Showing posts with label zBDL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zBDL. Show all posts

May 5, 2021

Economists’ periodically recurring crocodile tears about inequality

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘RHETORICAL QUESTION: Why Do Economists Ignore the Greatest of All Market Failures?’


Distribution is the greatest of all theory failures.

Economics is failed/fake science for 200+ years. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong. Because the foundational economic concept of profit is false the whole analytical superstructure is false. Economics is scientifically worthless.

Deficit-spending/money-creation is the cause of the extreme inequality of income and wealth. The 3-sector Profit Law Q≡(G−T)+(I−S)+Yd implies Public Deficit = Private Profit. Private financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt of WeThePeople. Public debt, in turn, is the interest cash cow that produces perpetual income which is taxed by the IRS from WeThePeople on behalf of the Oligarchy.

The Oligarchy, in turn, uses the opulent free lunches to corrupt what remains of the state’s legislative, executive, judiciary institutions. Ultimately, it is scientifically incompetent economists who work ― intentionally or unintentionally does NOT matter ― for the growing inequality of income/wealth. Only stupid/corrupt economists rhetorically wonder about the inequality of income/wealth.#1-#3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke



January 4, 2020

“Inhumane stupidity” ― bad economic policy as inevitable consequence of false economic theory

Links on Brad DeLong on ‘Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency.’

Blog-Reference

Keynes not only cited Lenin approvingly on the well-known destructive effects of inflation but remarked on another occasion: “You have not, I suppose, ever mixed with politicians at close quarters. They are awful … their stupidity is inhuman …”

Keynes, obviously, was unaware of the inhumane stupidity of economists, including his own.

Here is the proof from the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

This syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes NEVER came to grips with profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Because the foundational economic concept of macroeconomic profit is ill-defined the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesianism is false. So, Keynesian policy guidance never has had sound scientific foundations. This is bad enough but the proof of the inhumane stupidity of economists is that they have NOT spotted Keynes’ lethal blunder to this day. Although I=S has always been false (Q≡I−S is correct) loudspeakers of the profession like Paul Krugman still apply IS-LM models. This is the smoking-gun proof that economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics.

The best way to destroy the Capitalist System is to employ economists: “Late in life, …, he [Napoleon] 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)

For details see
► How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
► Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine
► Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
► Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind
► and cross-references Keynesianism.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

October 31, 2019

Links on the Phillips Curve

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘Is the Phillips Curve Dead or Is It Just Hibernating?’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

The NAIRU Phillips Curve is ― like the consumption function, IS-LM, or, for that matter, supply-demand-equilibrium ― a rather idiotic construct. So, the question of whether the Phillips Curve is dead is as meaningless as how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-pinpoint. Economists, though, have not grasped it to this day. The question of whether economists are still intellectually dead has an unambiguous answer: YES.

► Right policy depends on true theory
► The end of Mankiw and his Phillips Curve
► NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculia
► Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster
► Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Employment
► The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment

For more about the Phillips Curve see AXECquery.


***

AXEC36b The structural-axiomatic 2-sector Employment Law/Phillips Curve

May 30, 2019

Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over

Comment on Robert Heilbroner/Brad DeLong on ‘The Embarrassment of Economics’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on May 31

The embarrassment of economics is that it is NOT, as claimed, part of science but part of the entertainment industry. Robert Heilbroner as an early representative of Circus-Maximus economics applies the tried and tested communication tools.

• Personality gossip instead of knowledge transfer: “Schumpeter arrived in his famous riding habit and great cloak, of which he divested himself in a grand gesture. He greeted us in a typically Schumpeterian way: ‘Gentlemen, a depression is for capitalism like a good, cold douche.’ The remark shocked us for two reasons: First, was a depression a good thing? Second, few of us knew that a douche was the European term for ‘shower’.”
• Appeal to prestige/celebrity/popularity: “Milton Friedman-Nobel laureate, famous theorist”, Alvin Hansen (one of America’s best-regarded economists), “Friedman is a brilliant man”, “Scientific thought is probably the most highly regarded of all the activities that make up our complex modern way of life”.

Needless to emphasize that the audience likes this stuff, after all, it got all its education in the talk-show format. Needless to emphasize that the scientific criteria true/false do not appear once in the whole article.

With his blather, Robert Heilbroner misses the point. The lethal embarrassment of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed. The fact is that theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept ― profit ― wrong.

