Showing posts with label Crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crisis. Show all posts

October 27, 2024

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Milton Friedman (XXVIII)

 


March 21, 2024

Occasional Xs: How it works (CLXXIV)

 

March 13, 2024

Occasional Xs: How it works (CLXXIII)

 

March 3, 2024

Occasional Xs: How it works (CLX)

 

February 14, 2024

December 15, 2022

Occasional Tweets: There is no trade-off between inflation and recession

 


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

July 25, 2019

The decisive reason to worry about government debt

Comment on J. W. Mason on ‘A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons Not to Worry about Government Debt’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Arguments 1. to 8. and 11. boils down to unemployment being bad for multiple reasons, and government deficit-spending can effectively reduce unemployment. This is widely accepted since Keynes but tacitly implies budget-balancing over the business cycle. So, there are two cases: temporary and permanent deficit spending. Not many people worry any longer about temporary deficit spending. But the fact that the self-regulating and self-optimizing free market economy is on the permanent life support of the government tells one that the system is not sustainable over the long run. And this is the life-and-death reason to worry about growing government debt. Permanently growing debt is an indicator that the system is dysfunctional.#1 This is the real problem to worry about.#2

Arguments 9. and 10. say that with low-interest rates the growth of public debt is slower in relation to GDP growth. This is trivially true, of course, and suggests that the problem will go away by itself. This is pure optics, though, that crucially depends on the tacit assumption that GDP will grow. If it does not, the debt/GDP ratio explodes and low-interest rates only dampen the process.

Argument 12 is circular. The macroeconomic Profit Law boils down to Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, the government continuously fills the coffers of the Oligarchy, which, in turn, is looking out for some safe and juicy assets. Again, the government jumps in and offers Treasuries to consolidate its overdrafts at the central bank. This is a case of simultaneous supply/demand creation.#3

What J. W. Mason misses altogether is the distributional effects of a permanently growing public debt. Deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy because it increases macroeconomic profit according to the Profit Law. MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep, and the fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt ($22 trillion and counting). The Profit Law explains how billionaires are able to accumulate that much money and why they can buy all the bonds the Treasury issues and cash in the ultra-safe interest that is reliably taxed from WeThePeople as long as the debt is rolled over, which can be very long indeed. This Ponzi scheme creates the extremely skewed distribution of income and wealth, and this works as long as public debt grows. But infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. This also holds for public debt. Eventually, debt growth slows down and even reverses, and then macroeconomic profit turns into loss, and the so-called free market economy breaks down.

This is the decisive reason to worry about government debt. What J. W. Mason is doing is doling out an overdose of argumentative placebos.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism
#2 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#3 Safe assets ― how the State pampers the Oligarchy

Related 'MMT undermines democracy' and 'Some nasty MMT surprises behind the time horizon'.

***

REPLY to JW Mason, Arthurian, MisterMr, Unlearning, PeterT

Distribution is the problem of MMT policy and nothing else. For details see
Dear idiots, it is deficit spending that creates the distribution people complain about
and cross-references Profit/Distribution.

***
#PointOfProof

June 6, 2018

The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax Economy®

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘From Wicksell to Le Bourva and MMT’

Blog-Reference

Communism is down the drain, and the ― entirely justified #1 ― widespread feeling is that Capitalism will follow next. Quite naturally, there is a lot of discussion about what the core problem is and how the situation can be fixed. New Economic Thinking is all the rage. MMTers are one of the many politically active groups, and they have a strong selling point: (almost) all economic problems can be solved with money-creation/deficit-spending. This soapbox economics resonates well at the street level.

No doubt about it, rethinking economic theory is indispensable because Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are axiomatically false and materially/formally inconsistent. Neither right-wing nor left-wing economic policy guidance has ever had sound scientific foundations.

However, MMT is not a real breakthrough; it is bad science and bad policy just like all the rest. Bad science because it is materially/formally inconsistent and bad policy because it claims to promote the cause of the ninety-nine-percenters but in fact promotes the cause of the one-percenters.#2, #3

Yet in all their scientific and political corruption, MMTers have intuitively grasped a fruitful, transformative idea, i.e., to use fiat money for the construction of an economic system that works better than obsolete communism and capitalism.

