn is the sum of all positive/negative changes of valuation, including depreciation.

(iii) Qn has been dealt with elsewhere and is taken out of the picture for a moment.

(iv) Monetary profit Qm for the one-fully-integrated-macroeconomic firm is defined as Qm≡C−Yw. In your words: Qm is “sales revenue” C minus “cost of goods sold” Yw in the most elementary production-consumption economy with market-clearing, i.e., X=O. Changes of inventory, i.e., X≠O, have been dealt with elsewhere.

(v) The investment economy has been dealt with elsewhere.

(vi) Monetary saving of the household sector is defined as Sm≡Yw−C. Total saving S is the sum of monetary Sm and nonmonetary saving Sn. The latter has been dealt with elsewhere.

(vii) Monetary profit Qm and monetary saving Sm are measurable with the precision of two decimal places. There is NOT the slightest ambiguity here. Qm and Sm are as real as cash in the box or as money in the bank.

(viii) From this follows: the macroeconomic Profit Law for the most elementary case of a production-consumption economy with market-clearing reads Qm≡−Sm. This is the irreducible hardcore of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

For the more complex cases, see the overview on Graphic. #1 From this overview follows that the MMT sectoral balances equation is provably false.

That you have not realized anything to this day disqualifies you as a mathematician and economist.


#1 See under the label Graphic AXEC143, Profit Law

***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 16

You say: “You missed the entire point. There is no market-clearing in the model I referred to; there are inventories.”

The model you published last week is NOT the point at issue. The definition of macroeconomic profit is at issue. You said: “You’re defining profits wrong.”

The fact is that there are two cases: (i) market-clearing, (ii) inventory changes.

Case (ii) has been dealt with elsewhere.#1 This leaves one with (i). And in this case, macroeconomic profit is in the elementary production-consumption economy Qm≡−Sm. This formula is sufficient to disprove Keynes and MMT, and you. There is NO need to go any further. You got the basics wrong.


#1 Primary and Secondary Markets, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Working Paper No. 741

***

#PointOfProof
Feb 16

before

after

The half-truths and half-falsehoods of MMT

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Paul Mason ― Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is radical but it needs to be credible too’*

Blog-Reference

The mission of economics as a science is to figure out how the economy works. Nothing more, nothing less. The mission of economics is NOT to push a political agenda. The point to grasp is that there is the scientific sphere and the political sphere, and both have to be kept apart. Why? Because politics corrupts science. #1 This also happened to economics. Economics is a failed/fake science.

The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. MMT is no exception.

MMTers characterize themselves as Progressives. Generally speaking, Progressives claim to care for the welfare of their fellow citizens (local, national, global; present and future) and the environment (local, national, global; present and future). On the scale from individualism to globalism, MMTers argue for the primacy of national welfare.

From the standpoint of science, these political claims are not an issue for the economist. Political goals and means have to be discussed in the political sphere and ultimately decided by the Legitimate Sovereign. The economist as a scientist is alone concerned with the question of how the actual economy works. #2 The Legitimate Sovereign is free to use scientific knowledge for the implementation of policy. The bleak reality is, though, that economists have always been fully occupied with agenda pushing and have to this day no scientifically valid theory about how the economy works. Economic policy guidance has NEVER had valid scientific foundations.

All this applies across the board from Adam Smith onward to MMT.

Economically, there are two questions for government spending (i) on what is the money spent (e.g., (ia) administrative-, (ib) military-, (ic) social-, (id) environmental-budget), and (ii) is government spending G less, equal, or greater than taxation T, i.e., (iia) G<T, (iib) G=T, (iic) G>T? Needless to emphasize that the questions about allocation and financing are constantly confused. The question is further confused by lumping it together with the full employment policy.

MMTers claim that the answer to almost all economic/social problems is permanent deficit-spending/money-creation, with some caveats with regard to inflation.

With regard to employment policy, for example, this is correct. Public deficit spending helps to reduce unemployment. Whether this is the best policy is another matter.

