December 30, 2014


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


“In tradition standard economic textbooks, the market phenomena are described in the framework of laws of supply and demand and market equilibrium. Historically this framework has been widely criticized over centuries by different schools of economic thoughts. However, other economic schools have not come up with a different and convincing framework.” (Wayne, 2014, p. 14)

There is no understanding of the fundamental economic phenomena. This is what Heterodoxy has always criticized. So far, so good. Yet, Lawson's new ontology/methodology also flatlined (2012), thus verifying Popper ― at least as economics methodology is concerned: “Profound truths are not to be expected of methodology.” (Popper, 1980, p. 54)

The dustbin is full. Time to come up with a consistent theoretical framework.

“It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science.” (G. C. Evans, in Weintraub, 2002, p. 57)

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Crisis and Methodology: Some Heterodox Misunderstandings.
SSRN Working Paper Series, 2083519: 1–22. URL
Popper, K. R. (1980). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Melbourne,
Sydney: Hutchison, 10th edition.
Wayne, J. J. (2014). Fundamental Equation of Economics. SSRN Working Paper
Series, 2522492: 1–31. URL
Weintraub, E. R. (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, London: Duke University Press.