All that is needed to make things happen is a well-informed Legitimate Sovereign. There is no use in defining the Legitimate Sovereign here in greater detail. This is not the task of economics but of political science.

The Legitimate Sovereign is in full control of the process of money creation and destruction.#4, #5 The closed economy is, for a start, in the state of full employment with the macroeconomic budgets of the household sector and the government sector all balanced. The macroeconomic Profit Law for this simplified economy translates from the general Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) to the specific Qm≡−Sm+(G−T) with Sm=0 and G=T. Legend: Qm monetary profit/loss, Sm monetary saving/dissaving, G government spending, T taxes.

In the first step, the Legitimate Sovereign simply creates some extra money for continuously buying shares on Wall Street and successively taking over the control of all big corporations.

In the second step, the Legitimate Sovereign cuts all taxes and creates the money for government spending G out of nothing. So, T=0, and G remains unchanged.

Now, two things happen:
(i) The disposable income of the household sector, i.e., Yw−T, increases because of T=0. If the households fully spend this extra money, the price goes up a little (NO inflation) and the household sector as a whole gets the SAME total real output O under the conditions of market clearing and unchanged employment.
(ii) The profit of the business sector increases because of Qm1=C1−Yw in comparison to Qm0=C0−Yw=0, with C1 greater than C0. The difference between C1 and C0 is the amount G, i.e., the deficit-spending/money-creation of the government sector.

The real situation of the household sector remains unchanged because the price hike exactly counteracts the nominal demand increase. The situation of the business sector as a whole improves, i.e., monetary profit Qm rises from Qm0=0 to Qm1=G. In other words, Public Deficit = Private Profit.

The real situation of the household sector as a whole does NOT change at all. The whole act is called stealth taxation#6 because the price hike reduces the real quantity that wage income receivers can buy with their increased disposable income. What happens is that the former taxes T are replaced by a one-off price hike. In real terms, the household sector is taxed as before, but does not realize anything provided the price hike is small and indistinguishable from a random fluctuation.

Because the greatest misfortune in the life of most people is that they feel to are unjustly forced to pay taxes, it can be safely assumed that human happiness increases enormously with the abolition of taxes and the replacement by money-creation/deficit-spending.

Being the Legitimate Sovereign means that the money that has been created out of nothing has to be destroyed eventually. Because the Legitimate Sovereign owns all corporations in the business sector, this is an easy task. All that has to be done is to distribute the full amount of monetary profit, i.e. Qm=G, to the shareholder, which happens to be the Legitimate Sovereign. It is by profit distribution = dividend payment to the state that fiat money is again taken out of circulation and destroyed. In a formula: taxation is fully replaced with full profit distribution.

Needless to emphasize the Legitimate Sovereign decides how the total amount of government spending G is allocated to social, military, administrative, and other purposes.

There remains only one thing to do: to consolidate the existing public debt overhang. Needless to emphasize it cannot be redeemed. So it has to be converted into perpetual bonds with an interest rate just a little above zero percent or into current deposits with zero interest.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism
#2 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
#3 MMT: Money-making for the one-percenters
#4 The ultimate ― analytical ― origin of money
#5 How money emerges out of nothing ― the functional account
#6 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution

Immediately preceding Neoclassics and MMT ― much like pest and cholera.

***

Notice: The concept of a Zero-Tax Economy is protected by Copyright © and Trademark ®.
See Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show.

***
REPLY to Tom Hickey on Jun 7

You say: “One reason the so-called US left is not winning is lack of vision and a popular presentation of the vision and plan for actualizing it that is clear, concise and precise enough to avoid the usual objections. … Ultimately, the goal has to be get buy-in by both enough voters to pass the legislation and politicians that understand the plan well enough to present it coherently and convincingly and defend it against objections.”

The subject matter of economics is to figure out how the economy works. Period. Nothing else. Period. The subject matter of economics is NOT to sell MMT to voters and lawmakers.

What the public has, first of all, to clearly recognize is that there are TWO economixes: the real thing and the look-alike. There are theoretical economics and political 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.

Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. What the Classicals have to be credited for is naive honesty. They called themselves Political Economists; that is, they presented themselves as agenda pushers. Naive honesty was the historical epoch before the War Ministry renamed itself to the Defense Ministry, and a military offensive was re-framed as pre-emptive self-defense. It was the epoch before Orwellian newspeak became the norm.

The fact of the matter is that economics defined itself 150+ years ago as a science, but it is still political agenda pushing. The clear separation of the political and the scientific spheres never happened.

Economics consists of the main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism ― which are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and which got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. What we actually have is the pluralism of provably false theories.

MMT is just another instantiation of political economics, a.k.a. agenda pushing. Note well: it does NOT matter whether one pushes a right-wing or a left-wing agenda. From the scientific standpoint, it is roughly the same proto-scientific garbage, only dressed up for different target groups. The whole right-left discourse is a ridiculous Zombie wrestling show of useful political idiots in Circus Maximus.

All that comes under the label of economics is scientifically unacceptable. Because of this, economics has nothing to offer in the way of scientifically well-founded advice: “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)

The fact is that MMT is NOT the true theory but just another political fraud.

The most pressing problem of economics is how to clean the Augean Stable of the gigantic heaps of axiomatically false models, how to get rid of all failed/fake scientists, and how to advance from a 200+ years old cargo cult science to genuine science.

Make no mistake, Dante’s famous motto above the Gate of Hell, "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate" [Abandon all hope, you who enter here], applies to the political economics of ALL denominations and also to MMT.

***
REPLY to Andrew Anderson on Jun 7

You say, “In the Bible, profit is good but profit taking (and usury) isn’t good.”

Your exegesis is not up to date. What the Bible really says is that profit distribution to private persons is bad, profit distribution to the Legitimate Sovereign is good.

The Bible never ever contradicts the axiomatically correct macroeconomic theory. Believers should know this.

***
REPLY to ANC Driver on Jul 8

You say: “This is probably the reason why economics will never be treated as a science because it will reveal the truth.”

Economics is not a science because Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, etc. are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent ― in two words: provably false.#1

As long as economists do not realize this, they are stupid. As far as they realize it and spread their crappy stuff nonetheless, they are corrupt. To this day, economics is a cargo cult science. The “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” is a deception of the general public.#2

The policy guidance of economists NEVER had sound scientific foundations.#3 The stupidity and fraud of economists are destructive to society. This is known since Napoleon: “Late in life, …, he claimed that he had always believed that if an empire were made of granite the ideas of economists if listened to, would suffice to reduce it to dust.” (Viner)#4

All this is not a question of right-wing or left-wing. Economists in general and MMTers, in particular, will never be accepted as scientists but forever be regarded as stupid/corrupt useful political idiots.#5


#1 Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud
#2 The real problem with the economics Nobel
#3 Economics: a hereditary mental disease with scientific incompetence as father and political fraud as mother
#4 Economists and the destructive power of stupidity
#5 For details of the big picture, see cross-references PoliticalEconomics


***

Twitter/X, February 4, 2025  A Wealth Fund could be a practical way of establishing a Zero-Tax Economy®: print money ― buy all shares ― put them in the Fund ― distribute all profits/dividends first to the Fund and then to the State ― because of public deficit = profit = distributed profit, the budget is automatically balanced



Twitter/X, Aug 26, 2025  "In the first step, the Legitimate Sovereign simply creates some extra money for continuously buying shares on Wall Street and successively taking over the control of all big corporations." see above



Twitter/X Aug 26, 2025

November 15, 2016

Economists: Jacks-of-all-trades ― except economics

Comment on Merijn Knibbe on ‘Global warming: bet on it’

Blog-Reference

The state of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers called themselves political economists, that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda-pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). And this is how economics became a failed science.