MMTers are right in pointing out that, as a matter of principle, money as the means of transaction is NOT a limiting factor for the realization of any combination of administrative, military, social, and environmental spending on which the Legitimate Sovereign finally settles. However, as a matter of principle, deficit spending is the wrong way to bring money into the economy because of its effect on distribution. Axiomatically correct macroeconomics tells one that Public Deficit = Private Profit.

Paul Mason argues: “MMT gives no account of where economic growth or profit comes from other than within the monetary system itself.” This is not quite correct. MMTers deliberately obfuscate where profit comes from. #3, #4

Tom Hickey argues: “What conventional economics misses is how finance and economics are joined at the hip in a monetary production economy, and that this joint is structured in terms of double-entry accounting, which implies stock-flow consistent modeling using a unit of account.” This is a half-truth because MMT, too, gets macroeconomic accounting provably wrong.

Tom Hickey argues: “This was a major point made by Keynes that MMT economists agree with: Investment causes saving. It is not the case that saving causes investment.” This is patently false. Business sector investment I and household sector saving S are causally unrelated. The correct macroeconomic relationship is given by Q=I−S, with Q as macroeconomic profit.

MMT policy has one property that makes it disadvantageous for WeThePeople and advantageous for the Oligarchy, i.e., because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, no matter how the money is allocated between administrative, military, social, and environmental spending, as long as there is deficit-spending/money-creation, the Oligarchy makes a profit equal to the deficit.

The result is fabulous financial wealth on one side and humongous public debt on the other side of the national balance sheet, with all negative effects of MMT policy shoved beyond the time horizon.

MMT is proto-scientific garbage. MMTers are fake Progressives. In the political Circus Maximus, MMTers are agenda pushers, useful idiots, and stand-up comedians. The Green New Deal is only a new opportunity to sell the old program of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., of a permanent free lunch for the Oligarchy. #5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* NewStatesman
#1 “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (Schumpeter)
#2 “Senior, . . . , said indeed that the economist’s conclusions ‘do not authorize him in adding a single syllable of advice.’” (Schumpeter)
#3 Understanding public deficits, money, and profit
#4 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#5 Fraud always comes in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom


Related 'Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems' and 'How MMT makes everybody happy' and 'MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople' and 'Full employment through the price mechanism' and 'MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT.

Basics of Value Theory

Comment on Peter Cooper on ‘Developments in Value Theory’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Value and Profit Theory are false since Ricardo and Marx. #1, #2

In order to see where Value Theory fails, one has to start with the most elementary version of what Keynes called the “monetary theory of production”.

As the analytical starting point, the elementary production-consumption economy is defined with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The economy consists of the household and the business sector which, in turn, consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Y_w=WL wage income Y_w 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.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Y_w in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1). The price P is determined by the wage rate W, which takes the role of the nominal numéraire, and the productivity R. This translates into W/P=R (2), i.e., the real wage is equal to the productivity. Eq. (1) is the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand.

Monetary profit/loss of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Y_w (3), and monetary saving/dissaving of the household sector is defined as S≡Y_w−C (4). It always holds Q+S=0, or Q≡−S (5), in other words, the business sector’s nominal surplus = profit equals the household sector’s nominal deficit = dissaving. Vice versa, the business sector’s deficit = loss equals the household sector’s surplus = saving. Under the initial condition of budget-balancing C=Y_w, total monetary profit is zero. Eq. (5) is the most elementary version of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

What is needed for a start is two things: (i) a central bank which creates money on its balance sheet in the form of deposits, and (ii) a legal system which declares the central bank’s deposits as legal tender.

Deposit money is needed by the business sector to pay the workers who receive the wage income Y_w per period. The need is only temporary because the business sector gets the money back if the workers fully spend their income, i.e., if C=Y_w. Overdrafts are needed by the household sector for consumption expenditures if the households want to spend before they get their income.

For the case of a balanced budget C=Y_w, the idealized transaction pattern of deposits/overdrafts of the household sector at the central bank over the course of one period is shown under the label of Graphic. #3

The household sector’s deposits/overdrafts are zero at the beginning and end of the period. Money is continually created and destroyed during the period under consideration. There is NO such thing as a fixed quantity of money. The central bank plays an accommodative role and supports the autonomous market transactions between the household and the business sector. From this follows the average stock of transaction money as M=kY_w (6), with k determined by the transaction pattern.

