Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Richard Rorty, postmodernism, and Trump’
Blog-Reference
Currently, economists are in the mode of conspicuous self-critique: Yes, we have done too much math, yes, our reduction of multi-dimensional homo sapiens to one-dimensional homo oeconomicus has been rather one-sided, yes, the Chicago free-market philosophy has gone over the top, yes, there has been too much abstract model building and too little empirics, yes, something has gone badly wrong with the distribution of income and wealth, yes, free trade is not the summum bonum. Paul Romer even characterized macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience.#1
This is rather spooky because economists normally do not admit failure but simply explain it away. They have even convinced the general public that the worst social catastrophe in history, the Great Depression, had nothing to do with their abysmally crappy economic theory and policy guidance but that it was all the Fed’s fault.
The question is, what is going on in economics?
As it happens, philosophers ― the specialists in making sense of everything in this universe and all parallel universes ― have conveniently come up with an explanation. It carries the label postmodernism: “Me, I think Rorty should remain on our reading lists, if only because postmodernism has been blamed ... for a wide range of recent disasters, from 9/11 to Donald Trump.” (See intro)
How did postmodernism achieve such a breathtaking overdose of disasters?
“This equaling out of truth and falsehood is both informed by and takes advantage of an all-permeating late post-modernism and relativism, which has trickled down over the past thirty years from academia to the media and then everywhere else. This school of thought has taken Nietzsche’s maxim, there are no facts, only interpretations, to mean that every version of events is just another narrative, where lies can be excused as ‘an alternative point of view’ or ‘an opinion’, because ‘it’s all relative’ and ‘everyone has their own truth’ (and on the internet they really do).”#2
Does anyone remember among these half-witted philosophers that the ancient Greeks started science with the distinction between doxa (= opinion) and episteme (= knowledge)? And that scientific knowledge is well-defined as material and formal consistency. And that Aristotle was quite clear about how science works: “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.” (Wikipedia, Posterior Analytics)
The fact of the matter is that economics has not been undermined by postmodernism but that it has been postmodern since the founding fathers.
The state of economics is this: there are 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).
To speak of economics without qualification is misleading. It is of utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to push an agenda, and the goal of theoretical economics is to explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, scientific standards are observed.
So, there are the hard rocks of true and false and the bottomless swamp between them where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes). The swamp is the natural habitat of blathering economists, of which there are four main schools: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism. None of these has achieved anything of scientific value, all four approaches are axiomatically false.
To proceed from failed political economics to scientifically valid economics requires a Paradigm Shift from Walrasian microfoundations and Keynes’ flawed macrofoundations to entirely new macrofoundations.
This is achieved with the following set of objective-systemic foundational propositions: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the (world-) economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.#3
These premises are certain, true, primary, entirely free of green cheese behavioral assumptions, and therefore perfectly suited as the foundations of an “edifice that one wishes to expand and to build higher while preserving its stability.” (Hilbert)
To do the Paradigm Shift, i.e. to fully replace the obsolete Orthodoxy, is normally the mission of Heterodoxy. In economics, traditional Heterodoxy has failed because it sits in the proto-scientific swamp of political economics just like Orthodoxy but only in another corner.#4
Political economics, postmodern philosophy, and Trump have, indeed, one thing in common: all lack the concept of truth.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The economist as stand-up comedian and How to get rid of the silly Queen
#2 Peter Pomerantsev
#3 Objective Principles of Economics
#4 For details of the big picture see cross-references Heterodoxy.
Related 'Economists: the Trumps of science' and 'Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy: the squabbling of quacks' and 'When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific' and 'Heterodoxy’s scientific self-deception' and 'Economics: a science without scientists'
November 23, 2016
November 21, 2016
Keynes’ message for contemporaries
Comment on Asad Zaman on ‘Reading Keynes’
Blog-Reference
You say: “I am planning a sequence of posts on re-reading Keynes, where I will try to go through the General Theory. ... Secondarily, I hope to be able to summarize Keynes’ insights to make them relevant and useful to a contemporary audience. Thirdly, there are many experts, especially Paul Davidson, on this blog, who will be able to prevent me from making serious mistakes in interpretation.”
Interpretation of Keynes cannot be the goal because we had already a grand debate about ‘what Keynes really meant’ some time ago. The result was inconclusive, to say the least. There are two reasons for this:
(i) “But Keynes, too, sometimes gave the impression of not having fully grasped the logic of his own system.” (Laidler, 1999, p. 281)
(ii) “For Keynes as for Post Keynesians, the guiding motto is ‘it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong!’” (Davidson, 1984, p. 574)
Because roughly right is equivalent to roughly wrong, everybody can interpret into Keynes what he likes. And this is what actually happened. The simple fact of the matter is that Keynes and the Post Keynesians got macro wrong.#1 Keynesianism is a halfway house. And from this follows that the only worthwhile goal is to finalize the Keynesian Revolution.#2
The one message of Keynes that is still valid is this: “The [neo-]classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight ― as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics.” (1973, p. 16)
Keynes pointed the way but did not follow it himself. No re-interpretation can alter the fact that Keynes' macrofoundations are provably false.#3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Davidson, P. (1984). Reviving Keynes’s Revolution. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 6(4): 561–575. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Laidler, D. (1999). Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
#1 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right and Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy and Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science
#2 Finalizing the Keynesian Revolution
#3 From false micro to true macro: the new economic Paradigm
Blog-Reference
You say: “I am planning a sequence of posts on re-reading Keynes, where I will try to go through the General Theory. ... Secondarily, I hope to be able to summarize Keynes’ insights to make them relevant and useful to a contemporary audience. Thirdly, there are many experts, especially Paul Davidson, on this blog, who will be able to prevent me from making serious mistakes in interpretation.”
Interpretation of Keynes cannot be the goal because we had already a grand debate about ‘what Keynes really meant’ some time ago. The result was inconclusive, to say the least. There are two reasons for this:
(i) “But Keynes, too, sometimes gave the impression of not having fully grasped the logic of his own system.” (Laidler, 1999, p. 281)
(ii) “For Keynes as for Post Keynesians, the guiding motto is ‘it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong!’” (Davidson, 1984, p. 574)
Because roughly right is equivalent to roughly wrong, everybody can interpret into Keynes what he likes. And this is what actually happened. The simple fact of the matter is that Keynes and the Post Keynesians got macro wrong.#1 Keynesianism is a halfway house. And from this follows that the only worthwhile goal is to finalize the Keynesian Revolution.#2
The one message of Keynes that is still valid is this: “The [neo-]classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight ― as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics.” (1973, p. 16)
Keynes pointed the way but did not follow it himself. No re-interpretation can alter the fact that Keynes' macrofoundations are provably false.#3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Davidson, P. (1984). Reviving Keynes’s Revolution. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 6(4): 561–575. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Laidler, D. (1999). Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
#1 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right and Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy and Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science
#2 Finalizing the Keynesian Revolution
#3 From false micro to true macro: the new economic Paradigm
November 20, 2016
Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiocy (I)
Comment on Wikipedia on ‘Sectoral balances’ #1
The sectoral balances description is given with two equations:
(1) Y=C+I+G+(X−M)
(2) Y=C+S+T
Legend: Y is GDP (expenditure), C is consumption spending, I is private investment spending, G is government spending, X is exports, M is imports, S is total saving, and T is total taxation.
This gives the interrelation of balances:
(3) (S−I)=(G−T)+(X−M) alternatively (I−S)+ (G−T)+(X−M)=0
When foreign trade is taken out of the picture, i.e., X=0, M=0, then (3) reduces to:
(4) (S−I)=(G−T)
Conclusion: “As a matter of accounting between the government and non-government sectors, a government budget deficit adds net financial assets ... available to the private sector and a budget surplus has the opposite effect.” and “While typically obfuscated in standard textbook treatments, at the heart of national income accounting is an identity — the government deficit (surplus) equals the non-government surplus (deficit).” #2
The error/mistake/blunder of this approach is in the definition of the non-governmental sector and in the definition of total saving, and in the absence of total profit and distributed profit. #3
The accounting error/mistake/blunder is obfuscated by the fact that government and non-government are juxtaposed. Thus, the crucial differentiation between the business sector and the household sector gets lost. This, in turn, has the effect that the most important magnitude of economics — profit — gets also lost. In order to see this, one has to go back to the MOST ELEMENTARY configuration, that is, the production-consumption economy, which consists of the household sector and the business sector. #4, #5
In this elementary economy, three configurations are logically possible: (i) consumption expenditures are equal to wage income C=Yw, (ii) C is less than Yw, (iii) C is greater than Yw.
In case (i), the monetary saving of the household sector Sm≡Yw−C is zero, and the monetary profit of the business sector Qm≡C−Yw, too, is zero.
In case (ii), monetary saving Sm is positive and the business sector makes a loss, i.e., Qm is negative.
In case (iii), monetary saving Sm is negative, i.e., the household sector dissaves, and the business sector makes a profit, i.e., Qm is positive.
It always holds (a) Qm≡−Sm, in other words, at the heart of national income accounting is an identity — the business sector’s surplus (deficit) equals the household sector’s deficit (surplus). Put bluntly, loss is the counterpart of saving, and profit is the counterpart of dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law. It follows directly from the profit definition Qm≡C−Yw and the definition of household sector saving Sm≡Yw−C.
When government is added, then it holds under the condition of zero investment of the business sector and zero saving of the household sector Qm≡G−T, that is, the overall monetary profit of the business sector is positive if the government sector runs a deficit and negative if the government sector runs a surplus. In other words: Public Deficit = Private Profit.
The balances of the business sector, the household sector, and the government sector add up to zero, i.e., (b) Qm+Sm+(T−G)=0 (if I=0), and THIS is the axiomatically correct accounting identity. It says that budget deficits (G greater T) and household sector dissaving (−Sm) are the two sources of overall monetary profit in a closed economy without business sector investment.
In other words, deficit spending of the government and household sector is the source of total profit in the market economy (with zero distributed profit). Total profit has NOTHING to do with efficiency or exploitation or monopoly or the smartness of CEOs. These factors only influence the DISTRIBUTION of total profit, which is given by Qm≡G−T−Sm, BETWEEN the firms that constitute the business sector.
The entry 'Sectoral balances' is proof that economists — after more than 200 years — still do not understand profit, which is the pivotal magnitude of their subject matter. From this follows that ALL OTHER Wikipedia entries about economics are false or incomplete. #6
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia Sectoral balances (obviously authored by MMTers, see References)
#2 See the MMM post Budget surpluses are not national saving
#3 For details, see Keynes’s Missing Axioms, Sec. 14-18 and The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach
#4 The tiny little problem with economics
#5 The elementary production-consumption economy is given by three systemic axioms: (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X. In the given context, market-clearing holds, i.e., X=O. The general case X≠O has been discussed elsewhere.
#6 See, for example, The final implosion of MMT
Related 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down' and 'Rectification of MMT macro accounting' and 'A tale of three accountants' and 'Profit, income, and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy' and 'Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT fund private savings' and 'Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)'.
The sectoral balances description is given with two equations:
(1) Y=C+I+G+(X−M)
(2) Y=C+S+T
Legend: Y is GDP (expenditure), C is consumption spending, I is private investment spending, G is government spending, X is exports, M is imports, S is total saving, and T is total taxation.
This gives the interrelation of balances:
(3) (S−I)=(G−T)+(X−M) alternatively (I−S)
When foreign trade is taken out of the picture, i.e., X=0, M=0, then (3) reduces to:
(4) (S−I)=(G−T)
Conclusion: “As a matter of accounting between the government and non-government sectors, a government budget deficit adds net financial assets ... available to the private sector and a budget surplus has the opposite effect.” and “While typically obfuscated in standard textbook treatments, at the heart of national income accounting is an identity — the government deficit (surplus) equals the non-government surplus (deficit).” #2
The error/mistake/blunder of this approach is in the definition of the non-governmental sector and in the definition of total saving, and in the absence of total profit and distributed profit. #3
The accounting error/mistake/blunder is obfuscated by the fact that government and non-government are juxtaposed. Thus, the crucial differentiation between the business sector and the household sector gets lost. This, in turn, has the effect that the most important magnitude of economics — profit — gets also lost. In order to see this, one has to go back to the MOST ELEMENTARY configuration, that is, the production-consumption economy, which consists of the household sector and the business sector. #4, #5
In this elementary economy, three configurations are logically possible: (i) consumption expenditures are equal to wage income C=Yw, (ii) C is less than Yw, (iii) C is greater than Yw.
In case (i), the monetary saving of the household sector Sm≡Yw−C is zero, and the monetary profit of the business sector Qm≡C−Yw, too, is zero.
In case (ii), monetary saving Sm is positive and the business sector makes a loss, i.e., Qm is negative.
In case (iii), monetary saving Sm is negative, i.e., the household sector dissaves, and the business sector makes a profit, i.e., Qm is positive.
It always holds (a) Qm≡−Sm, in other words, at the heart of national income accounting is an identity — the business sector’s surplus (deficit) equals the household sector’s deficit (surplus). Put bluntly, loss is the counterpart of saving, and profit is the counterpart of dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law. It follows directly from the profit definition Qm≡C−Yw and the definition of household sector saving Sm≡Yw−C.
When government is added, then it holds under the condition of zero investment of the business sector and zero saving of the household sector Qm≡G−T, that is, the overall monetary profit of the business sector is positive if the government sector runs a deficit and negative if the government sector runs a surplus. In other words: Public Deficit = Private Profit.
The balances of the business sector, the household sector, and the government sector add up to zero, i.e., (b) Qm+Sm+(T−G)=0 (if I=0), and THIS is the axiomatically correct accounting identity. It says that budget deficits (G greater T) and household sector dissaving (−Sm) are the two sources of overall monetary profit in a closed economy without business sector investment.
In other words, deficit spending of the government and household sector is the source of total profit in the market economy (with zero distributed profit). Total profit has NOTHING to do with efficiency or exploitation or monopoly or the smartness of CEOs. These factors only influence the DISTRIBUTION of total profit, which is given by Qm≡G−T−Sm, BETWEEN the firms that constitute the business sector.
The entry 'Sectoral balances' is proof that economists — after more than 200 years — still do not understand profit, which is the pivotal magnitude of their subject matter. From this follows that ALL OTHER Wikipedia entries about economics are false or incomplete. #6
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia Sectoral balances (obviously authored by MMTers, see References)
#2 See the MMM post Budget surpluses are not national saving
#3 For details, see Keynes’s Missing Axioms, Sec. 14-18 and The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach
#4 The tiny little problem with economics
#5 The elementary production-consumption economy is given by three systemic axioms: (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X. In the given context, market-clearing holds, i.e., X=O. The general case X≠O has been discussed elsewhere.
#6 See, for example, The final implosion of MMT
Related 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down' and 'Rectification of MMT macro accounting' and 'A tale of three accountants' and 'Profit, income, and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy' and 'Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT fund private savings' and 'Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)'.