What is entirely missing among economists is an understanding of what science is all about. More specifically, economists miss their very subject matter.#1, #2 It is NOT the task of the economist to dabble in psychology, sociology, political sciences, geopolitics, law, history, anthropology, social philosophy, philosophy, pedagogics, biology/Darwinism, homeopathy, sport, art, etcetera. And it is NOT their task to dabble in climatology or epidemiology. Whether there is global warming in the short/long run and whether it is anthropogenic or not is a question that falls outside the scientific competence of economists. The main reason is that economists have NO scientific competence at all.

The proof is in the current state of economics. Economics is a failed science. More specifically, political economists have produced not much, if anything, of scientific value in the last 200+ years.

“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)

There is no such thing as a true economic theory. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, etc. ― are mutually contradictory and axiomatically false, that is, beyond repair. These failed approaches are in a zombie state ― dead but not buried ― waiting to be replaced by a superior paradigm.

What economists have produced so far is proto-scientific garbage: much political opinion but NO scientific knowledge, which comes in the form of a materially and formally consistent theory about how the actual economy works.

Both, Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy are lost for science. Economists cannot be taken seriously ― not when they speak about the economy and still less when they talk about global warming or culture or history or politics or homeopathy.

The phenomenon that scientifically incompetent economists dabble in any discipline they chose comes under the label of economics imperialism.#3 It has nothing to do with interdisciplinarity but amounts to straightforward agenda-pushing/hijacking on behalf of the Oligarchy.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence
#2 Mental messies and loose losers

***
Wikimedia AXEC136g



Wikimedia AXEC175




Twitter/X Jan 16, 2025 In his farewell address Presiden Biden warns of the Oligarchy


For more AXEC comments search on X Biden Oligarchy 

April 19, 2016

It’s the price and profit mechanism, stupid!

Comment on Simon Wren-Lewis on ‘Its ideology, stupid’

Blog-Reference

You say: “What we should be talking about is why governments are not doing much more public investment.”

What the anti-austerity disputants have on their minds is good old Keynesian deficit spending. That is not wrong per se, but it is wrong for an economist. An economist should have realized after more than 80 years that Keynesian theory is defective. The fact of the matter is that (i) the multiplier arithmetic is fallacious, and (ii), that distributional effects are completely overlooked. Deficit spending is the very profit machine and more than anything else accounts for the observable unequal wealth-distribution.*

Could it be that it is not a question of ideology at all but that Schäuble has a better economic theory at the back of his mind than retarded economists?

To cut a longer formal derivation short (2015), the most elementary version of the macrofounded Employment Law for the economy as a whole is given on Wikimedia AXEC62:
 From this equation follows:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE leads to higher employment L (the letter ρ stands for the ratio). An expenditure ratio ρE>1 indicates credit expansion, and a ratio ρE<1 indicates credit contraction of the household sector.
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment, a slowdown of growth does the opposite.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρF≡W/PR leads to higher employment.

The complete Employment Law is a bit longer and contains in addition profit distribution, public deficit spending, and import/export.

Item (i) and (ii) is familiar stuff since Keynes. What is missing in the flawed Keynesian employment multiplier, though, is the ratio ρF as defined with (iii). This variable embodies the price mechanism. It works such that overall employment L increases if the average wage rate W increases relative to average price P and productivity R.

The correct Employment Law shows that the price mechanism, i.e. the relationship of wage rate, price, and productivity, can be used to increase employment. Thus, there is, as a matter of principle, no need to increase private/public debt or of pushing investment. The crucial point is that the standard price theory is provably false.

The correct economic theory opens new dimensions of economic policy. Or, put the other way round, right policy depends on true theory. Neither Keynesians nor Walrasians, though, have the true theory. In particular, they lack a deeper understanding of how the price and the profit mechanism of the monetary economy work. This is what economists should be talking about before they make fools of themselves with inept economic policy blather.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL

Related ‘Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine’ and ‘Deficit spending, helicopter money, and profit

December 29, 2015

Austerity and the utter scientific ignorance of economists

Comment on Simon Wren-Lewis on ‘Exploring one set of reasons why austerity happened’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference The secular stagnation of labor market theory on Jan 11

“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, 1991, p. 30)

Economists lack the true theory and because of this, they have nothing to offer but some political opinion. The market economy does not work as standard economics says. This holds — with damaging consequences — in particular for the labor market.