If employment L is doubled, the average stock of transaction money M doubles. In a well-designed fiat money economy, growth is not hampered by a lack of a transaction medium. NO capitalist with a sack of gold coins is needed to advance the wage bill.

In sum, (i) money is a generalized IOU, (ii) money is created and destroyed by the transactions between the household and the business sector, (iii) the value of money is given by (2) W/P=R, i.e. is equal to the productivity, (iv) the workers get the whole product, (v) profit is zero.

Because there is only labor input in the elementary production-consumption economy, eq. (2) represents the essence of the Labour Theory of Value.

Eq. (2) can be generalized for two different products, and then the Law of Value says P₁/P₂=R₂/R₁, i.e., the price relation is inverse to the productivity relation, that is, the whole price structure is objectively determined by the productivities, if, for a start, the wage rate is equal in all lines of production. Note that macroeconomic profit is zero because of budget balancing, i.e., C=Y_w. Macroeconomic profit only appears if C>Y_w, and this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with capitalists or value creation.

A well-defined monetary market economy is different from the woolly idea of capitalism. Profit has NOTHING to do with surplus value or exploitation but with deficit-spending/ dissaving of the household sector. Profit cannot be attributed to a factor. This is the fundamental methodological defect of classical and neoclassical Distribution Theories.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called It Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism
#2 Profit for Marxists
#3 Graphic AXEC98  Idealized transaction pattern

Related 'Value — the Bermuda Triangle for economic theories' and  'The Pure Logic of Value, Profit, Interest' and 'The Value of Water and Diamonds: Back to Square One' and 'The Logic of Value and the Value of Logic' and 'The Logical Interface Between Objective Macrofoundations and Subjective Valuations'.

***

Graphic AXEC89d Circuit Law of Value

Understanding public deficits, money, and profit

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Understanding government debts and deficits’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Lars Syll correctly observes: “The balanced budget paradox is probably one of the most devastating phenomena haunting our modern economies.”

He forgets to add, though, that this phenomenon ultimately derives from the stupidity/ corruption of economists, more specifically from the lack of the true Profit Theory. Because the Profit Theory is false, the whole analytical superstructure is false, including, of course, Money Theory, Distribution Theory, and Employment Theory. This prevented, to this day, the understanding of the effects of public deficit-spending/money-creation.

The process goes schematically as follows:#1, #2

(i) The initial economic configuration is the elementary production-consumption economy.#3 The initial state is characterized by budget-balancing of the household sector C=Yw and zero profit of the business sector Q≡C−Yw → 0. At this stage, money is a pure transaction medium, as shown in Graphic AXEC98

Money is created out of nothing. The stock of money is zero at the beginning and end of the period.

(ii) The government deficit spends. Deficit D is defined as public spending G minus taxes T, i.e., D≡G−T. T is set to 0. Deficit spending on current production causes a one-off price hike, and the business sector ends up with macroeconomic profit Q=G.

(iii) The business sector fully distributes profit. The distributed profit Yd goes to the Oligarchy and takes initially the form of deposits at the central bank. The CB’s balance sheet shows government overdrafts on the asset side and the Oligarchy’s deposits on the liability side. Both sides are equal to the penny. The CB's deposits are money. Money is the liability side of a special credit relationship.

(iv) The government consolidates overdrafts by selling interest-bearing bonds. The bonds are bought by the Oligarchy and paid for with deposits. The CB’s balance sheet shrinks again. The Oligarchy’s portfolio consists of bonds and money = deposits at the CB. The value of the portfolio is roughly equal to the public debt.

(v) The government taxes the household sector and transfers the tax in the form of interest payments to a subset of the household sector, i.e., to the Oligarchy.

(vi) This process is repeated for an indefinite time. Public debt grows and is continually rolled over. Interest payments grow faster or slower depending on whether the current interest rate is higher or lower.

