December 30, 2014

Axiomatization and testing (I)

Comment on Lars Syll on 'Mainstream macroeconomics distorts our understanding of economic reality'

All my papers are on SSRN. Please click here.

The papers start with structural axioms. This is the formally correct way to do economics. For an instant view of the axiom set click Wikimedia AXEC04c.

You are mistaken to think that axiomatization has automatically something to do with set theory:
“Thus not all axiomatic theories need to be phrased in terms of set theory but much more conveniently and intelligibly rather in terms of some advanced mathematical structures.” (Schmiechen, 2009, p. 367)

For a clear definition of the structural axiom set see my recent papers (2014b; 2014a) or any earlier paper.

You write: “I could be wrong of course; I didn’t see much in the way of testable predictions in the papers as well.” You are wrong, as you might even know for sure. All structural axiomatic theorems are testable and if it does not stress you too much you could go back to my post of December 15, where I explicitly invited testing.

If you ― as a rare exception ― plan to read first what you are going to filibuster about next I recommend my paper Confused Confusers (2013). You are one of a crowd.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like
an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist. SSRN Working Paper Series,
2207598: 1–16. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014a). Objective Principles of Economics. SSRN Working
Paper Series, 2418851: 1–19. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014b). The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics:
Profit, I=S, Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2489792: 1–13. URL
Schmiechen, M. (2009). Newton’s Principia and Related ‘Principles’ Revisited,
volume 1. Norderstedt: BoD Books on Demand, 2nd edition. URL