The core of labor market theory goes as follows “We economists have all learned, and many of us teach, that the remedy for excess supply in any market is a reduction in price. If this is prevented by combinations in restraint of trade or by government regulations, then those impediments to competition should be removed. Applied to economy-wide unemployment, this doctrine places the blame on trade unions and governments, not on any failure of competitive markets.” (Tobin, 1997, p. 11)

To this day, the representative economist has not realized that the overall systemic interdependence establishes a positive feedback loop between ‘the’ product and ‘the’ labor market, that is, wage rate down - employment down - wage rate down - and so on. Vice versa with an increasing average wage rate. The market system is not an equilibrium system. All equilibrium models are a priori false.

An elementary version of the axiomatically correct Employment Law is shown on Wikimedia AXEC62:

From this structural equation follows inter alia:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE leads to higher employment.
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment, a slowdown in growth does the opposite.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρF=W/PR leads to higher employment. This implies that a higher average wage rate W leads to higher employment. This is, of course, contrary to conventional economic wisdom. It is, though, easy to prove that conventional wisdom is a mere Fallacy of Composition (2015).

The complete Employment Law is a bit longer and contains in addition profit distribution, public deficit spending, and the trade balance with the rest of the world.

(i) and (ii) translate into Keynesian anti-austerity policy, which has its own drawbacks.#1 Let us focus here alone on the factor cost ratio ρF as defined in (iii). This variable embodies the price mechanism which, however, does not work as the representative economist hallucinates. As a matter of fact, overall employment INCREASES if the average wage rate W increases relative to average price P and productivity R.

The correct employment theory states that the average wage rate must rise on a global scale in order to prevent unemployment and deflation. For the relationship between real wage, productivity, profit, and real shares see (2015, Sec. 10)

With the provable false standard employment theory economists bear the intellectual responsibility for the social devastation of unemployment. The political discussion about austerity is somewhat beside the point. It is the market mechanism that is defective at the core and economists have not realized this in more than 200 years.

The only remaining talking point between politicians and economists is to bring an action for damages.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tobin, J. (1997). An Overview of the General Theory. In G. C. Harcourt, and P. A. Riach (Eds.), The ’Second Edition’ of The General Theory, volume 2, 3–27. Oxon: Routledge.

#1 Deficit spending, helicopter money, and profit and Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine

Related  'Methodological retards' and 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down' and 'One entirely sufficient reason for the shutdown of economics' and 'The future of economics: why you will probably not be admitted to it, and why this is a good thing' and 'Austerity and the total disconnect between economic policy and science' and 'Austerity and the idiocy of political economists' and 'Economics as poultry entrails reading'

October 17, 2015

Crisis, cranks, and scientists

Comment on David Ruccio on ‘A gathering storm?’

Blog-Reference

The normal course of events is this: people look at the global/national economy or their regional/personal environment and see an acute or chronic defect (distribution of income/wealth/power/resources, unemployment, stagnation, exploitation, pollution/ depletion/extinction, asset bubbles, inflation/deflation, abuse/fraud/hype/deceit/ corruption, dysfunctional institutions, etc) and then come forward with the solution.

“A sure sign of a crisis is the prevalence of cranks. It is characteristic of a crisis in theory that cranks get a hearing from the public which orthodoxy is failing to satisfy. In the thirties we had Major Douglas, and social credit — it can all be done with a fountain pen — and Warren and Pearson who convinced President Roosevelt that raising the dollar price of gold would raise the price of everything else and bring the slump to an end. The cranks are to be preferred to the orthodox because they see that there is a problem. Nowadays we have plenty of cranks taking up the problems that the economists overlook.” (Robinson, 1972, p. 8)

This is certainly NOT what science is all about. Broadly speaking: economics, understood as the collective scientific knowledge of economists, can tell with a sufficiently high degree of certainty how the economy works, what the critical functions are, how institutions have to be designed to guarantee the proper functioning of subsystems and the integrated whole and thereby contribute to the prevention of major crises in the short and long run. Thus defined, there is NO economics.

