July 19, 2018

What’s the use of economists?

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘What’s the use of economics?’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 21

Lars Syll summarizes: “Much work done in mainstream theoretical economics is devoid of any explanatory interest. And not only that. Seen from a strictly scientific point of view, it has no value at all. It is a waste of time.”

True. The state of economics is this: theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years.

Economics, though, is not alone orthodox economics but also heterodox economics. The fact is that Heterodoxy has been complicit in the failure. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. As a result of the utter scientific incompetence of the representative economist, what has been achieved is the pluralism of provably false theories.#1, #2

The simple fact of the matter is that economists ― orthodox or heterodox do not matter ― are either stupid or corrupt or both. Take note:

(i) Economics is not a science but what Feynman called a cargo cult science.
(ii) To maintain that economics is a social science is the foundational blunder. Economics is a systems science.#3
(iii) Economists have not figured out to this day how the price- and profit mechanism works.#4
(iv) Economists have not even figured out what profit is.#5
(v) Economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics of macroeconomic accounting.#6
(vi) Walrasian Micro and Keynesian Macro are both built upon false premises/axioms.#7 Because of this, the whole analytical superstructures are scientifically worthless. The same holds for Marxianism and Austrianism.
(vii) Economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations since Adam Smith/Karl Marx.
(viii) Economists have been political agenda pushers/useful political idiots from day one onward.

Economists are storytellers. Economics is a failed science. All microfounded (Walrasian) and macrofounded (Keynesian) models are provably false. Economists do not know how the economy works. Economics is a cargo cult science. The ‘Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ is a fraud. Heterodoxy has always been complicit in the fraud.

What’s the use of scientifically incompetent economists? Ask those who use them.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Economics: a science without scientists
#2 And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization
#3 For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior
#4 For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists
#5 Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods
#6 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism
#7 The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo


REPLY to Andrew Anderson on Jul 20

You say: “I’d first ask what’s the use of the Fundamental Accounting Equation, Assets=Equity+Liabilities, with Liabilities that are largely a sham?”

The Fundamental Accounting Equation Assets=Equity+Liabilities is methodological garbage that proves only one thing: economists are too stupid for the elementary logic/ mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting. The formally correct equation reads Equity≡Assets−Liabilities.#1

For 200+ years, economists do not understand what science is all about and what the subject matter of economics is. This includes Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMTers, Lars Syll, Tom Hickey, Matt Franko, and you.

#1 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)


REPLY to Matt Franko on Jul 20

What’s the use of economists?

It would certainly be a good thing if economists could increase scientific knowledge about how the monetary economy works. They have done nothing of the sort in the last 200+ years.

Does Tom Hickey’s and Matt Franko’s blather about methodology and the curriculum at Wharton and elsewhere contribute to anything that is of interest to anybody?

No, not at all, as far as scientific knowledge is concerned. But to filibuster about God, his wife, his poor qualification, and the rest of the world is a tried and tested method to distract from the point at issue. The point at issue is that MMTers are failed/fake scientists and that MMT is (i) proto-scientific garbage, and (ii), a political fraud.

While economists are useless for science, even the dumbest moron is useful as a sand sack in political warfare.


REPLY to Matt Franko on Jul 20

Questions for Matt Franko and other certified cargo cult scientists.

From the axiomatically correct Profit Law for the open economy with government and profit distribution follows the AXEC balances equation (i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0#1 which compares directly to the MMT balances equation (ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0.#2

(a) Which of the equations satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency?
(b) Why do economists/mathematicians with university training not know the correct answer?#3
(c) How could it happen that academics propagate a provably false balances equation in their seminars and in public?

#1 Wikimedia AXEC143d Profit Law and Balances Equation
#2 Down with idiocy!
#3 Truth by definition? The Profit Theory is axiomatically false for 200+ years

REPLY to Tom Hickey on Jul 21

The objective of economics is the true theory about how the economic system works, with truth well-defined as material/formal consistency. Instead of filibustering about the right methodology, it would be more effective to practically apply it and to report what new insights you have achieved. As J. S. Mill said: “Doubtless, the most effectual mode of showing how the sciences of Ethics and Politics may be constructed, would be to construct them . . . “

Instead of doing serious scientific work, you are promoting already falsified theories and scientifically incompetent economists.

A philosopher is supposed to contribute to the growth of scientific knowledge. As a soapbox philosopher (= Sophist in Plato’s terms) you are only heightening the already outsized heap of proto-scientific BS.


Wikimedia AXEC144