August 29, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economists are not scientists but agenda pushers and self-promoter


Occasional Tweets: Economists have no idea how the economy works but can tell a lot of stories about it


For more about storytelling see AXECquery

Occasional Tweets: How the monetary economy works


August 28, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Accounting identities ― false since Keynes


For details of the big picture see cross-references Accounting and cross-references Math/Mathiness.

Occasional Tweets: How to fix economics


For details of the big picture see cross-references Scientific Incompetence and cross-references Paradigm Shift and cross-references Axiomatization.

Occasional Tweets: Keynes and Post Keynesians ― too stupid for science


For details of the big picture cross-references Keynesianism.

August 27, 2021

Occasional Tweets: "All economics is woo woo"


Occassional Tweets: Odd ― economists can explain the Taliban but not how the economy works


Occasional Tweets: Economists ― fake fighters for a better world


August 25, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Kalecki, too, got macroeconomics badly wrong


For more about Kalecki see AXECquery

August 21, 2021

Occasional Tweets: MMT trolls ― dumb but very busy (I)



For more about Stephanie Kelton see AXECquery

Occasional Tweets: The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure (II)


August 20, 2021

Occasional Tweets: That friday feeling about economics


Occasional Tweets: How Post Keynesianism was buried at the Flat-Earth Cemetery


For more about Keynesianism see AXECquery


August 18, 2021

Occasional Tweets: NONENTITIES ― the stuff employment theory has always been made of


For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve.

For more about NONENTITY see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: MMT ― political economics ― agenda-pushing for the Oligarchy


For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT 

August 15, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economics ― truly global incompetence


August 12, 2021

Occasional Tweets: IS-LM ― still a landmark of utter scientific incompetence


For details of the big picture see cross-references Refutation of I=S 

Occasional Tweets: Economists and their scientifically lethal lack of logic


Occasional Tweets: Climate, deficit, profit


For more about the Green New Deal GND see AXECquery

August 10, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Gossip economics (III)



 Gossip / Blather / Drivel

The history of economic thought proves that economists are unfit for science.

August 9, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Wage-led growth


For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve.  

Occasional Tweets: Joint explosions ― pandemic, macroeconomic profit, public debt


Occasional Tweets: Test your economics professor's IQ


August 7, 2021

What is economics? (II)

Comment on James Galbraith on ‘What is economics?’*

James Galbraith claims that
  • economics is a policy discipline,
  • economics co-evolves with circumstances, and is historically contingent,
  • economic theories are a byproduct of the social order that spawns them,
  • the economy is a complex system, appropriate generalizations, simplifications, heuristics, and principles are to be derived from a study of the actual world,
  • mathematical systems are inadequate when they start from the dead dogmas of the neoclassical mainstream: ex nihilo nihil fit,
  • the history of economic thought/hallucination crashed against the wall of reality with the Great Financial Crisis 2007-09 and the Pandemic of 2020.

Without going into details the sum is: economics as a policy discipline is scientifically worthless from the founding fathers onward to this day. The problem is this: “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)

Lacking sound scientific foundations, economic policy guidance has never been more than personal opinion.#1

However, these things, “… even the dimmest observer of real-existing capitalism already knew.” The point is, again and again: “The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory.” (Blaug)

Even the dimmest economist knows by now that it takes a Paradigm Shift to get out of the swamp of cargo cult science. However, this is beyond the means of the representative economist. To this day, neither orthodox nor heterodox economists got the foundational concept of economics ― profit ― right.

Here is the unassailable proof: in his General Theory, Keynes asserted: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (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.)#2, #3

So, Keynes never got macroeconomic profit right and neither did pro- or anti-Keynesians to this day. Folks who cannot do the elementary algebra of macrofoundations cannot do the Paradigm Shift. Their contribution to human welfare/progress consists of burying themselves in a dark corner of the Flat-Earth-Cemetery.

James Galbraith maintains: “The purpose of economic reasoning is to inform and buttress political and social choices.” That sounds plausible but is false. It is the credo of the agenda pusher.#4 The credo of the scientist is: “The purpose of economic reasoning is to figure out how the economy works.”

The criterion for the scientist is truth, i.e. material/formal consistency, and NOT usefulness. The scientist produces new knowledge and nobody can know in advance whether and for whom it is “useful”.

Economists never understood this, but genuine scientists did: “At one point in that 100 years, Lord Ernest Rutherford was visited by a minister of the Queen. He proudly and busily demonstrated what he had learned about radio. The minister said that’s all very good, but what is it good for. Lord Rutherford replied that he did not know, but he guaranteed that at some point the government would tax it.”#5

To this day, economists are not scientists but useful idiots for the Oligarchy. This is what “economics is a policy discipline” means. All these fake scientists have to be expelled from the sciences.#6

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

* RWER blog

For more about science see AXECquery.
For more about Paradigm Shift see AXECquery.

Wikimedia AXE136f

August 5, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Marx/Engels (I)


Occasional Tweets: Profit is the same in Capitalism and Communism


For more about profit see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: The microfoundations/ macrofoundations issue finally resolved


For more on microfoundations see AXECquery.
For more on macrofoundations see AXECquery

August 4, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Flow-Balance-Inconsistency ― inscription on the gravestone of economics


For more about inconsistency see AXECquery.
For more about fallacy see AXECquery.
For more about Humpty Dumpty Fallacy see AXECquery.

August 3, 2021

What is economics? (I)

Comment on James Galbraith on ‘What is economics?’*

James Galbraith's first sentence reads: “Economics is a policy discipline” and it is false. Because the premise is false the rest of his argument is false.

Economics is a science. The first thing to know about science is that it is ontologically different from politics. The strict separation of science and politics is imperative because politics corrupts everything. This happened to economics.#1

There are two economixes: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, 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 hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Economics is a failed science, or, in Feynman's term a cargo cult science. The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is a fraud because there is NO such thing as economic sciences.

Right policy depends on true theory. Economists do NOT have the true theory. So, economic policy guidance (left/center/right does not matter) NEVER has had sound scientific foundations. Economists are NOT scientists but clowns/useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.#2 James Galbraith is no exception.

Science is defined by material/formal consistency: “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)#3

The fact is: the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, Pluralism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and ALL got the foundational economic concepts of profit/income/value wrong.#4, #5, #6

The fact that economists have in 200+ years not gotten their foundational concepts right is disqualifying. To this day, economics is proto-scientific garbage, economic policy has no sound scientific foundations, and in their utter incompetence economists are a hazard to their fellow citizens.#7

Economists are stupid or corrupt or both. Stupid because Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are provably false. And when the foundations are false the whole analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Corrupt, because economists push a political agenda under the guise of science.#8 Of all moral evils, this is the worst.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

* RWER issue 96
#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists
#6 For details of the big picture see cross-references Profit/Distribution


Wikimedia AXEC172  Scientific incompetence ― the smoking gun proof

August 2, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Dead horse beating ― the favorite pastime in the economics kindergarten


For more about dead horse beating see AXECquery.
For more about paradigm shift see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: What is economics? (I)


For more about political economics, ie. agenda-pushing see AXECquery.
For more about theoretical economics, i.e. science see AXECquery.
For more about science see AXECquery.


Wikimedia AXEC108g

August 1, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Economists never understood what profit is


For details of the big picture see cross-references Profit/Distribution.