Twitter/X Mar 4, 2026
November 19, 2016
Economists: The Trumps of science
Comment on David Glasner on ‘OMG! The Age of Trump Is upon Us’
Blog-Reference
You say “The American voters, in their wisdom, have elected a mountebank (OED: “A false pretender to skill or knowledge, a charlatan: a person incurring contempt or ridicule through efforts to acquire something, esp. social distinction or glamour.”), a narcissistic sociopath, as their chief executive and head of state.“
This happened recently in the political realm. In the scientific realm, something similar happened 150+ years ago when Jevons/Walras/Menger took over economics. They made a banana science out of it but people are enthusiastic about it to this very day. #1
David Glasner had his epiphany 50 years ago: “When I took my first economics course almost a half-century ago and read the greatest economics textbook ever written, University Economics by Armen Alchian and William Allen, I was blown away by their ability to show how much sloppy and muddled thinking there was about how markets work ... I have been a fan of free markets ever since.” (See intro)
The trouble with the Alchian/Allen textbook is the same as with all other economics textbooks, that is, it is proto-scientific garbage. #2
The standard definition of the subject matter is given with the following hardcore propositions, a.k.a. axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)
From these premises follows what Leijonhufvud famously called the Totem of Micro/Macro, that is, SS-curve―DD-curve―equilibrium. This construct is the one-size-fits-all analytical workhorse of economics.
For every person with some scientific instincts, this construct is immediately and forever unacceptable. Economists, to their disgrace, have no scientific instincts at all. They simply swallow every junk hook, line, and sinker. Obviously, the Walrasian axiom set contains THREE NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization HC2, (ii) rational expectations HC4, (iii) equilibrium HC5. Every theory/model that contains a nonentity is A PRIORI false. As a consequence, economics from Jevons/Walras/Menger to DSGE/RBC/New Keynesianism is false.
Economists do not know how the actual economy works. They lack the true theory. Instead, they senselessly speculate about NONENTITIES and hallucinate about the marvelous feats of the Invisible Hand.
The worst thing, though, is that economists in their loose talk about markets have not realized to this day that an elementary market system that consists of a consolidated product market and a consolidated labor market is UNSTABLE. This means that, as a matter of principle, there is NO such thing as an overall equilibrium in the market system. The system is NOT self-regulating and self-optimizing; there is NO such thing as an Invisible Hand, and this has NOTHING to do with market imperfections or rigidities or information asymmetry. This is a STRUCTURAL feature that is built right into the core of the market system. #3
It is important to realize that economic policy guidance has NEVER had sound scientific foundations. Because economists never captured the essence of the market economy, whatever they have said for or against capitalism, communism, or socialism has been based upon provably false theories about how the monetary economy works. #4
For 150+ years, economists have been the Trumps of science, that is, "false pretenders to skill or knowledge".
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Turning the bananatization of economics around
#2 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#3 There is no such thing as THE market
#4 Secular intellectual stagnation
Related 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'Could we, please, all focus on the key question of economics? and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism' and 'Economists' real job problem' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards' and 'Clueless economists / Profit'
Blog-Reference
You say “The American voters, in their wisdom, have elected a mountebank (OED: “A false pretender to skill or knowledge, a charlatan: a person incurring contempt or ridicule through efforts to acquire something, esp. social distinction or glamour.”), a narcissistic sociopath, as their chief executive and head of state.“
This happened recently in the political realm. In the scientific realm, something similar happened 150+ years ago when Jevons/Walras/Menger took over economics. They made a banana science out of it but people are enthusiastic about it to this very day. #1
David Glasner had his epiphany 50 years ago: “When I took my first economics course almost a half-century ago and read the greatest economics textbook ever written, University Economics by Armen Alchian and William Allen, I was blown away by their ability to show how much sloppy and muddled thinking there was about how markets work ... I have been a fan of free markets ever since.” (See intro)
The trouble with the Alchian/Allen textbook is the same as with all other economics textbooks, that is, it is proto-scientific garbage. #2
The standard definition of the subject matter is given with the following hardcore propositions, a.k.a. axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)
From these premises follows what Leijonhufvud famously called the Totem of Micro/Macro, that is, SS-curve―DD-curve―equilibrium. This construct is the one-size-fits-all analytical workhorse of economics.
For every person with some scientific instincts, this construct is immediately and forever unacceptable. Economists, to their disgrace, have no scientific instincts at all. They simply swallow every junk hook, line, and sinker. Obviously, the Walrasian axiom set contains THREE NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization HC2, (ii) rational expectations HC4, (iii) equilibrium HC5. Every theory/model that contains a nonentity is A PRIORI false. As a consequence, economics from Jevons/Walras/Menger to DSGE/RBC/New Keynesianism is false.
Economists do not know how the actual economy works. They lack the true theory. Instead, they senselessly speculate about NONENTITIES and hallucinate about the marvelous feats of the Invisible Hand.
The worst thing, though, is that economists in their loose talk about markets have not realized to this day that an elementary market system that consists of a consolidated product market and a consolidated labor market is UNSTABLE. This means that, as a matter of principle, there is NO such thing as an overall equilibrium in the market system. The system is NOT self-regulating and self-optimizing; there is NO such thing as an Invisible Hand, and this has NOTHING to do with market imperfections or rigidities or information asymmetry. This is a STRUCTURAL feature that is built right into the core of the market system. #3
It is important to realize that economic policy guidance has NEVER had sound scientific foundations. Because economists never captured the essence of the market economy, whatever they have said for or against capitalism, communism, or socialism has been based upon provably false theories about how the monetary economy works. #4
For 150+ years, economists have been the Trumps of science, that is, "false pretenders to skill or knowledge".