Crises are the high time for political economists and the normal course of events is that suggestive quick fixes are applied. A grossly simplified example is to fight unemployment with prolonged deficit spending, which leads to growing debt, which at some point calls for helicopter money, which then can ‘be done with a fountain pen’.

There is little to say against deficit spending or helicopter money as a commonsensical quick fix in case of emergency except that it has no valid foundation in something resembling a valid economic theory. No economist is needed to figure out this kind of ‘solution’. In many cases, they are not even innovative, e.g.: “Public works to relieve the unemployed is an idea as old as the Bible; ...” (Blaug, 1998, p. 662). The same holds for debt jubilees.

When a Heterodox economist sees a meltdown coming three ideas immediately cross his mind (i) confirmation, i.e. Orthodoxy is indeed a failed approach, and (ii), regret, i.e. Heterodoxy has failed to come up in due time with the superior Paradigm, and (iii), to go with panic makers and cranks is not exactly what Heterodoxy is meant to be.

The grand task of Heterodoxy was and still is to figure out what an economy looks like that is free of major crises in a way that is scientifically more convincing than general equilibrium theory.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Blaug, M. (1998). Economic Theory in Retrospect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5th edition.
Robinson, J. (1972). The Second Crisis of Economic Theory. American Economic Review, 62(1/2): 1–10. URL.

Related 'Misplaced augurs of doom'.

October 16, 2015

Misplaced augurs of doom

Comment on David Ruccio on ‘A gathering storm?’

Blog-Reference

You say “Marxist and other radical economists often remind people of the inherent instability of capitalism — unlike their mainstream counterparts, who tend to focus on equilibrium and the invisible hand of free markets.” (See intro)

Not only Marxists are in the doomsday business but the gold bugs, too, and the producers of survival kits, and the Armageddon-Christians, and the fiat money abolitionists, etcetera (see zerohedge or YouTube for the daily doom menu).

Fear-mongering is good business, but it is not the economist’s business. What is missing is a theoretically sound account of the famous ‘long run’. Note well that the classics and Marx based their projections on the law of the falling profit rate. This is something quite different from the current bubble/crash panic talk. Until this very day, the representative economist does not know what profit is, much less how it develops in the long run (2014; 2015). Hence, all crisis projections are not much more than journalistic extrapolations of surface phenomena.

You sum up: “That’s the gathering storm they [policymakers, central bankers] — and we — should be worried about.”

Yes, but in a quite different sense. Economic crises are, in the last instance, the result of a total lack of understanding of how the economy works, that is, of the manifest failure of economics as a science. This holds first and foremost for employment theory. It was Keynes who addressed the problem during the Great Depression but could not solve it satisfactorily, and neither could the Post-Keynesians (2011), not to speak of New Keynesians and New Classics.

Amidst the theoretical mess, what economists should be worried about is that they bear the intellectual responsibility for the next occurrence of mass unemployment and the accompanying societal devastation.* Indeed, the future is bleak — for economists in particular.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2375578: 1–21. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL

* Unemployment is avoidable, see 'Back to science' and cross-references Employment.

September 16, 2015

Bound to crash

Comment on Steve Keen on ‘Why China had to crash: Part 2’

Blog-Reference

Because Orthodoxy is a scientific failure it is, indeed, an intuitively promising approach to start from the exact opposite assumptions.

Roughly speaking, you have shown that leverage, or more precisely, debt acceleration, is the ultimate cause of the boom/crash of the Chinese stock market. This is equally true for the subprime meltdown in 2008 and for the crash in 1929.#1

The general conclusion is that markets do not work as the textbook story suggests and that the supply-demand-equilibrium paradigm is empirically refuted for the financial markets.

The pervasive boom/crash phenomenon tells us that the institutional framework and, in particular, the monetary order in the U.S. is fundamentally flawed. The conclusion for China and other countries is to identify the defect and to come up with a superior institutional framework.

Until now, China has mainly adopted the U.S. financial market blueprint. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that she crashes against the wall just like the U.S. did on several occasions since 1929.

