Objective principles of economics {57}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  Economists have the habit of solving the wrong problem. They speculate circumstantially about the behavior of agents and do not come to grips with the behavior of the monetary economy. This is the consequence of the methodological imperative that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals. The critical point is that no way leads from the understanding of the interaction of the individuals to the understanding of the working of the economy as a whole. The solution consists of moving from subjective-behavioral axioms to objective-structural axioms, i.e., from proto-scientific past to scientific future.

For the complete set of foundational equations — structural axioms and behavioral propensity function — see Graphic AXEC137b (previously AXEC61).

Profit for Marxists {56}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  Marxian economics and standard economics are widely different yet they share a central weakness: the respective profit theories are demonstrably false - each one in its own characteristic way. Roughly speaking, Marx tried to explain profit by objective factors while standard economics cites subjective factors. For different reasons, neither route led to satisfactory results. The conclusion is straightforward: one has to do better. The conceptual consequence is to first reconstruct the profit theory from a solid basis with no regard to either Marxian or standard premises. To succeed, objective-structural axioms have to be taken as a formal point of departure.

The truly General Theory of Employment: how Keynes could have succeeded {55}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  There is not much use to attack standard economics because deep in his heart the representative economist long knows that he is tied to a degenerating research program. The problem is, rather, that it seems to be exceedingly difficult to build up a convincing alternative. Keynes, for one, tried and was successful — albeit not fully. Unfortunately, he got some basics wrong. The conceptual consequence of the present paper is to discard the accustomed subjective-behavioral axioms and to take objective-structural axioms as the formal point of departure for the analysis of employment as the main practical issue of economics.

The logic of value and the value of logic {54}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  Jevons composed his value theory of nonentities. These creatures are elusive. Subsequent formal refinements did not eliminate the fundamental flaw but made it only harder to detect. A vacuous formal structure is one that cannot be interpreted in some domain. For want of any correspondence in the monetary economy, Jevons's approach could not produce viable results. Roughly speaking, Jevons made value dependent on subjective factors. This paper gives a rigorous formal proof that value is determined by objective conditions. Within the structural-axiomatic framework, there is no formal spare room for the major behavioral nonentities utility, optimization, rational expectations, and equilibrium.

For the complete set of foundational equations — structural axioms, definitions, and behavioral propensity function — see Graphic AXEC61.

Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the end of economics as we know it {53}

Working Paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  Krugman has recently revitalized IS-LM with a number of succinct analytical pieces on his blog. The reverberations were remarkable. Economists, however, are known often not grasp the full content of their own and, a fortiori, of others' models. This happened to Keynes in the days of high theory and to Krugman these days. Keynes applied a defect formalism, which is here replaced by objective-structural axioms. This yields the correct relationship between retained profit, saving, and investment which in turn makes it clear after the event that the IS-part of the IS-LM construct had been logically defective ab initio.

Loanable funds vs endogenous money: Krugman is wrong, Keen is right {52}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  In his recent article, Keen resumes the debate with Krugman about the effects of debt upon the economy. It is hard to see how the question can be settled as long as all participants apply their idiosyncratic models. Hence the issue boils down, as Krugman rightly put it, to the deeper question: “how should one do economics.” Sketched with a broad brush, the consensus is that Orthodoxy has failed and that Heterodoxy has no convincing alternative to offer. The conceptual consequence of the present paper is to restart from a firm common formal ground. This relocation makes the debate solvable.

Nominal and real distribution

Comment on 'Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor'

Blog-Reference

The crucial point is this. General equilibrium models are “real” in the sense that money and nominal magnitudes play no role. In a more critical vein it can be said that these models cannot deal with a monetary economy at all. Yet, as we all know, that is the economy we live in. Hence the “real” core of standard economics has, as a matter of principle, nothing to say about the real reality.

You correctly point out that the example I have taken from Cassidy is odd because the criterion of Pareto-efficiency applies in the strict sense exclusively to a “real” model.

This, however, is forgotten when it comes to the discussion about efficient markets and optimal allocation. For a monetary economy the efficiency results have never been proven. It is only by analogy that people think that, admittedly under idealized conditions, the price system works also in a monetary economy towards Pareto-efficiency. Cassidy's example is a case in point. But Cassidy is only echoing Hayek.

The really odd thing is that you have readily identified the weak spot but that Cassidy himself and the referees, proofreaders, consultants and whoever was involved in producing his qualitatively outstanding book overlooked it. It seems that Cassidy never got a critical comment from a neoclassical economist about the misrepresentation of the Pareto criterion.

My idea of resolving the problem is simply not to apply the Pareto criterion to the monetary economy. It was not designed for this environment and it is positively misleading in any discussion about the working of the price system. If you accept Pareto-efficiency as a benchmark then most real-world markets “fail”. Is a thunderstorm a “failure” of an otherwise optimal weather system? Definitively not. The Pareto criterion establishes an unacceptable frame of reference.

In sum: The marvel of the price system consists not so much in informational and allocative efficiency, which is not defined for the monetary economy with flexible nominal prices, but in smooth real redistribution.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke