AXEC: New Foundations of Economics

October 16, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXVII)

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” (George Bernard Shaw) George Bernard Shaw did not understand much of economics. Like most authors, he was in the disinfotainment business. The proof is in the silly repetition of the taxes-are-theft slogan. The simplified national accounts below (AXEC213 ⇓) show two economies, one (0) without tax, and one (1) with tax. In (0), the workers spend their entire wage income from the business sector Yw on consumption goods Ec. The business sector makes neither profit nor loss. The workers get the whole product. In (1), the workers realized that they needed a state to guarantee property rights, for example. As a consequence, they reduce their consumption expenditures Ec, and 'buy' instead government services Et with taxes. The government, at this stage, is similar to the business sector; it produces public goods/services and pays wages Ywg. Assume for the moment a minimum number of public workers/employees and a perfect organization. There is neither waste nor corruption. The additional public workers/employees spend their entire income on consumption goods Ecg; thus, the total spending Ec remains unaltered. All sectoral balances are zero. The market-clearing price remains unaltered. The profit is zero. However big the state is, there is no inflation. The resources are distributed exactly according to the people's preferences. The household sector needs private and public goods/services. It 'buys' them both voluntarily. The form that the 'buying' of public goods/services takes is taxes. This has different reasons, but has to be regarded as specific to the state. The combination of private and public goods/services is preferable to private goods/services alone. Thus, the household sector is better off with the (minimum) state, and the tax spending, which is, in the final analysis, voluntary. If done correctly, the size of the budget is a matter of the household sector's preferences. Needless to emphasize that, if the state takes the tax money and fires rockets at another state instead of delivering the public good, this is not in accordance with people's preferences. Or if they take the tax money and channel it to their cronies via some NGO. Or if they take the tax money from WeThePeople and pay bond interest to WeTheOligarchy. The defamation of the state is justified insofar as legitimate and productive actions are corrupted. However, corruption is not specific to the government sector. It applies to the business sector as well. Perhaps it is even worse there. The ultimate moral problem is human corruption, not the state. In the world of political propaganda, George Bernard Shaw was one of the most dishonest writers. His contributions to the economic discussion have been nothing more than proto-scientific garbage.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 16, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXVI)

“An honor to have IvanWerning at Northwestern theory presenting his important work with guido_lorenzoni on tâtonnement, a topic unwisely left for dead. Shows that returning to fundamental and thorny questions can be highly rewarding!” (Ben Golub) Legacy economics may be rewarding, but it's not science. Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. The University of Chicago's economics department has never had much to do with advancing science but with pushing a political agenda. Chicago has always been the best example of what Feynman called Cargo Cult Science (⇓ AXEC140d). Presently, Ivan Werning and Ben Golub are living proof of failed/fake science.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 16, 2026

October 15, 2026

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Austrianism (CXXXIII)

“Carl Menger is truly one of the greatest economists of all time. His subjectivist theory of value and marginal utility was absorbed both (obviously) by the Austrian school, either in part (by Bohm-Bawerk, Von Wieser and Hayek), or in full (Lachmann), by the London School (Smart, Wicksteed, Robbins), and even mathematically (by his son Karl), his idea of “causal-genetic” analysis proceeded the idea of process analysis, and his work on money (Geld) was far ahead of his time. Truly was he (almost) without rival.” (Nikolai Rostov) Austrianism is failed/fake science to this day, but Nikolai Rostov is too incompetent to get it. He is part of a very large crowd. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a systems science. The basic economic entity is NOT the exchange of goods between two people and has NOTHING to do with drowning or thirsting people valuing water, but with the elementary production-consumption economy, which is shown below (⇓ AXEC225e). For a start, the workers produce one good, which is later differentiated. The output per period is O, which depends on the labor input L and the productivity R. The workers get an income Yw, which depends on the labor input L and the wage rate W. For a start, the wage rate is equal for all. Differentiation comes later. The workers spend their entire income Ec=Yw, and buy the entire output X=O. Thus, the circle is closed, and there are no balances. The balances of profit, loss, saving, dissaving, change in inventory, etc., come later. The initial nominal and real closing is a double condition, which has NOTHING to do with the concept of equilibrium. These conditions are practically never met, and this is why nominal and real balances appear. The most important balance is the macroeconomic profit of the business sector. A balance is a difference of flows, i.e., a change of stock. Austrians never understood what macroeconomic profit was. This is scientifically disqualifying. As a first result, the real wage W/P is equal to the productivity R. There is no subjectivity in the real wage. The workers need the output for their survival; that's where the subjective value comes from, but they cannot get more than they produce. The price, as the dependent variable, is determined as P=W/R. This is how the many subjective values transform into the one objective market price. The market is the place where the immeasurable individual subjectivity is transformed into the measurable collective objectivity. The science of economics deals with the objective price, not with the subjective value, which is a completely arbitrary figment of the momentary psychological condition. One can endlessly speculate about subjective values and expectations and keep economics at the proto-scientific level, i.e., in the swamp where 'nothing is clear and everything is possible.' (Keynes) Carl von Menger never understood economics. Neither did his low-IQ followers. Austrianism is not science but political agenda pushing. It is failed science, but it is kept alive because of political sponsorship – not because of scientific merit. Austrian think tanks have not much to do with thinking, but more with the blubber of silly salespeople.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXV)

“Had a great time back to back at the University of Chicago and Northwestern working on and presenting our Tâtonnement paper in two micro theory seminars. Not my typical venues. Fun and challenging.” (Ivan Werning) There is much fun in economics, but no science. Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l) The University of Chicago's economics department had never had much to do with advancing science but with pushing a political agenda and having fun.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle MMT (CCIX)

“In 50 years, Kelton's The Deficit Myth will be more widely read than Mises' Human Action, Hayek's Road to Serfdom, and Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson combined.” (Mr.Keynes) Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, and Kelton are scientifically stone dead. But living economists are too stupid to realize the inconsistencies. You can tell them anything, and they will repeat it: “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) Probably it's worse. Economists promote anything they are paid for. They are not scientists, but salespeople. You can get the MMT refutation free here: The Kelton Fraud https://t.co/tgovXGM6Ho Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick https://t.co/AfbJNmvmFc Cross-references: MMT https://t.co/XMHq0sZWU1 That this provably inconsistent theory is still on the so-called free-market-for-ideas tells one that economics is a corrupted science.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

Occasional X: Economics still lacks correct macrofoundations (XXXIX)

“A new book that presents an alternative to mainstream economics, grounded in the principle of effective demand and the post-Keynesian perspective on money and finance.” (Nacho Álvarez) Keynes got macroeconomics axiomatically wrong. His scientifically incompetent followers never spotted the methodological defect. Post-Keynesian macrofoundations are not a real improvement of the legacy microeconomic approach. Both are axiomatically false; therefore, an integration is logically impossible. Keynes, too, misunderstood the concept of profit because he was too stupid for elementary algebra. ⇓ Consequently, he botched the long-overdue Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. This initial blunder means that the entire field of economics (both micro and macro) is proto-scientific garbage. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. The Post-Keynesian critique of mainstream economics is spot on, but their alternative is also scientifically worthless. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

October 14, 2026

Occasional X: Economics still lacks correct macrofoundations (XXXVIII)

“50 years of macroeconomics in a nutshell: Lucas: 'Your Keynesian models are full of ad hoc assumptions. We need proper microfoundations!'” (Khazbi Budunov) The problem with modern macro is that it is axiomatically false. Economics is failed/fake science. Microfoundations was dead from the start. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshipers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. It means, second, to go forward and perform the Paradigm Shift (⇓ AXEC113i). It means, finally, to bury Lucas and his incompetent followers in the darkest corner of the Flat-Earth cemetery.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026

Occasional X: I=S ― the biggest idiocy in macroeconomics (X)

“Everything is a budget constraint or supply and demand, as in Principles of Micro.” (Brian Albrecht) The most important balance of economics —profit— is missing in Brian Albrecht's charts. This tells one that economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Macroeconomic profit or loss Qm, i.e., the business sector's balance, is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). This boils down to Qm:=(I−Sm) for the elementary case of a consumption-investment economy. Normally, I, the investment expenditures of the business sector, are greater than the saving Sm of the household sector. This is how profit comes into the world. In the case of I=Sm, macroeconomic profit is zero, and if I<Sm the economy breaks down. Microbrains like Brian Albrecht never understood the basics. The Principles of Micro are proto-scientific garbage. Let this sink in: economists still get the subject's foundational concept of profit wrong. They have been scientifically incompetent since Adam Smith. Economics is scientifically worthless to this day. For details, see Cross-references: Profit https://t.co/taznr3RMBt
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCVI)

“The Nobel Prize is not an exact science.” (The Nobel Prize) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel delivers the positive feedback loop. Therefore, economics cannot get out of the proto-scientific garbage trap. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. ⇓ It means, second, to move forward and make the inevitable Paradigm Shift.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXIV)

“The Nobel Prize given to Mike Woodford and Bob Hall will re-trigger discussions about the so-called New Keynesian model. Some will hail it as an unambiguous success, building macro from micro foundations.” (Olivier Blanchard) Olivier Blanchard gets it methodologically wrong: it's not bottom-up, it's top-down; it's not individual-centric, it's system-centric. Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. Legacy economics is what Feynman called Cargo Cult Science. The EconNobel positively reinforces failed/fake science. Olivier Blanchard is not only an incompetent scientist, but an #EconBlocker.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026

October 13, 2026

Occasional X: Economists are too stupid for macro accounting (X)

“There's a rote lesson among economists: Domestic savings are insufficient, so we run a current account deficit. Yet in an economy like Turkey's, causality often works in reverse. Let's look at the sectoral balances approach, epitomized by Wynne Godley: (S−I) = (G−T) − (M−X).” (Oktay Özden) The most important balance of economics —profit— is missing. This tells one that economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Nothing has ever been dumber than the discussion 'identities vs equilibrium' or the slogan 'That's just an accounting identity'. Macroeconomic profit or loss Qm, i.e., the business sector's balance, is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). This translates into the Balances Equation (I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=:0, i.e., all balances cancel out. All variables are measurable to two decimal places. Legend: Qm business sector's macroeconomic profit, Yd distributed profit, Sm household sector saving, G government expenditures, T taxes, X exports, M imports. Let this sink in: economists still get the subject's foundational concept of profit wrong. They have been scientifically incompetent since Adam Smith. Economics is scientifically worthless to this day. For details, see Cross-references: Accounting https://t.co/xNov0qlQQo
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

Occasional X: Time to get the axioms of economics right (IX)

“Yes, the new-Keynesian models, the DSGEs, or even the 'microfounded' models are hardly taught in macroeconomics at the undergraduate level. Policymakers don’t really reason with these models either, as Adam Posen himself admitted in 2017.” (François Geerol) Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l) The EconNobel is a scientific fraud.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXIII)

“Economic knowledge necessarily and inevitably leads to Capitalism. And it's not because all economists must be liberals, but because understanding the fundamental mechanisms of the economy forces one to question state interventionism” (Diego Angulo) Diego Angulo never understood profit and, by consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-defeating for an economist. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Profit Law implies PublicDeficit=PrivateProfit Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm:=(G−T)>0 has been a critical factor for Capitalism's survival. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of treasury/central bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of legacy economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. This means that economics is failed/fake science. Economists are not scientists. They are mostly silly wafflers for a low-IQ audience. Diego Angulo is living proof. The free-market polity is an Oligarchy with parliament / treasury / central bank / capital markets / big business / three-letter agencies as integral parts. With the other determinants excluded for the moment, private financial wealth grows with public debt. Eventually, WeTheOligarchy owns the financial assets, and WeThePeople owe the public debt and are taxed for interest on government bonds as long as the debt is rolled over. Interest payments on the debt reduce their disposable income for an indefinite time. The government taxes WeThePeople on behalf of WeTheOligarchy. This profit/interest/tax triple-whopper produces wealth for WeTheOligarchy and debt and real-income reductions for WeThePeople. In addition to legitimate monetary operations, the central bank is well-positioned to carry out or support illicit operations that are economically equivalent to putting counterfeit money into circulation. The volume of illicit deficit-spending and money-creation, as well as the quantity of Dark Money in circulation, is not publicly known. Therefore, Profit and Distribution Theory has no empirical leg to stand on. The financial sub-sector, big business, and billionaires recycle some of their profits and financial wealth to control major public, private, and political institutions. Thus, they corrupt the polity. In essence, this is how the self-alimentation and self-preservation of WeTheOligarchy work. It has nothing to do with optimal allocation of resources, free markets, or free consumer choices.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXVII)