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Turning the bananatization of economics around
#2 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#3 There is no such thing as THE market
#4 Secular intellectual stagnation
Related 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'Could we, please, all focus on the key question of economics? and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism' and 'Economists' real job problem' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards' and 'Clueless economists / Profit'
How to get out of the deflation trap
Comment on Andrew Gamble on ‘Deflation trap’
Blog-Reference
The usual policy proposals are at best commonsensically true because economics is a failed science, that is, the four main approaches, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are axiomatically false and have to be fully replaced. The replacement is called Paradigm Shift, and it is accomplished by moving from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to the correct macrofoundations. #1
The elementary macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand is shown on Graphic. #2
This price formula gets, of course, longer with the increasing complexity of the economy. #3 All these details are not needed at the moment.
The elementary Law of Supply and Demand says:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE=C/Y leads to a higher market-clearing price (the Greek letter ρ stands for ratio). An expenditure ratio ρE greater than 1 indicates credit expansion, a ratio ρE less than 1 indicates credit contraction. Credit expansion/ contraction, in turn, affects the quantity of money.
(ii) An increase in the ratio of wage rate to productivity W/R leads to a higher market-clearing price.
If the goal is to get a continuous rate of price increase of say 2 percent, then there must be either (i) deficit spending of the household or the government sector, i.e., ρE must be greater than 1, or (ii) the wage rate W must increase faster than the productivity R.
Alternative (i) has two drawbacks: (1) a continuous increase of private/public debt, (2) a direct increase of overall monetary profit because the Profit Law is coupled with the Law of Supply and Demand via the ratio ρE. #4 So alternative (i) causes heavy distributional collateral damage. #5
From the correct economic theory follows that alternative (ii), i.e., the worldwide increase of wage rate relative to productivity, is the correct policy measure.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details, see cross-references Paradigm Shift
#2 Graphic AXEC64 Law of Supply and Demand: Elementary production-consumption economy and
#3 Graphic AXEC40 Investment economy
Blog-Reference
The usual policy proposals are at best commonsensically true because economics is a failed science, that is, the four main approaches, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are axiomatically false and have to be fully replaced. The replacement is called Paradigm Shift, and it is accomplished by moving from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to the correct macrofoundations. #1
The elementary macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand is shown on Graphic. #2
This price formula gets, of course, longer with the increasing complexity of the economy. #3 All these details are not needed at the moment.
The elementary Law of Supply and Demand says:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE=C/Y leads to a higher market-clearing price (the Greek letter ρ stands for ratio). An expenditure ratio ρE greater than 1 indicates credit expansion, a ratio ρE less than 1 indicates credit contraction. Credit expansion/ contraction, in turn, affects the quantity of money.
(ii) An increase in the ratio of wage rate to productivity W/R leads to a higher market-clearing price.
If the goal is to get a continuous rate of price increase of say 2 percent, then there must be either (i) deficit spending of the household or the government sector, i.e., ρE must be greater than 1, or (ii) the wage rate W must increase faster than the productivity R.
Alternative (i) has two drawbacks: (1) a continuous increase of private/public debt, (2) a direct increase of overall monetary profit because the Profit Law is coupled with the Law of Supply and Demand via the ratio ρE. #4 So alternative (i) causes heavy distributional collateral damage. #5
From the correct economic theory follows that alternative (ii), i.e., the worldwide increase of wage rate relative to productivity, is the correct policy measure.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details, see cross-references Paradigm Shift
#2 Graphic AXEC64 Law of Supply and Demand: Elementary production-consumption economy and
#3 Graphic AXEC40 Investment economy
#4 Graphic AXEC08 The Profit Law
November 17, 2016
The economist as stand-up comedian
Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Blame globalization?’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Nov 18
There is the political realm, where everybody is admitted in principle. The currency in the political realm is opinion. Opinion is different from knowledge, and the fact of the matter is that it is most of the time false or merely commonsensically true.
“There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter... This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper)
The discourse in the political realm has not much to do with truth or reality but with myth, storytelling, gossip, second-guessing, propaganda, belief, paranoia, and entertainment. From this discourse, though, follow decisions that affect reality either in an intended or an unintended way.
Not all participants in the political discourse are equal with regard to opinion/knowledge about the issue under discussion. Some consider themselves or/and are considered by others as experts. There are two types of experts: practical and scientific. Scientists are supposed to have the most profound general knowledge which comes in the form of a materially and formally consistent theory. A theory is the best humanly possible mental representation of reality. Practical knowledge, on the other hand, is partial and limited.
So it may happen that knowledge is injected into the discourse and that it crowds out opinion to a greater or lesser degree. The underlying idea is that more knowledge improves the final decision and thereby the chance of success, i.e. the realization of the intended outcome.
The very characteristic of economics is that there is no clear-cut separation between politics and science. 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). And this is how economics became a failed science.
The current state is this: economics is NOT a science and the representative economist is NOT a scientist. The claim as expressed in the title “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is false.
What the general public cannot see is that economists do not have the true theory. That is rather bad because: “In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)
An economist who rises to speak in the political arena does not add objective scientific knowledge ― he has none ― but merely his opinion, educated common sense, and some specific institutional/practical knowledge. Specific knowledge is helpful for small-scale issues (e.g. employment in a firm) but of little use for large-scale issues (e.g. full employment in the world economy). Small-scale knowledge is always subject to the Fallacy of Composition, that is, it is true for a tiny part of the whole but false for the whole.