Rethinking the actual stock market crash, China, first of all, has to ask herself (i) whether she needs a stock market in the first place, and if so (ii), whether her stock market should institutionalize the possibility of leverage.

The U.S. is not very talented at institution-building. The Wall Street/Fed configuration is not a success story. If China wants to overtake the U.S., it has to create a superior institutional framework.

In a sense, Modigliani-Miller was right: ultimately, it is a matter of indifference whether a firm is financed by equity or debt. And if equity is not needed, the stock market is not needed.

What China urgently needs is the correct economic theory. Financial crashes and persistent unemployment are the empirical mirror images of false monetary and employment theories. Standard economics has scientifically crashed; that is, China needs a superior approach. Can Heterodoxy deliver?

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism

August 1, 2015

Back at Keynes' problem

Comment on mschlotzhauer on ‘Euro area unemployment rate at 11.1% and EU at 9.6% in June 2015’

Blog-Reference

“Important revolutions have occurred before our time, and since the days of Heraclitus change has been discovered over and over again.” (Popper, 1960, p. 160)

Mschlotzhauer is a case in point and, of course, McKinsey et al. who traditionally earn their bread and butter by telling firms that they have to change and that they need change agents and that McK et al. will help for a modest fee.

Change is a weasel word because there are two types: change for the better and change for the worse. With undifferentiated change-talk, the representative economic consultant tries to make individual deterioration and degradation acceptable.

An unemployment rate of 11% can only be interpreted as (i) a failure of the market system, and (ii), a failure of economics. To recall, economic theory once claimed that the price mechanism sees to it that all factors are fully employed. This claim/promise was implicitly dropped with the concept of natural unemployment which was located around 5%. Now, mschlotzhauer tells people that the good times of natural unemployment are gone: ‘The system that we all knew and loved no longer exists.’ Worse: ‘Unemployment will only get higher over time as deflation settles in in a rather permanent way.’

Right between the eyes: Sorry folks, the market system does not work as advertised and the worst is still before you. Not surprisingly, like all consultants at all times, mschlotzhauer tells people to accept deterioration and to reinterpret it as chance.

“The other option is to accept that we are headed towards a completely new direction, and become active participants in shaping the next wave of social and technological disruptions. When the winds of change blow, some build walls while others build windmills. Make your choice wisely!” See blog

Let us put mschlotzhauer and the other windmakers aside. What an unemployment rate of 11% tells everybody is that we are back at Keynes' problem of the 30s. For a thinking economist, this means that there must be something deeply wrong with employment theory.

The core of the employment problem is that the price mechanism does not work as standard economics hallucinated from Smith to Hayek and this has nothing to do with wage or price stickiness but with the fact that economists are scientifically incompetent.

Change, indeed, is urgently needed. Yet, change in the proper sense means to leave the false orthodox employment theory behind and to advance to the correct heterodox employment theory (2015a; 2015b).

Full employment is possible, acceptance of secular stagnation is premature. Actually, economists are the greatest hazard to the economy.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015a). Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2576867: 1–11. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015b). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
Popper, K. R. (1960). The Poverty of Historicism. London, Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Related 'How to save the economy from storytelling economists'

Continue post here

July 14, 2015

Sexit

Comment on/Kommentar zu ‘Griechenland-Krise: Deutsche Ökonomen schlagen gegen Krugman zurück’

Blog-Reference (condensed to 1.000 characters)

Ist das Ziel eines vereinten Europa als politisches Datum vorausgesetzt, dann lautet die rein ökonomische Fragestellung: wie kann dieses Europa als Ganzes — einschließlich Griechenland — wirtschaftlich erfolgreich sein?

Die intuitive Ökonomik sagt, dass Vollbeschäftigung und Produktivität die Schlüsselvariablen sind. Wie kann das realisiert werden? Nur auf Basis einer umfassenden makroökonomischen Theorie. Und hier beginnt das Problem: Ökonomen haben diese Theorie nicht, weder Krugman noch die deutschen Ökonomen.

Weder die Walrasianische noch die Keynesianische Beschäftigungstheorie ist wissenschatlich akzeptabel.#1 Der Kern des Problems ist, dass der Preismechanismus nicht so funktioniert wie es die Ökonomik imaginiert, und das hat nichts mit Lohn- oder Preisstarrheit zu tun. In letzter Konsequenz leidet Griechenland und Europa insgesamt am Theorieversagen der Ökonomen.

“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)

Da sie die ‘true theory’ nach 200+ Jahren immer noch nicht entwickelt haben, braucht die Welt einen Sexit (scientific exit), d.h. einen freiwilligen Exit dilettierender Ökonomen aus der Wissenschaft, die bekanntlich keine nationalen Unterschiede kennt. Was hier allein zählt ist wahr/falsch.

#1 Für die ausführliche Begründung siehe Mental messies and loose losers.

Siehe auch How to save Greece and Europe at the same time.

July 13, 2015

How to save Greece and Europe at the same time

Comment on ‘Employment in selected Eurozone countries. No austerity or neoliberal miracles’

Blog-Reference see also Blog-Reference

Political economics is, as most economics blogs show, just this: political gossip about what this guy said and that guy did, with all guys neatly sorted into good and bad. The well-known modus operandi of the media is personalization and horrification (Schauble creeps through Eurozone; Tsipras is mentally waterboarded, etc). All this is Circus Maximus — senseless, yet entertaining.

Meanwhile, the solution to the economic problem got completely out of sight. What, in the broadest possible perspective, is the basic economic problem? Given the political goal of a united Europe, the economic problem is how to make it prosperous — all of it, including Greece, of course.

How can this be achieved? Common sense tells us that full employment and productivity are the key variables. The next question then is how to put this intuition into practice? This can be done only on the basis of a comprehensive macroeconomic theory. Here the problems start because economists have no such theory.*

To recall, Keynes's main issue was employment theory and he was quite clear that the orthodox approach was defective. However, Keynes succeeded only partly, his employment theory is not general either and misses a crucial point (2015a; 2012). The most elementary version of the correct Employment Law is given on Wikimedia AXEC62:
From this follows:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE leads to higher employment. An expenditure ratio ρE>1 indicates credit expansion, a ratio ρE<1 indicates credit contraction/debt repayment.
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment, a slowdown of growth does the opposite. That's old Keynesian stuff.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρF≡W/PR leads to higher employment. This implies that a higher average wage rate W leads to higher employment. This is, of course, contrary to conventional economic wisdom. It is, though, easy to prove that conventional wisdom is a mere Fallacy of Composition (2015b). The factor cost ratio formally represents the price mechanism.
(iv) The complete Employment Law is a bit longer and contains in addition profit distribution, public deficit spending, and the trade balance with the rest of the world.

As a matter of principle, the structural Employment Law can be tested against the graph in the intro above. Put the other way round, the equation fully explains the graph.

Let us focus here alone on the factor cost ratio ρF as defined in (iii). This variable embodies the price mechanism which, however, does not work as Orthodoxy imagines it works. As a matter of fact, overall employment increases if the average wage rate W increases relative to average price P and productivity R. This gives us the lever to improve the employment situation in all of Europe — including, of course, Greece — without ever-increasing deficits.

How could it work in practice? The average wage rate increases if the wage rates in those firms that perform well increases relative to those at or below average. With a given expenditure ratio ρE this increases overall demand and leads to a redistribution of profits among the business sector. Total profit remains unchanged, what we have is a profit ratio equalization among firms. This takes structural stress out of the economic system.

What can be done in addition is to increase profit distribution in a specific way, boost investment, and something like a Grexit writ large, that is, a depreciation of the Euro against the Dollar.

The core of the problem is that the price mechanism does not work as orthodox economics says and this has nothing to do with wage or price stickiness. Ultimately, Greece and Europe with it suffer from a scientifically unacceptable economic theory.

What the world really needs is a Sexit (scientific exit), that is, a voluntary exit of scientifically incompetent economists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes’s Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015a). Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2576867: 1–11. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015b). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL

* For the reason why see RWER Blog or here