“How Michael Woodford made modern macro relevant to central bankers.” (FT Economics) The problem with 'modern macro' is that it is axiomatically false. Therefore, central banking has no scientifically valid foundations. Economics is failed/fake science. Microfoundations was dead from the start. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshipers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al, 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. It means, secondly, to go forward and perform the Paradigm Shift (⇓ AXEC113i) For the axiomatically correct approach to monetary theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCV)

“Just a personal addendum: Mike was my undergraduate thesis advisor at Princeton. This was a transformative experience. One of the crucial turning points in my life. So, I count myself as a Woodford student (part of the Woodford army, some might say :) ). Then I was fortunate enough to have Mike as a colleague at Columbia for 10 years. On a number of occasions, conversations with Mike were pivotal for my research” (Jon Steinsson) Jon Steinsson clearly doesn't understand how science works. Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. To this day, economics is what Feynman called a Cargo Cult. Due to their scientific incompetence and the positive reinforcement provided by the EconNobel, this closed mental shop is an inescapable social matrix for its members.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

October 12, 2026

Occasional X: Scrap the EconNobel (XLXXII)

“2026 economic sciences laureates Robert E. Hall’s and Michael Woodford’s research has made us better equipped to manage economic downturns. They laid the foundation of the New Keynesian paradigm, in which models are built upon microfoundations, which means from the bottom up. ” (The Nobel Prize) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel is part of it. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) Economics has been failed/fake science for 200+ years. The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. Senseless economic debate ends. Disinfotainment on social media ends. It means, secondly, to go forward and perform the Paradigm Shift (⇓ AXEC113h)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026

For more on top-down, see AXECquery.

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXII)

“For the book, I am making little videos explaining each chapters. They are animations. Thanks to AI, I am having a shitton of fun.” (Vincent Geloso) Much fun, zero science. Economists have never understood profit, and consequently how the economic system works. That's scientifically disqualifying. Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. ⇓ When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Economic policy advice has never had valid scientific foundations. Economics has always been disinfotainment for a low-IQ audience. The representative economist is NOT, and never has been, a competent scientist but an agenda pusher / useful idiot / impostor / phrase monger / storyteller / troll / self-glorifier / pseudo-psychologist / media talker / clown in the political Circus Maximus.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026

Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXXI)

“There were screams of joy in the Nakamura-Steinsson household this morning when we saw this news!” (Jon Steinsson) Prizes are often not based on true merit. Like the Oscars, they are mainly a marketing/PR instrument. Honoring the look-alike happens in all walks of life. Most economics prizes are NOT rewards for the achieved growth of scientific knowledge but for political disinfotainment. Although it claims to be a science, economics is not one. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and, accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. ⇓ Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. To this day, it has no scientific truth-value but only political use-value. For more about the cargo cult of economics, see Links on the Economics Nobel https://t.co/42laSAw8ME
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Philosophy (XV)

“Heidegger: 'Marx remains the greatest of all the Hegelians.'” (Nicolas Varela) Maybe. Unfortunately, he was an incompetent scientist. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/ philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/ etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Hegelian philosophy is not a replacement for failed/fake science. ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026

Occasional X: Scrap the EconNobel (XLXXI)

“The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the 2026 Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to Robert E. Hall and Michael Woodford 'for microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic stabilisation'.” (The Nobel Prize) Economics has been failed/fake science since the Founding Fathers. It has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Top-tier academic economics is cargo cult science. The EconNobel for 'economic sciences' is a fraud. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026

See also the answer to Mathias Vernengo.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Knowledge only — no opinion

Science does not explain everything, but non-science explains nothing.

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.

Economists cannot explain how the economy works. The Profit Theory is false since Adam Smith. There is much opinion and little knowledge.

Opinion is the realm of political economics, knowledge is the realm of theoretical economics.

Political economics is scientifically worthless.

Theoretical economics is built upon clearly stated premises, i.e., upon a set of axioms.

Orthodoxy got the axiomatic foundations wrong and Heterodoxy has none at all.

Economics is a failed science. Economists are incompetent scientists.

Profit

Neither Classicals, nor Walrasians, nor Marshallians, nor Marxians, nor Keynesians, nor Institutionialists, nor Monetary Economists, nor MMTers, nor Austrians, nor Sraffaians, nor Evolutionists, nor Game theorists, nor EconoPhysicists, nor RBCers, nor New Keynesians, nor New Classicals ever came to grips with profit. Hence, they all fail to capture the essence of the market economy.

