November 19, 2018

Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp

Comment on Matt Franko/Nick Rowe on 'Why is macroeconomics so hard to teach?'

Blog-Reference

Macro is hard to teach because it is failed/fake science. Nick Rowe, according to The Economist “a master of the craft”, realized nothing during his whole career. Too bad for his poor students. For details see:
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'Economics: No method to the madness' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model'.

***
AXEC136


***
#DrainTheScientificSwamp on Nov 20

Both Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are materially and formally inconsistent, that is, scientifically worthless. In order to advance from brain-dead storytelling to science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from provably false Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT to true macrofoundations.#1, #2

Economics is a failed/fake science and MMTers are part of it.


#1 New Economic Thinking: The 10 crucial points
#2 If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics

***
REPLY to Matt Franko on Nov 20

Science is well-defined: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)

Often, research comes to the conclusion that a theory is materially/formally inconsistent. In this case, one has a failed theory. The Flat Earth Theory is a case in point. This theory is NO longer part of the scientific process.

In economics, things are special insofar as the four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― and all variants thereof are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit ― the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― wrong.

Thus, economics is a failed/fake science or what Feynman called a cargo cult science.#1

Your assertion: “There is no such thing as a ‘failed science’... science is a process...” proves that you are so far behind the curve that it is worse than comical.#2

The point is that economists in their utter scientific corruption simply sweep clear-cut refutation under the carpet: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941)

Take notice that MMT has been refuted. To “continue to write about it as if nothing had happened” is an act of plain scientific corruption.


#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#2 Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics

***
REPLY to S400 on Nov 20

The Economist summarizes: “Macroeconomic theorists disagree on almost everything. That is one of the reasons it is such a hard subject to teach.”

In other words, after 200+ years there is still no such thing as macroeconomics. And microeconomics is known to be a bad joke. So, there is NO economics.

Peirce said: “That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.”

Economists never got out of the swamp of worthless opinions and never reached the firm ground of scientific knowledge.

The intelligent layman can refute every supply-demand-equilibrium teacher.#1 Economics students, though, swallow this proto-scientific garbage hook, line, and sinker for generations.

MMT, too, is provably false. You neither understand the proof nor its far-reaching implications.


#1 How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down

***
REPLY to S400 on Nov 21

Science is about true/false and nothing else. So, tell the blog audience which of the two macroeconomic relations a.k.a. sectoral balances equations is true/false
(i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 
(ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0

Nick Rowe, who is regarded among his silly academic peers as “a master of the craft”, could not do it.#1, #2

“That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.” (Peirce)

So, this is the big chance of your sorry troll existence: settle the pivotal question of macroeconomics.

Perhaps one of the MMT geniuses, Mitchell, Mosler, Kelton, Tcherneva, Wray, Fullwiler, Forstater, Kaboub, Pettifor, Keen, Tymoigne, Willingham, Grumbine, Murphy, etcetera, can help you.


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

***

REPLY to Matt Franko, S400, Andrew Anderson, Konrad, Noah Way on Nov 22

The question of this thread is: “Why is macroeconomics so hard to teach?”

The answer is: “Because there is NO valid macroeconomics.

Why?

Because economists in general, and MMTers in particular, cannot answer the simple question of which of the two macroeconomic relations is true/false:
(i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
(ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0.#1

After having flunked the intelligence test at the entry-level, the MMT promotion team should focus on what they are really good at. As Matt Franko said: “You are authorized to return to your finger painting...”


#1 MMT is idiocy and fraud

***
Wikimedia AXEC121i