Economics in the proper sense is the science that figures out how the monetary economy works. The representative economist does not know how the economy works. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are all axiomatically false. Economics has not lived up to well-defined scientific standards in the last 200+ years. Whatever an economist argues for or against has NO sound scientific foundations.
What the general public cannot see is that ALL economists who rise to speak in the political realm are incompetent scientists. What economists communicate is NOT scientific knowledge but opinion. It does not matter whether the opinion is more rightist or more leftist, the loudspeaker of the economics profession from Krugman to Keen are stand-up comedians in the political Circus Maximus, not scientists. Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists can rightfully claim to speak in the name of science. What they actually do is abuse the aura of science to push an agenda. Therefore, all have to be expelled from the scientific community.
The public judges political economists by their expressed opinions. Opinion, though, is worthless, we have more than enough of it. The public cannot and does not judge economists by their scientific competence but assumes that it is guaranteed somehow. But this is not the case.
What the public cannot see is that economics is still at the proto-scientific level. To this day, the representative economist cannot tell the difference between profit and income, which are indisputably the foundational concepts of his subject matter.#1 Because economists never captured the essence of the market economy, they can neither diagnose systemic crises correctly nor solve them. Because there is no true economic theory ALL economic policy guidance is scientifically unfounded since Adam Smith. Whatever economists have said for or against capitalism, communism or socialism has been based upon provably false theories about how the monetary economy works.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details see cross-references Profit
Related 'There is NO such thing as an economic expert' and 'Political economics: a deadhead sitcom' and 'Economists: Jacks of all trades ― except economics' and 'Scientific suicide in the revolving door' and 'Economists ― medics or barber-surgeons?' and 'Economics: a science without scientists' and 'Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist' and 'Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists' and 'Beware of the moralizing economist' and 'Do first your macroeconomic homework!' and 'Legitimacy lost' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”'
You say: “... have I ever mentioned to you that I am NOT an economist? As a self-proclaimed ‘scientist’ have you never heard of the concept of category error?”
I would like to come to a common understanding of what we are trying to achieve here on the EconoSpeak blog.
First of all, the only interesting thing is the economic content of a post. The author’s person or CV is of NO interest at all. Obviously, one cannot and does not make an identity check before one comment on a post.
This is a GOOD thing because the author’s personality and motives are only of interest in the realm of politics/entertainment but not in science. As Schumpeter put it: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”
The only question in scientific discourse is whether a statement is true or false. As Popper put it: “And a critical discussion is well-conducted if it is entirely devoted to one aim: to find a flaw in the claim that a certain theory presents a solution to a certain problem.”
The moment a second criterion is introduced all is lost. More specifically, the moment economics is mixed with politics the discourse goes down the drain. The reason is simple, a scientific discourse has a solution: true or false. Political discourse has no solution but is decided by a majority vote or authority or by throwing a coin.
It is well known from history that politics habitually tries to overrule science: “As some one has said, it would seem that even the theorems of Euclid would be challenged and doubted if they should be appealed to by one political party as against another.” (Fisher)
It is also well known that this happened in economics, which resulted in political economics producing nothing of scientific value in the last 200+ years.
What economics needs, first of all, is the strict separation of science and politics because politics de-focuses research: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack)
At the moment we have no true economic theory, i.e. a theory of how the monetary economy works that satisfies the well-defined scientific criteria of formal and material consistency. Economists are well-advised to bring their own house in order before they dabble in other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy, or political sciences.
Whether you are an economist or not is a matter of indifference. Only the economic content of your post matters. If you contribute to the necessary Paradigm Shift you are welcome to the economics discourse if you try to push a political agenda you are not. Flipping between economics and politics is the worst category error/mistake/blunder ever.
Related ‘Economists: the Trumps of science' and 'Economists are a menace to their fellow citizens’ and ‘Politics or Science? Decide and act accordingly’
It seems that you pick quotes out of your nose: “Egmont: But the Bible is NOT SCIENCE!”
Egmont never mentioned the Bible. What I said was “Economics is NOT a science and the representative economist is NOT a scientist.”
Bloomberg writes today: “Paul Romer says he really hadn’t planned to trash macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience. ... It just sort of happened.”
Bloomberg hails Romer as “The rebel who blew up macroeconomics” and tells the soap story of how the naive hero Romer almost unintentionally slaughtered the three-headed dragon of Orthodoxy. Bloomberg knows that economists swallow any junk. After all, they swallow supply-demand-equilibrium for 150+ years.
Where Romer is right is that economics is a pseudoscience. What is curious, though, is this: “His name is often raised during Nobel season ― this year, much to his chagrin, by his last academic home. In early October, New York University announced a press conference to congratulate Romer for winning the prize, then apologized for mistakenly posting a document it had prepared just in case he won. Which he didn’t.”
Of course not! Don’t they know in New York University the full title of the Prize? It is: “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” Sciences (plural) and NOT pseudoscience.
There seems to be widespread confusion about the scientific status of economics nowadays.#2 One thing, though, is certain, Romer is NOT a scientist but just another stand-up comedian in the Circus Maximus.
By the way, I really hadn’t planned to trash Sandwichman. . . . It just sort of happened.
#1 Source
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Scientific Incompetence and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references The Representative Economist and cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Nov 18
There is the political realm, where everybody is admitted in principle. The currency in the political realm is opinion. Opinion is different from knowledge, and the fact of the matter is that it is most of the time false or merely commonsensically true.