The embarrassment of economics is NOT so much that it hides ideology but that it claims from Adam Smith/Karl Marx onward to the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” to be science.

The fact is that economics is what Feynman called cargo cult science. In his utter scientific incompetence, Robert Heilbroner maintains “… a Martian who came across a copy of the American Economic Review might be forgiven for concluding that it was a journal of physics.” As a being with superior intelligence, a Martian would immediately recognize: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”

Economics is a failed/fake science. What is needed is a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. Curiously, Robert Heilbroner saw the light for a short moment before he fell back into the darkness of political economics: “Surely the recognition of the inextricably social roots of all behavior leads to the view that macrofoundations must precede microbehavior, not the other way round, as modern economic thought perceives the issue.” (p. 8)#1

In other words: If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.#2

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Weekend reading
#1 Heilbroner, R., and Milberg, W. (1995). The Crisis of Vision of Modern Economic Thought. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
#2 Do first your macroeconomic homework

Related 'Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it!' and 'Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?'.

***
AXEC121i

March 27, 2019

MMT: fundamentally false

Comment on Warren Mosler's ‘MMT White Paper’

Blog-Reference

The purpose of Warren Mosler’s White Paper is “to publicly present the fundamentals of MMT.”

This is the first fundamental proposition:
“MMT Alone Recognizes that the US Government and its Agents are the Only Supplier of That Which it Demands for Payment of Taxes
That is, the currency itself is a simple public monopoly.
The US government levies taxes payable in $US
The $US to pay those taxes can only originate from the US government and its agents.
The $US to purchase US Treasury securities can only originate from the US Government and its agents.
The economy has to sell goods and services to the US Government or borrow from the US Government, or it will not be able to pay its taxes or purchase US Treasury securities.
Ramifications: 1. The US government and its agents, from inception, necessarily spend first, only after that can taxes be paid or state securities purchased.”

Because the first MMT axiom is false the rest of MMT is false.

MMT lacks sound macroeconomic foundations. As the correct analytical starting point, the elementary production-consumption economy is defined with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The economy consists of the household and the business sector which, in turn, consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to the wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Yw in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1a). The price P is determined by the wage rate W, which takes the role of the nominal numéraire, and the productivity R.#1 The elementary production-consumption economy is shown on Wikimedia.#2


What is needed for a start is two things (i) a central bank which creates money on its balance sheet in the form of deposits, and (ii), a legal system which declares the central bank’s deposits as legal tender. These institutions have to be established by the state.

Deposit money is needed by the business sector to pay the workers who receive the wage income Yw per period. The need is only temporary because the business sector gets the money back if the workers fully spend their income, i.e. if C=Yw. Overdrafts are needed by the household sector for consumption expenditures if the households want to spend before they get their income.

For the case of a balanced budget C=Yw, the idealized transaction pattern of deposits/overdrafts of the household sector at the Central Bank over the course of one period is shown on Wikimedia.#3


The household sector’s deposits/overdrafts are zero at the beginning and end of the period. Money is continually created and destroyed during the period under consideration. There is NO such thing as a fixed quantity of money. The central bank plays an accommodative role and supports the autonomous market transactions between the household and the business sector. From this follows the average stock of transaction money as M=κYw, with κ determined by the transaction pattern.

If employment L is doubled, the average stock of transaction money M doubles. In a well-designed fiat money economy, growth is not hampered by a lack of the transaction medium.

Ramifications: (i) The state is needed for the institutional setup of the monetary order, (ii) the state is NOT needed for injecting money into the economy, (iii) what is needed is an accommodative Central Bank, (iv) neither the state nor the Central Bank interferes with the autonomous transactions of the household and business sector, (v) money is a generalized IOU, (vi) money is created and destroyed by the transactions between the household and the business sector, (vii) the value of money is given by W/P=R (1b), i.e. is equal to the productivity, (viii) the value of money does NOT depend on the (average) stock of money M, (ix) the functionality of monetary institutions and the value of money does NOT depend on the taxing power of the state.

If the state deficit-spends money into the elementary production-consumption economy it follows from the macroeconomic Profit Law#4, #5 that Public Deficit = Private Profit.

Bringing money into the economy by public deficit spending is NOT distributionally neutral, just the opposite: it is a free lunch for the Oligarchy.

So, MMT is not only scientifically worthless#6 but economically harmful to the ninety-nine-percenters.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Geometrical Exposition of Structural Axiomatic Economics
#2 Wikimedia AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy
#3 Wikimedia AXEC98 Idealized transaction pattern
#4 Profit Law Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)
#5 How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it
#6 Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook

Related 'Understanding public deficits, money, and profit' and 'The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo' and 'The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax Economy'.

***

COMMENT on Brad DeLong on Mar 28 and Blog-Reference MNE

Science is NOT about love/hate but true/false. So, to begin with, the question Why Does Everyone Hate MMT? leads directly into the bottomless swamp of political economics.#1

The problem with MMT is that it is axiomatically false.#2 Because employment and distribution theory is provably false MMT’s policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundations. This, though, applies also to New Keynesianism. IS-LM is refuted on all counts.#3 This answers the question Why is the MMT vs Mainstream debate utterly absurd?

Brad DeLong summarizes: “Perhaps the key to the eagerness of Wray to dismiss me (and James Montier) for saying that MMT is Lerner+ is sociological. Perhaps MMT is not model-based (‘IS-LM with a near-vertical IS curve’) and not idea-based (‘Functional Finance’) so that it can be guru-based.”

Whether MMT is sociology-based, model-based, idea-based, or guru-based is a mute question. Theories are axiom-based and the macroeconomic axioms of MMT are provably false.#4 By consequence, the whole analytical superstructure is untenable.

Macrofoundations are false for 80+ years, microfoundations are false for 150+ years. Methodologically, mainstream economics is even worse than MMT’s proto-scientific garbage.


#1 Love and hate in economics: the PsySoc shell game
#2 MMT: fundamentally false
#3 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It
#4 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

Related 'MMT for beginners' and 'Warren Mosler: scientific dilettante and political fraudster' and 'MMT sucks' and 'MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople' and 'MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia' and 'MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy'.

February 22, 2019

MMT for beginners

Comment on Bradford DeLong on ‘I would not have called MMT “nonsense economics”’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

For beginners, the 10 essential points are:
  1. MMT is fake science.
  2. The foundational MMT sectoral balances equation is provably false.
  3. MMTers are too stupid for the elementary math that underlies macroeconomics.
  4. Because the foundations are false, one can safely forget the rest.
  5. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law entails Public Deficit = Private Profit.
  6. Therefore, the MMT policy of permanent deficit-spending/money-creation is a permanent free lunch for the Oligarchy.
  7. The lethal effect of MMT policy is NOT on inflation but on distribution.
  8. Fabulous financial wealth is the mirror image of fabulous public debt ($22 trillion and counting).
  9. MMT policy is ultimately NOT for the benefit of WeThePeople.
  10. MMT is political agenda pushing for the Oligarchy in a scientific/social bluff package.#1
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


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

Related 'MMT = proto-scientific garbage + deception of the 99-percenters' and 'MMT: So-called Progressives as trailblazers for Trumponomics' and 'Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents' and 'MMT, Warren Mosler, and the little helpers from Wall Street and Academia' and 'MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy' and 'How MMT enlightens Washington' and 'Austerity and the political games Progressives play' and 'The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists' and 'Austerity and the utter scientific ignorance of economists' and 'Note on “Era of Austerity coming to an end...”' and 'Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science'.

***
AXEC152c

February 14, 2019

Krugman vs MMT ― like the blind talking about colors

Comment on Brian Romanchuk on ‘Functional Finance Versus New Keynesian Economics, Krugman Edition’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Feb 16 adapted to context and Blog-Reference on Feb 18

The characteristic of economic debates is to talk about everything except the point at issue.

Krugman starts the talk show with: “Well, it looks as if policy debates over the next couple of years will be at least somewhat affected by the doctrine of Modern Monetary Theory, …” Then he realizes that he is not up-to-date but this does not matter because: “The good news is that MMT seems to be pretty much the same thing as Abba Lerner’s ‘functional finance’ doctrine from 1943.” And off he goes parroting the worn-out stuff about inflation and crowding-out with the finale: “The bottom line is that while functional finance has a lot going for it, it’s not the kind of axiomatically true doctrine that Lerner ― and, I think, modern MMTers ― imagined it to be.”

No word about that MMT is just proto-scientific garbage. And, of course, no state-of-art refutation of the MMT approach, no proof of material/formal inconsistency.

