June 28, 2017

Marx, the moron

Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘Why libertarians should read Marx’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 4 adapted to context and Blog-Reference

There are political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, and 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 consists of the major approaches of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism that are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. All got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong.

Marx, clearly, was NOT a scientist but a political agenda pusher. However, after the scientific triumphs of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Laplace, Leibniz etcetera agenda-pushing had to be dressed up as science. This gave rise to what Feynman called cargo cult sciences.

What Marx did was sociology, history, storytelling, prophecy, and agenda-pushing. He had NO idea of how the monetary economy works because he never figured out what profit is.#1 That is rather bad for an economist but what is worse is that After-Marxians did not spot and rectify Marx’s blunders to this very day.

What we actually have is the pluralism of provably false theories. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism look antagonistic on the surface but have one essential thing in common: they are all fake science.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Profit for Marxists

Related 'Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud' and 'The end of political economics' and 'Profit and stupidity' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?' and 'The activist is no scientist, the scientist is no activist'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

For more about Karl Marx see AXECquery.

REPLY to Tom Hickey on Jun 30

Your profit theory is false and because of this your whole economic theory is false and, as a consequence, all your policy proposals are worthless or even counterproductive. For details see
Profit and stupidity
Economists: scientists or political clowns?

COMMENT on Jun 30

Why libertarians should NOT read Marx ― and vice versa ― and why both should get out of economics and switch on the TV and look at sitcoms instead:
Profit and stupidity
Economists: scientists or political clowns?

REPLY to B. L. Zebub on Jul 1

“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)

Economists do NOT have the true theory. The four major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and ALL got the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong.#1

Economics is scientifically worthless. Marx and Smith and the rest are storytellers: “… in fact he [Adam Smith] disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter). Same with Marx.

Economics claims to be a science but is NOT. Economists claim to know how the economy works but do NOT. Neither Libertarian nor Marxian economic policy guidance ever had sound scientific foundations. From the Wealth and the Capital up to the present economic texts have less scientific content than the Beatles’ Songbook.#2

#1 Economists: scientists or political clowns?
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption