October 28, 2017

Lethal criticism of economics? Here it is!

Comment on Cameron Murray on ‘Decent criticisms of economics? Here are 111 of them.’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Economists are scientifically incompetent. In colloquial terms, both orthodox and heterodox economists are stupid or corrupt or both.

Economics is a failed science for 200+ years. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. With the pluralism of provably false theories, economics is what Feynman called a cargo cult science.#1

What the representative economist does not understand until this day is that economics is NOT a science of behavior and that both Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are false.#2 Methodologically it holds: if it isn’t properly macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics at all.#3

The decent criticism of economics is insufficient and counterproductive: “The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory.” (Blaug)#4

Economics is a failed science and incompetent critics like fresh-thinker Murray are an essential ingredient of the mess.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake scientists
#3 Ten steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good
#4 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy