September 29, 2016

The real problem with the economics Nobel

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘The Nobel factor — the prize in economics that spearheaded the neoliberal revolution’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 3 and Blog-Reference on Oct 10 and Blog-Reference on Jun 8, 2017, adapted to context

Lars Syll argues that the economics Nobel is politically biased: “... the prize was thought to take advantage of the connection with the true Nobel prizes and spearhead a market-oriented neoliberal reshaping of the world.” (See intro)

This is a minor problem, the real problem is in the title: “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

The keyword is Science[s]. Why not simply “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics”? The original title clearly communicates the claim that economics is a science. This claim is as old as Adam Smith/Karl Marx.

Science is well-defined by the criteria of formal and material consistency: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant, 1994)

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the criteria of formal and material consistency. It is a provable fact that neither Walrasianism, nor Keynesianism, nor Marxianism, nor Austrianism is materially/formally consistent.

Accordingly, economics is not a science (or sciences) but what Feynman famously called a cargo cult science.

The Bank of Sweden is legitimized to award prizes to whoever it wants and to push any political agenda it wants. The Bank, though, is NOT legitimized to declare economics as science well knowing that economics has not lived up to scientific standards since the founding fathers.

The scientific community has to see to it, firstly, that the word ‘sciences’ is eliminated from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences”. The general public has to be informed that the 200-year-old claim and the actual state of economics do not match and that ALL economic policy guidance, i.e. independently of political orientation, lacks a sound scientific foundation. It follows, secondly, that economists have to be expelled from the scientific community. It follows, thirdly, that organizations like AEA, Royal Economic Society, Verein für Socialpolitik etcetera refrain from speaking in the name of science.

The real problem with the Bank of Sweden Prize is that it may give rise to a claim for damages in the case of severe depression/unemployment which is ultimately caused by provably false economic theory.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Related 'Swedish muddle' and 'Swedish economists — what’s that?' and 'Economics: the simple logic of failure' and 'Scientists and science actors' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'Economists: the Trumps of science' and 'When fake scientists call out on fake politicians' and 'The economics Cargo Cult Prize' and 'Economics is NOT a science of behavior' and 'As Napoleon said: don’t listen to economists' and 'Why does Heterodoxy not abolish the fake Nobel?' and 'Legitimacy lost' and '10 steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good' and 'The trouble with economics prizes' and 'Links on the Economics Nobel'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

Immediately following Great souls’ methodology


COMMENT and COMMENT on 'Oliver Hart, Laureate in Economic Sciences' on Dec 13

Economics is a failed science. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are contradictory and axiomatically false. See The real problem with the economics Nobel.

In order NOT to mislead the general public, the word 'Sciences' has to be deleted from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

Twitter 2019 Oct 8

Twitter 2019 Oct 8

Twitter 2020 Nov 28

Twitter Jan 30, 2022

Twitter Oct 10, 2022 What the EconNobel rewards ― not science to be sure

Twitter Oct 15, 2020