December 19, 2017

Keynes’ intellectual non-existence

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Keynes’ intellectual revolution’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference Dec 21 adapted to context and Blog-Reference Dec 22 and Blog-Reference Dec 23

Keynesianism is a failed approach, more precisely, Keynesianism is axiomatically false and materially/formally inconsistent. This is a proven fact.#1 Because the underlying theory is false in all dimensions, Keynesian policy guidance NEVER has had sound scientific foundations.

So, the question is why are there still Keynesians around 80+ years after the General Theory and why have neither pro- nor anti-Keynesians spotted Keynes’ lethal error/mistake/ blunder to this day?

Here is where Keynesianism went straight into the deep woods: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, p. 63)

This syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes NEVER came to grips with profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Because profit is ill-defined the WHOLE analytical superstructure of Keynesianism is false.#2

While Keynes was right in rejecting the microfoundations approach, he simultaneously messed up the macrofoundations approach.#3 Because both Walrasianism and Keynesianism are materially/formally inconsistent any synthesis of the two is merely a bad joke.#4

So, Keynes messed up Profit Theory#5 and Employment Theory#6 but both pro and anti-Keynesians never realized anything. After-Keynesians and Flat-Earthers are intellectually at the same level.#7

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 For details see cross-references Keynesianism
#3 From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm
#4 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#5 Profit Theory in less than 5 minutes
#6 Demand-led and wage-led growth
#7 Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science

Related 'What is dead certain in an uncertain world: economists’ abysmal incompetence' and 'Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy' and 'Post Keynesianism, too, is proto-scientific garbage'.

Wikimedia AXEC121g


Economists claim to do science and communicate this every year to the general public with the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. Whether the claim to be a science is self-delusion or fraud does not matter much. Fact is:
• the Profit Theory is false for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium) are inconsistent for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S, IS-LM) are inconsistent for 80+ years.

Economics is a failed science or what Feynman called a cargo cult science. Fact No 1: There are opinions and brain-dead blather, this is called politics. There are knowledge and proof, this is called science. Economics is 99 percent politics. Fact No 2: Theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists = agenda pushers like Smith and Marx. Fact No 3: Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in 200+ years. Fact No 4: Walrasianism, Keynesianism/MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism is mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. Fact No 5: Both orthodox and heterodox economists are quite content with the pluralism of false theories, they do not have any real scientific ambitions.#1 Fact No 6: Economics never rose above the proto-scientific level. Fact No 7: Debates between orthodox and heterodox economists have zero scientific content and are if anything, pure propaganda/disinformation exercises.

Either economics gets now rid of its scientifically incompetent Walrasians, Keynesians/MMTers, Marxians, Austrians, or science gets officially rid of economics.#2

#1 How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum
#2 Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science