(vii) How long this process can last is unknown. In some future period, though, the public debt is redeemed. The government taxes the household sector, total expenditures reduce to C−T, the market-clearing price falls, and the business sector makes a macroeconomic loss. Whether this leads to a breakdown of the economy is open to speculation.

Obviously, public deficit-spending/money-creation is the biggest redistributive action the world has ever seen.#4 As a rule of thumb, the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt. In other words, the fabulous wealth in the U.S. is the mirror image of humongous public debt ($22 trillion and counting).

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 From MMT misunderstandings to the true Theory of Money
#2 Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss
#3 The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo
#4 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit

Related 'MMT: fundamentally false' and 'Money and time'.

***

AXEC102

Economists: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors

Comment on Noah Way on Inês Goncalves Raposo’s ‘On Modern Monetary Theory’

Blog-Reference

Overview

Economics: a hereditary mental disease with scientific incompetence as father and political fraud as mother
Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems
Fraud comes always in the cloak of charity, salvation, or threat of doom
If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people
Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
Economics is a science? You must be joking!
Economists, stupid or corrupt or both?

Twitter/X blocking/muting by

#EconBlocker: Stephanie Kelton

#EconBlocker: Brian Romanchuk

#EconBlocker: Sara Holland

#EconBlocker: Lord Keynes

#EconBlocker: Onlyindreams

#EconBlocker: Mark Flowerchild

#EconBlocker: Patricia Pino

#EconBlocker: The Real Progressives

#EconBlocker: Richard Tye

#EconBlocker: Tony Weston

#EconBlocker: Nick Rowe

#EconBlocker: Rethinking Economics

#EconBlocker: Steve Grumbine

#EconBlocker: Jo Michell

#EconBlocker: Scott Fullwiler

#EconBlocker: Gower Initiative

#EconBlocker: Eric Lonergan

#EconBlocker: Raul Carillo

#EconBlocker: James Tapper

#EconBlocker: Fadhel Kaboub

#EconBlocker: Kim Driver

#EconBlocker: Noah Smith

#EconBlocker: Nathan Tankus

#EconBlocker: Nathan Becker

#EconBlocker: Pavlina Tcherneva

#EconBlocker: Moneymonopolist

#EconBlocker: Steven Hail

#EconBlocker: Edward Harrison

#EconBlocker: Economic Questions

#EconBlocker: Tobias Hlobil

#EconBlocker: Louis-Philippe Rochon

#EconBlocker: Rebuild Macroeconomics

#EconBlocker: MMT podcast

#EconBlocker: Dina Pomeranz

#EconBlocker: Simon Nevin

#EconBlocker: Democratic Restoration Movement

#EconBlocker: Civic Action

#EconBlocker: Relearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Thomas Fazi

#EconBlocker: Lana Dell

#EconBlocker: VeriDelisi

#EconBlocker: Unlearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Deficit Owls

#EconBlocker: Money on the Left

#EconBlocker: Charles J Engine of Hope

#EconBlocker: Jeff Baker

#EconBlocker: Paul Hünermund

#EconBlocker Andrés Bernal

#EconBlocker: Andreas Peichl

#EconBlocker: Sherry Reson

#EconBlocker: Maurice Höfgen

#EconBlocker: Richard Baldwin

#EconBlocker: Macro N Cheese

#EconBlocker: Steve Roth

#EconBlocker: Wolfgang Theil

View Twitter/X for details

#EconBlocker: Paddy Carter

#EconBlocker: Sebastian Gechert

#EconBlocker: Greek Stav

#EconBlocker: Blub_29

#EconBlocker: Minivan Man Tim

#EconBlocker: Lars Jorgensen

#EconBlocker: Tercero-Lucas

#EconBlocker: Lukas Freund

#EconBlocker: Jason Smith

#EconBlocker: George Selgin

#EconBlocker: Sebastian Dullien

#EconBlocker: Dennis Gottschlich

#EconBlocker: Sam Levey

#EconBlocker: Clint Ballinger

#EconBlocker: Philip Armstrong

#EconBlocker: Jan Schnellenbach

#EconBlocker: Post-Keynesian Economic Society

#EconBlocker: Marshall Steinbaum

#EconBlocker: Fiat Money

#EconBlocker: Tobias Kohlstruck

#EconBlocker: Benjamin Born

#EconBlocker: Mark Fabian

#EconBlocker: John Giles

#EconBlocker: Neil Smith

#EconBlocker: Bill Goggin

#EconBlocker: Bill @TxEx

#EconBlocker: Rudi Bachmann

#EconBlocker: Monika Köppl Turyna

#EconBlocker: Patrick Nüß

#EconBlocker: Max Discohouser

#EconBlocker: Devil E. Cheese

#EconBlocker: Jengis Osman

EconBlocker: Unegv Ugidali

#EconBlocker: ABC of MMT

#EconBlocker: John Quiggin

#EconBlocker: Steve Keen

#EconBlocker: Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity

#EconBlocker: Chris McArdle

#EconBlocker: Optimist

#EconBlocker: Paul Gambles

#EconBlocker: Scott Ferguson

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Australia

#EconBlocker: Cambridge University

#EonBlocker: Colin Camerer

#EconBlocker: Nadia Netti

#EconBlocker: Snittroll

#EconBlocker: Marcel Dimke

#EconBlocker: Stephan Ewald

#EconBlocker: Rose Ann Rabiola Miele/Real Progress in Action

#EconBlocker: Pearkes

#EconBlocker: Kathryn Cannon

#EconBlocker: Dominika Langenmayr

#EconBlocker: Max Hauser

#EconBlocker: Dirk Ehnts

#EconBlocker: Angus Armstrong

#EconBlocker: Bichler & Nitzan

#Blocker: ABCs of MMT

#EconBlocker: Pablo Melito

#EconBlocker: Flavio Toxvaerd

#EconBlocker: AusMMT

#EconBlocker: Paul Lewis

#EconBlocker: Jonathan Hahn

#EconBlocker: Australian Real Progressives

#EconBlocker: Justin Wolfers

#EconBlocker: Brotyboy

#EconBlocker: Ashish Barua

#EconBlocker: MMT Switzerland

#EconBlocker: Maxximilian Seijo

#EconBlocker: Stephen Williamson

#EconBlocker: Wojtek Kopczuk

#EconBlocker: Beyond the Spectrum

#EconBlocker: Alan Luchetti

#EconBlocker: Simard-Casanova

#EconBlocker: Drizt81

#EconBlocker: politicswithnick

#EconBlocker: Seminar Marxist Theory

#EconBlocker: Jayne Flanagan

#EconBlocker: Gio de Biase

#EconBlocker: Plurale Ökonomik Wien

#EconBlocker: Arash Molavi Vasséi

#EconBlocker: Shengwu Li

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Scot

#EconBlocker: Cory Doctorow

#EconBlocker: Jennifer Doleac

#EconBlocker: Economists for Future

#EconBlocker: MMT France

#EconBlocker: Lucia Pradella

#EconBlocker: Ferdinand Fichtner

#EconBlocker: Sophia Kuehnlenz

#Econblocker: Graham Brownlow

#EconBlocker: Lars Syll

#EconBlocker: Francesco Trebbi

#EconBlocker: Sakshi Aravind

#EconBlocker: Lorna Slater

#EconBlocker: Jeff Coventry

#EconBlocker: Fundacja Lipińskiego

#EconBlocker: Rohan Grey

#EconBlocker: cdubford

#EconBlocker: Foes

#EconBlocker: MMT India

#EconBlocker: Nick Testa

#EconBlocker: Beatrice Cherrier

#EconBlocker: David Roberts

#EconBlocker: Pufendorf Ges.

