June 28, 2018

Beware of the moralizing economist

Comment on David Glasner on ‘The Monumental Dishonesty and Appalling Bad Faith of Chief Justice Roberts’s Decision’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jun 29

David Glasner applauds the exposure of “the moral rot underlying the horrific Supreme Court decision handed down today approving the Muslim ban, truly, …, a decision that will live in infamy …” and concludes his post with: “But in doing so, Chief Justice Roberts only provides further evidence of his own consciousness of wrongdoing and his stunning display of bad faith.”

The first thing to notice is that whatever the whole post is about it is NOT economics. Now, the economist as a scientist is supposed to figure out how the monetary economy works. Science is about IS not OUGHT and because of this, a scientist is NOT supposed to pass moral judgment. Science is about knowledge with truth well-defined as material and formal consistency. As a matter of principle, all moral issues have to be discussed in the political realm and ultimately decided by the Legitimate Sovereign. The economist takes part in this process just like any other citizen and NOT in his capacity as a scientist.#1

The problem with economists is that they are incompetent scientists and have NOT figured out to this day how the economy works. The fact is that neither right-wing nor left-wing policy guidance ever had sound scientific foundations. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism is mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong.

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 (= science) had been captured from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years.

Political economics is NOT science but agenda pushing and the communicative tools of agenda-pushing are not proof or logical/empirical refutation but rhetoric and moralizing and attention management in all variants from like/dislike to hype/condemnation.

Science and politics are entirely different realms and they run on incompatible principles. Both realms have to be kept strictly apart because politics always and everywhere corrupts science. This happened in economics.#2, #3, #4

To comment on Supreme Court decisions is NOT the business of the economist. The exposure of “the moral rot” of the judiciary is NOT the business of the economist.

The morality of the economist consists of adherence to the ethics of science. The ethics of science requires first and foremost to uphold the strict separation of science and politics.#5

Political economics is a monument of dishonesty and bad faith. The only problem of economists in general and David Glasner, in particular, is the “the moral rot” of economics.#6

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 The moralizing economist is not a good guy but a fake scientist
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics
#3 Economics: a science without scientists
#4 Mirowski, Money and the Unflappable Economist
#5 Scientific suicide in the revolving door
#6 For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

Related 'Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics' and 'Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud' and 'The economist as moralist' and 'Knowledge vs. Belief'' and 'Ditch scientific incompetence!' and 'Political economists ― the village idiots of science' and 'The ethics of science is consistency ― economics is inconsistent' and 'Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole' and 'Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show' and 'Do first your macroeconomic homework!' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science'.

For more about ethics see AXECquery.

REPLY to Frank Restly on Jun 30

You say: “Please remember that the science of economics is based upon political/legal constructs – not some ‘natural law’ that exists throughout the known universe.”

Please remember that the science of economics is NOT a social science but a systems science.#1 And while there is NO such thing as behavioral/social laws there exist systemic laws. These are the subject matter of economics.

Please remember that economists have to this day not figured out the systemic laws of the monetary economy.

Please remember that economists can to this day not say what profit is and what the macroeconomic Profit Law states and implies.#2

Please remember that economics does not satisfy to this day the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.

Please remember that it is the first duty of the scientist to look after the scientific and moral rot of his own discipline.#3

#1 For details see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior
#2 Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods
#3 For details see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

REPLY to Frank Restly on Jul 3

You say: “Those systemic laws are laws created by man and subject to change.”

You are playing with the double sense of the word law. Laws in the scientific sense are NOT created by man but are what Nozick has called invariances.#1

The monetary economy is a system and subject to objective-systemic laws e.g. the Profit Law or the Employment Law.#2

You say: “And sure there are accounting identities that equate one person’s expenditure with another’s income.”

These alleged accounting identities are provably false because economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics of accounting.#3 The statement that one person’s expenditure is another person’s income is the fundamental blunder of economics.#4, #5, #6

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. With this pluralism of provably false theories, economics does not satisfy the well-defined criteria of science.#7 Economics is a failed science but economists award themselves the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. This is the ultimate “Monumental Dishonesty and Appalling Bad Faith” that catapults economists forever out of the scientific community.

#1 Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation
#2 False and true economic laws
#3 For details see cross-references Accounting
#4 Macro for dummies
#5 Humpty Dumpty is back again
#6 MMT and the magical profit disappearance
#7 The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo

REPLY to Frank Restly on Jul 5

You said: “Those systemic laws are laws created by man and subject to change.”

This proves that you are methodologically light-years behind the curve. In very general terms, science is about invariances: “An objective fact is one that is invariant under all admissible transformations.” (Nozick) Translated into economics this means that economists have to figure out the systemic economic laws that underlay the ever-changing historical surface.#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 lack the true theory. The fact is that economics is a failed science. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

Economics is a cargo cult science but claimed since Adam Smith / Karl Marx to be a science. This is nothing but “Monumental Dishonesty and Appalling Bad Faith”.

#1 The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History


Wikimedia AXEC136g