“There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter... This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper)
The discourse in the political realm has not much to do with truth or reality but with myth, storytelling, gossip, second-guessing, propaganda, belief, paranoia, and entertainment. From this discourse, though, follow decisions that affect reality either in an intended or an unintended way.
Not all participants in the political discourse are equal with regard to opinion/knowledge about the issue under discussion. Some consider themselves or/and are considered by others as experts. There are two types of experts: practical and scientific. Scientists are supposed to have the most profound general knowledge which comes in the form of a materially and formally consistent theory. A theory is the best humanly possible mental representation of reality. Practical knowledge, on the other hand, is partial and limited.
So it may happen that knowledge is injected into the discourse and that it crowds out opinion to a greater or lesser degree. The underlying idea is that more knowledge improves the final decision and thereby the chance of success, i.e. the realization of the intended outcome.
The very characteristic of economics is that there is no clear-cut separation between politics and science. 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). And this is how economics became a failed science.
The current state is this: economics is NOT a science and the representative economist is NOT a scientist. The claim as expressed in the title “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is false.
What the general public cannot see is that economists do not have the true theory. That is rather bad because: “In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)
An economist who rises to speak in the political arena does not add objective scientific knowledge ― he has none ― but merely his opinion, educated common sense, and some specific institutional/practical knowledge. Specific knowledge is helpful for small-scale issues (e.g. employment in a firm) but of little use for large-scale issues (e.g. full employment in the world economy). Small-scale knowledge is always subject to the Fallacy of Composition, that is, it is true for a tiny part of the whole but false for the whole.
Economics in the proper sense is the science that figures out how the monetary economy works. The representative economist does not know how the economy works. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are all axiomatically false. Economics has not lived up to well-defined scientific standards in the last 200+ years. Whatever an economist argues for or against has NO sound scientific foundations.
What the general public cannot see is that ALL economists who rise to speak in the political realm are incompetent scientists. What economists communicate is NOT scientific knowledge but opinion. It does not matter whether the opinion is more rightist or more leftist, the loudspeaker of the economics profession from Krugman to Keen are stand-up comedians in the political Circus Maximus, not scientists. Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists can rightfully claim to speak in the name of science. What they actually do is abuse the aura of science to push an agenda. Therefore, all have to be expelled from the scientific community.
The public judges political economists by their expressed opinions. Opinion, though, is worthless, we have more than enough of it. The public cannot and does not judge economists by their scientific competence but assumes that it is guaranteed somehow. But this is not the case.
What the public cannot see is that economics is still at the proto-scientific level. To this day, the representative economist cannot tell the difference between profit and income, which are indisputably the foundational concepts of his subject matter.#1 Because economists never captured the essence of the market economy, they can neither diagnose systemic crises correctly nor solve them. Because there is no true economic theory ALL economic policy guidance is scientifically unfounded since Adam Smith. Whatever economists have said for or against capitalism, communism or socialism has been based upon provably false theories about how the monetary economy works.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details see cross-references Profit
Related 'There is NO such thing as an economic expert' and 'Political economics: a deadhead sitcom' and 'Economists: Jacks of all trades ― except economics' and 'Scientific suicide in the revolving door' and 'Economists ― medics or barber-surgeons?' and 'Economics: a science without scientists' and 'Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist' and 'Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists' and 'Beware of the moralizing economist' and 'Do first your macroeconomic homework!' and 'Legitimacy lost' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”'
***
REPLY to Sandwichman on Nov 21You say: “... have I ever mentioned to you that I am NOT an economist? As a self-proclaimed ‘scientist’ have you never heard of the concept of category error?”
I would like to come to a common understanding of what we are trying to achieve here on the EconoSpeak blog.
First of all, the only interesting thing is the economic content of a post. The author’s person or CV is of NO interest at all. Obviously, one cannot and does not make an identity check before one comment on a post.
This is a GOOD thing because the author’s personality and motives are only of interest in the realm of politics/entertainment but not in science. As Schumpeter put it: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”
The only question in scientific discourse is whether a statement is true or false. As Popper put it: “And a critical discussion is well-conducted if it is entirely devoted to one aim: to find a flaw in the claim that a certain theory presents a solution to a certain problem.”
The moment a second criterion is introduced all is lost. More specifically, the moment economics is mixed with politics the discourse goes down the drain. The reason is simple, a scientific discourse has a solution: true or false. Political discourse has no solution but is decided by a majority vote or authority or by throwing a coin.
It is well known from history that politics habitually tries to overrule science: “As some one has said, it would seem that even the theorems of Euclid would be challenged and doubted if they should be appealed to by one political party as against another.” (Fisher)
It is also well known that this happened in economics, which resulted in political economics producing nothing of scientific value in the last 200+ years.
What economics needs, first of all, is the strict separation of science and politics because politics de-focuses research: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack)
At the moment we have no true economic theory, i.e. a theory of how the monetary economy works that satisfies the well-defined scientific criteria of formal and material consistency. Economists are well-advised to bring their own house in order before they dabble in other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy, or political sciences.
Whether you are an economist or not is a matter of indifference. Only the economic content of your post matters. If you contribute to the necessary Paradigm Shift you are welcome to the economics discourse if you try to push a political agenda you are not. Flipping between economics and politics is the worst category error/mistake/blunder ever.
Related ‘Economists: the Trumps of science' and 'Economists are a menace to their fellow citizens’ and ‘Politics or Science? Decide and act accordingly’
***
REPLY to SandwichmanIt seems that you pick quotes out of your nose: “Egmont: But the Bible is NOT SCIENCE!”
Egmont never mentioned the Bible. What I said was “Economics is NOT a science and the representative economist is NOT a scientist.”
Bloomberg writes today: “Paul Romer says he really hadn’t planned to trash macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience. ... It just sort of happened.”
Bloomberg hails Romer as “The rebel who blew up macroeconomics” and tells the soap story of how the naive hero Romer almost unintentionally slaughtered the three-headed dragon of Orthodoxy. Bloomberg knows that economists swallow any junk. After all, they swallow supply-demand-equilibrium for 150+ years.
Where Romer is right is that economics is a pseudoscience. What is curious, though, is this: “His name is often raised during Nobel season ― this year, much to his chagrin, by his last academic home. In early October, New York University announced a press conference to congratulate Romer for winning the prize, then apologized for mistakenly posting a document it had prepared just in case he won. Which he didn’t.”
Of course not! Don’t they know in New York University the full title of the Prize? It is: “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” Sciences (plural) and NOT pseudoscience.
There seems to be widespread confusion about the scientific status of economics nowadays.#2 One thing, though, is certain, Romer is NOT a scientist but just another stand-up comedian in the Circus Maximus.
By the way, I really hadn’t planned to trash Sandwichman. . . . It just sort of happened.
#1 Source
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Scientific Incompetence and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references The Representative Economist and cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.
November 15, 2016
Economists: Jacks-of-all-trades ― except economics
Comment on Merijn Knibbe on ‘Global warming: bet on it’
Blog-Reference
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). And this is how economics became a failed science.
What is entirely missing among economists is an understanding of what science is all about. More specifically, economists miss their very subject matter. #1, #2 It is NOT the task of the economist to dabble in psychology, sociology, political sciences, geopolitics, law, history, anthropology, social philosophy, philosophy, pedagogics, biology/Darwinism, homeopathy, sport, art, etcetera. And it is NOT their task to dabble in climatology or epidemiology. Whether there is global warming in the short/long run and whether it is anthropogenic or not is a question that falls outside the scientific competence of economists. The main reason is that economists have NO scientific competence at all.
The proof is in the current state of economics. Economics is a failed science. More specifically, political economists have produced not much, if anything, of scientific value in the last 200+ years.
“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)
There is no such thing as a true economic theory. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, etc. ― are mutually contradictory and axiomatically false, that is, beyond repair. These failed approaches are in a zombie state ― dead but not buried ― waiting to be replaced by a superior paradigm.
What economists have produced so far is proto-scientific garbage: much political opinion but NO scientific knowledge, which comes in the form of a materially and formally consistent theory about how the actual economy works.
Both Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy are lost for science. Economists cannot be taken seriously ― not when they speak about the economy and still less when they talk about global warming or culture or history or politics or homeopathy.
Blog-Reference
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). And this is how economics became a failed science.
What is entirely missing among economists is an understanding of what science is all about. More specifically, economists miss their very subject matter. #1, #2 It is NOT the task of the economist to dabble in psychology, sociology, political sciences, geopolitics, law, history, anthropology, social philosophy, philosophy, pedagogics, biology/Darwinism, homeopathy, sport, art, etcetera. And it is NOT their task to dabble in climatology or epidemiology. Whether there is global warming in the short/long run and whether it is anthropogenic or not is a question that falls outside the scientific competence of economists. The main reason is that economists have NO scientific competence at all.
The proof is in the current state of economics. Economics is a failed science. More specifically, political economists have produced not much, if anything, of scientific value in the last 200+ years.
“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)
There is no such thing as a true economic theory. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, etc. ― are mutually contradictory and axiomatically false, that is, beyond repair. These failed approaches are in a zombie state ― dead but not buried ― waiting to be replaced by a superior paradigm.
What economists have produced so far is proto-scientific garbage: much political opinion but NO scientific knowledge, which comes in the form of a materially and formally consistent theory about how the actual economy works.
Both Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy are lost for science. Economists cannot be taken seriously ― not when they speak about the economy and still less when they talk about global warming or culture or history or politics or homeopathy.
The phenomenon that scientifically incompetent economists dabble in any discipline they choose comes under the label of economics imperialism. #3 It has nothing to do with interdisciplinarity but amounts to straightforward agenda-pushing/hijacking on behalf of the Oligarchy.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence
#2 Mental messies and loose losers
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence
#2 Mental messies and loose losers
#3 Wikipedia Economics imperialism
Related 'There is NO such thing as an economic expert' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”' and 'Economists’ foundational conceptual blunder' and 'The dumb economist ― a jack of all trades' and 'The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Incompetence and Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.
Related 'There is NO such thing as an economic expert' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”' and 'Economists’ foundational conceptual blunder' and 'The dumb economist ― a jack of all trades' and 'The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Incompetence and Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.
***
Graphic AXEC136g
Graphic AXEC175
Twitter/X Jan 16, 2025 In his farewell address Presiden Biden warns of the Oligarchy
For more AXEC comments search on X Biden Oligarchy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)