January 7, 2017

A heterodox pushback or just another shot in the foot?

Comment on Peter Radford on ‘The Market Turn’


Most economists have no proper understanding of what economics is all about. Therefore it is, first of all, of utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false and NOTHING else. The history of political economics from Adam Smith to DSGE/Post Keynesianism can be summarized as utter scientific failure. A closer look at the history of economic thought shows that theoretical economics had been hijacked from the very beginning by the agenda pushers of political economics. Smith and Ricardo fought for Liberalism, Marx and Keynes were agenda pushers, so were Hayek and Friedman, and so are Krugman and Varoufakis.

Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. The current state of economics is that of a cargo cult or fake science.

Any heterodox critique of the Nobel Prize is misplaced because traditional Heterodoxy, too, is proto-scientific rubbish and political agenda pushing.#1,#2

There is NO place for Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy in the history of scientific thought. It is ALL brain-dead political blather.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The real problem with the economics Nobel
#2 When fake scientists call out on fake politicians