#EconBlocker: Francesco Sergi

#EconBlocker: KynarethNoBaka

#EconBlocker: Brad DeLong

#EconBlocker: NOUS_Network

#EconBlocker: Claudia Sahm

#EconBlocker: Cartesian Otter

#EconBlocker: Carl Mühlbach

#EconBlocker: Man in a pit

#EconBlocker: Andreas Botsch

#EconBlocker: Ramona Massachi

#EconBlocker: Aaron Sahr

#EconBlocker: Thibault Laurentjoye

#EconBlocker: Ben Golub

#EconBlocker: Matthew Klein

#EconBlocker: Pascal Michaillat

#EconBlocker: Cléo Chassonnerie-Zaïgouche

#EconBlocker: Microfounded

#EconBlocker: ECONtribute

#EconBlocker: Sant'Anna

#EconBlocker: Farzad Saidi

#EconBlocker: Frances Coppola

#EconBlocker: Nuno Palma

#EconBlocker: KriWis Berlin

#EconBlocker: Michael Clemens

#EconBlocker: Charles Hayden

#EconBlocker: Thomas Beschorner

#EconBlocker: TakingHayekSeriously

#EconBlocker: Popcornpunch

#EconBlocker: Christian Bayer

#EconBlocker: Steven Medema

#EconBlocker: Lukas

#EconBlocker: Economic Ethics

#EconBlocker: Isabella Weber

#EconBlocker: Philip Jung

#EconBlocker: Cameron Murray

#EconBlocker: Ben Moll

#EconBlocker: Jim G

#EconBlocker: 50linesonly

#EconBlocker: Paul

#EconBlocker: Beautiful Loser

#EconBlocker: Timon Henze

#EconBlocker: Noah Williams

#EconBlocker: Institute for Humane Studies

#EconBlocker: Post-Monetarist Political Economy

#EconBlocker: Arjun Jayadev

#EconBlocker: Antonio Andreoni

#EconBlocker: Johanna Sprondel

#EconBlocker: Carlo Masala

#EconBlocker: Warren Mosler

#EconBlocker: Picss3o

#EconBlocker: Ty Keynes

#EconBlocker: Productivity Institute

#EconBlocker: Joules / Jules

#EconBlocker: Fabian Lange

#EconBlocker: Bruno Frey

#EconBlocker: Malcolm Reavell

#EconBlocker: Yes

#EconBlocker: Leo Mühlenweg

#EconBlocker: Claire Jackson-Prior

#EconBlocker: Jan Schulz-Gebhard

#EconBlocker: David McNab

#EconBlocker: Michael Thrower

#EconBlocker: Brian Albrecht

#EconBlocker: Per Bylund

#EconBlocker: MMT101

#EconBlocker: Ashis Barua

#EconBlocker: Jesús Fernández-Villaverde

#EconBlocker: Steve Hall

#EconBlocker: Mark Thoma

Twitter/X Aug 6

#EconBlocker: Ezquid

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Australia

#EconBlocker: Aaron B

#EconBlocker: Tom Hickey

#EconBlocker: Payam Sharifi

#EconBlocker: Ingrid Kvangraven

#EconBlocker: Steve Keen

#EconBlocker: Scott Fullwiler

#EconBlocker: Carolina Alves

#EconBlocker: Bill Mitchell

#EconMuter: Brian Romanchuk

#EconHider: Per Bylund

#EconBlocker: Andrew McLeod

#EconBlocker: Rudy Havenstein

#EconBlocker: Relearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Insane Economist Quotes

Blog blocking/muting/censoring by

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Bill Mitchell’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Lars Syll’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder

Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs

#EconBlocker: Bill Mitchell #EconBlocker: Lars Syll #EconBlocker:  Real-World Economics Review #EconBlocker: Mark Thoma #EconBlocker: Nick Rowe

Scientific incompetence and lack of integrity

For details of the big picture, see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'You don’t see what you don’t see: censorship in the econblogosphere' and 'Economics, free speech, and censorship' and 'Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs' and 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?' and 'Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”' and 'Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion'.

***

#PointOfProof
#EconBlocker
#HallOfScientificShame

***

For more about #Econblocker, see AXECquery.

 

***

#EconBlockers violate clearly defined professional standards

***

It is noteworthy that the #EconBlocker Unlearning Economics of all people has put a video about The Toxic Culture of the Economics Profession on YouTube.

***

Twitter/X, Nov 11, 2024  Visibility