November 30, 2018

“We have sunk very low”

Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘Trump More Seriously Kowtows To MBS’


Barkley Rosser, the failed economist, gives first priority to gossip, agenda pushing, False-Hero-Worshipping, buddy promotion, and last priority to serious scientific work.

Barkley Rosser complains that the White House has recently sunk to a very low level. This distracts from the fact that the representative economist is already 200+ years on a very low level with regard to scientific ethics and integrity.#1

Economics had been captured from the beginning by political agenda pushers. Political economics has produced nothing of scientific value from Adam Smith/Karl Marx onward to DSGE, New Keynesianism, and heterodox Pluralism.

On EconoSpeak, the representative economists Barkley Rosser and Sandwichman gossip, blather, disinform, misinform, distract, applaud one another, manipulate their blogs, and suppress posts they do not like. They have been on a very low level long before the White House.

Curiously, despite its poor scientific quality, EconoSpeak is regularly recommended by Mark Thoma of Economist’s View.#2

Now, Economist’s View is a respected hub of economic information exchange and they surely do not promote political crap and suppress posts they do not like?

Yes, they do.

The only true text line that Barkley Rosser has ― unintentionally ― spoken on behalf of the representative economist is: “We have sunk very low”.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Fake religion, fake science, fake news, and false complaints
#2 For example here and here

Related 'Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere' and 'When fake scientists call out on fake politicians' and 'Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder' and 'Beware of the moralizing economist' and 'Economists’ rude awakening' and 'The end of political economics' and 'How to make economics a science'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.


NOTE on Sandwichman on Apr 3, 2019

You and Barkley Rosser have NO idea what profit is but you blather about economics.

You have NO idea what history is but you blather about the Frankfurt School and Adorno. Of course, as a jack-of-all-trades blatherer you miss the crucial point: “In the June of 1934 issue of the Nazi monthly Die Musik, Adorno could be found recommending Baldur von Schirach’s chorus cycle Die Fahne der Verfolgten, ‘not only because this volume has a distinctly Nazi character because of the choice of his poetry, but also because of its quality’. Later in the same article, Adorno called for ‘a new romanticism … perhaps of the sort that Goebbels has called romantic realism.” (Jones)

On the other hand, Barkley Rosser solves in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes the Khashoggi case in ten minutes from his writing desk: “He is guilty guilty guuilty”.

All this BS is fictively crowned with self-produced applause: “… the essay is excellent.” (Anonymous)

One wonders what EconoSpeak is really good for and what is going on in academia. After all, this Sandwichman/Rosser proto-scientific garbage is regularly recommended per link by Mark Thoma, Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, on the central information hub Economist’s View.

REPLY to Sandwichman on Mar 3

You assert: “You say that I ‘blather on about the Frankfurt School and Adorno.’ You are a liar. The name ‘Adorno’ has not appeared in any of the three installments I have posted so far.”

See above in your article: “One of the entries in that bibliography was The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance by Rolf Wiggershaus. Lind quoted a passage from the book’s ‘Afterword’ ‘Since the publication in 1970 of his book The Poverty of Critical Theory, Rohrmoser has promulgated, in constantly varying forms, the view that Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer were the terrorists’ intellectual foster-parents, who were using cultural revolution to destroy the traditions of the Christian West’.”

You write about the Frankfurt School without proper historical research. Needless to emphasize that you do not even know what you have posted four days ago. No further demonstrations of your scientific incompetence are needed.

Apr 4