Because of this, economists have nothing to offer in the way of a scientifically founded economic policy guidance.

The hybrid science

As a first approximation, one can agree on the general characteristic that the economy is a complex system.

However, with the term system one usually associates a structure with components that are non-human. In order to stress the obvious fact that humans are an essential component of the economic system the market economy should be characterized more precisely as a complex hybrid human/system entity.

The scientific method is straightforwardly applicable to the sys-component but not to the hum-component. While it is clear that the economy always has to be treated as an indivisible whole, for good methodological reasons the analysis has to start with the objective system-component.

In gestalt-psychological terms the economic system is the foreground, individual behavior the background. Common sense wrongly insists that the hum-component must always be in the foreground. This fallacy compares to geo-centrism. The economic system has its own logic which is different from the behavioral logic of humans. The systemic logic is what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

There are systemic laws but no behavioral laws. Systemic laws have the same methodological status as physical laws.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy can tell what the systemic laws of the actual monetary economy are.

Whether the outcome of the human/system-interaction is good or bad is a politcal question that lies outside of theoretical economics. Theoretical economics explains how the actual economy works - no less, no more.

Narrative vs.Theory

Psychological, sociological or behavioral assumptionism cannot yield anything other than a gossip model of the world. Second-guessing the agents is not economic analysis.

Science deals exclusively with propositions that can in principle be decided by objective means. The rest is opinion, faith, phantasy, motive speculation, allegation, hallucination, myth, paranoia, ink-blot association, psychology, philosophy, in one word: storytelling.

Storytelling is the original mode of communication in the social realm — except science.

Political economics is storytelling and, by default, the natural habitat of confused confusers. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are social narratives and not scientifically valid representations of reality.

"The truth is, most persons, not excepting professional economists, are satisfied with very hazy notions." (Fisher)

In marked contrast, theoretical economics lives up to the standards of material and formal consistency. A scientific theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible.

Theory starts with a set of objective and consistent axioms.

Paradigm Shift

"The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy." (Feynman)

"As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction." (Nell)

"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)

"Is it not a fact, which stares at us from the histories of all sciences, that it is much more difficult for the human mind to forge the most elementary conceptual schemes than it is to elaborate the most complicated superstructure when those elements are well in hand?" (Schumpeter)

"The task of producing knowledge against the grain requires imagination." (Mirowski)

"A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination." (Feynman)

"The scientific imagination dreams of explanations and laws." (Peirce)

"It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science." (Evans)

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

Selftest and to watch for

You apply one of these items

• supply-demand-equilibrium,

• general equilibrium,

• marginal utility,

• well-behaved production functions,

• total income = value of output,

• total income = wages + profits,

• I=S,

• wage rate down - employment up,

• behavioral axioms?

Then you are out of science because of unnoticed material or formal inconsistency.

Every economist who uses the concept of equilibrium is scientifically incompetent because she/he failed to notice that equilibrium is an economic nonentity.

Practically this means: as soon as the word equilibrium appears in an economic text it can be thrown into the waste basket. The same holds for all other nonentities.

The vast majority of economists deals mainly with nonentities. This is why Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is scientifically worthless.

Since Adam Smith, economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations.

To be replaced (1)

The core premises of Orthodoxy are uncertain and false and this fully explains the failure of the research program.

“As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

The inescapable Paradigm Shift consists of the move from this obsolete hard core to the superior set of structural axioms.

To be replaced (2)

The fundamental equations of macroeconomics have been formulated by Keynes in two lines.

"Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."

This elementary syllogism is demonstrably false. The demonstration consists in the proof that Keynes could not solve the Profit Puzzle. Neither did Post-Neo-New-Keynesians.

In the most general terms, the economics Paradigm Shift consists in switching from the behavior-centric bottom-up approach to the structure-centric top-down approach. This is comparable to the Copernican turn from geo-centrism to helio-centrism.

Consensus

Economics is a science without scientists. Because they are ignorant of the elementary difference between profit and income, the present generation of economists has not made and cannot make a significant contribution to the discussion about how the actual economy works.

Every orthodox or heterodox economist can convince himself/herself that their profit theory is defective.

Every non-economist can — by applying elementary logic — convince himself that conventional profit theories are false. See 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down'.

Because the profit theory is false the whole of conventional economic theory has to be rejected.

"What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse." (McCauley)

No scientist will ever accept Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, or Austrianism. These approaches are logically and/or empirically refuted. This is the actual methodological state-of-art. Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, or Austrians are still at the proto-scientific stage. These approaches cannot be improved, only abandoned.

Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.

About me

“Bottom line is that your profit law is just a definition you made up nobody else agrees with, nobody. You are all alone with your precious tautology.” Barkley Rosser

“In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with.” Brian Romanchuk

"Your stuff is at least original: it's quite cool after a couple of decades at this to see a fresh Economics. But real promises are not advanced: they were around for millennia until the Greeks obscured them with Metaphysics." Chris Cook

"No mate, they're you-blockers. You have all the personality traits of a crank, and the rest of them have tired of you. You could be 100% right, and you'd still die as your only follower." Steve Keen

"What you are doing fills is all with joy, your constructive critique is most welcome!"

Achim Truger,

German Council of Economic Experts,

in a failed attempt to be ironic

"200+ years of thought and yet you are the only one who gets it—or even understands your argument. Thank god we have you, pseudonymous Twitter user. Otherwise no one would know."

William Luther

Assistant Professor of Economics

in a failed attempt to be funny

"Egmonts profit law is the perfect equation that demonstrates this in action. Put the equation into a spreadsheet and then add government spending and watch how it flows into profits. Enter in some debt (-Sm) and watch too how that flows into profits. It can't go anywhere else."

Dean

About the rest of economics

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent. Economics is a failed science.

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” Leonardo da Vinci

In economics, the overwhelming majority belongs to Class III. This explains why economics is after 200+ years still at the proto-scientific level.

The obvious task for every economist is to advance from cargo cult science and political agenda-pushing to science. This is absolutely beyond the means of Class III people.

For 200+ years now, economists are not scientists but agenda pushers, useful idiots, clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Nopopop

This blog does not add to any popular/un- popular opinion.

This blog does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup of society, to get out of national/global depression, nor about how to save humankind or any subgroup thereof.

This blog is about the true theory of the actual monetary economy.

"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)

Focus

Science is of primary interest and importance. Scientists are of secondary interest.

With regard to science, most people lose focus easily because of a natural preference for anecdotes and gossip over facts or subjectivity over objectivity.

Hence, Schumpeter once considered it necessary to remind his habitually disoriented fellow economists: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”

Science is about true/false and nothing else.

Disclaimer

Missing Blog-Reference links: AXEC does not guarantee that their comments can at any time be recovered from where they have been posted intitially because the availability depends on the publication policy of the blog owner which is implicitly accepted on entering a debate. See also: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?'

Texts: Parts of arbitrary length of any of the author's texts is and will be used again by the author in papers, books, websites, blogs, and other media without explicit reference. The right to make corrections or minor textual improvements on reutilization is reserved. Therefore, it is always a good idea to double-check for the latest version.

Caution: Do not expect a corroboration of your political view. Neither a refutation. Political economics has been scientifically worthless since Adam Smith. Politics has to be separated from economics because it is categorically different from science. The best science can do and has always done is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been objectively wrong or ignorant until now. Science goes beyond the naive common sense of today and becomes the sophisticated common sense of tomorrow.

See also Terms of Use and Legal at www.AXEC.org

Outlook

To recall, while political economics is storytelling, theoretical economics adheres to scientific standards.

The first task of theoretical economics is to get the axiomatic foundations right. This is what J. S. Mill called the opus magnum. Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy came up with a reasonable solution to this day. This explains the secular stagnation of economics.

There is no serious alternative to structural axiomatic economics. This is not a matter of opinion but of proof. The sole criteria are material and formal consistency.

All of economics has to be reconstructed from the ground up.

Major economic policy implication

The price mechanism does not work as standard economics hypothesizes. The axiom-based Employment Law states that overall employment increases if the average wage rate increases relative to average price and productivity. This gives one the lever to improve the employment situation all over the world and to fend off deflation without rising debt and without artificial capacity growth. To increase the average price relative to the average wage rate and productivity increases unemployment.

Right policy depends on true theory.

“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 the true theory, economists promote for more than 200 years opinion instead of knowledge.