Brian Romanchuk’s answer remains on the same low level and consists of pointing out that Krugman himself clings to a rather crappy approach: “The fundamental problem with the New Keynesian approach of Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong, Simon Wren-Lewis, etc., is that the model is fundamentally neoclassical rather than Keynesian., only departing somewhat in assumptions but not methodology. This methodology falls into the class formal (mathematical) rather than empirically based and it ignores the role of institutions and operations.”

Both parties are spot on in their critique of the other approach. The irony is that both approaches share a common blunder. Krugman refers via the IS-LM model back to Keynes and MMT via the sectoral balances equation, i.e. via (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 which boils down to I=S when the public sector and the foreign sector are taken out of the picture for a moment.

The common blunder can be exactly located in the GT: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

“His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Keynes, like his academic colleagues, NEVER understood what profit is and thus ended with I=S ― one of the greatest blunders in the history of modern science. Neither New Keynesians nor MMTers, though, have realized anything for 80+ years.#1 Both are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.

The correct macroeconomic relations are given by Q≡−S for the elementary production-consumption economy and Q≡I−S for the elementary investment economy with Q business sector’s monetary profit, S household sector’s monetary saving, business sector’s I investment expenditures. From this follows that all I=S/IS-LM models and their derivatives are scientifically worthless.#2

Both New Keynesianism and MMT are provably false.#3 By consequence, the economic policy arguments of both sides have NO scientifically valid foundations. What Krugman advertises as wonkish is just the usual brain-dead blather of failed/fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* NYT, Paul Krugman, What’s Wrong With Functional Finance? (Wonkish)
#1 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Refutation of I=S
#3 See cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references MMT

Related '#DrainTheScientificSwamp' and 'Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp'.

***
REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 15

You say: “You’re defining profits wrong.”

Macroeconomic profit is defined for the most elementary case as Q≡C−Yw.

Stop waffling, just write down your definition with 6 or 7 characters. This is what a real mathematician would do.

***
REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 15

Just write down YOUR definition with 6 or 7 characters.

***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 16 and Blog-Reference

You say: “The cost of goods sold is itself complicated, since it depends on the valuation of inventory. … Depreciation is also based on the historical cost of capital. In summary, way more complex than the junk you blather on about.”

The alleged complexity is merely a projection of your own confusion.

(i) Total macroeconomic profit Q is composed of monetary profit Qm and nonmonetary profit Qn.

(ii) Nonmonetary profit Qn is the sum of all positive/negative changes of valuation including depreciation.

(iii) Qn has been dealt with elsewhere and is taken out of the picture for a moment.

(iv) Monetary profit Qm for the one-fully-integrated-macroeconomic firm is defined as Qm≡C−Yw. In your words: Qm is “sales revenue” C minus “cost of goods sold” Yw in the most elementary production-consumption economy with market-clearing, i.e. X=O. Changes of inventory, i.e. X≠O, have been dealt with elsewhere.

(v) The investment economy has been dealt with elsewhere.

(vi) Monetary saving of the household sector is defined as Sm≡Yw−C. Total saving S is the sum of monetary Sm and nonmonetary saving Sn. The latter has been dealt with elsewhere.

(vii) Monetary profit Qm and monetary saving Sm are measurable with the precision of two decimal places. There is NOT the slightest ambiguity here. Qm and Sm are as real as cash in the box or as money in the bank.

(viii) From this follows: the macroeconomic Profit Law for the most elementary case of a production-consumption economy with market-clearing reads Qm≡−Sm. This is the irreducible hardcore of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

For the more complex cases see the overview on Wikimedia.#1 From this overview follows that the MMT sectoral balances equation is provably false.

That you have not realized anything to this day disqualifies you as a mathematician and economist.


#1 Wikimedia, Profit Law
***

REPLY to Brian Romanchuk on Feb 16

You say: “You missed the entire point. There is no market-clearing in the model I referred to; there are inventories.”

The model you published last week is NOT the point at issue. The definition of macroeconomic profit is at issue. You said: “You’re defining profits wrong.”

The fact is that there are two cases (i) market-clearing (ii) inventory changes.

Case (ii) has been dealt with elsewhere.#1 This leaves one with (i). And in this case, macroeconomic profit is in the elementary production-consumption economy Qm≡−Sm. This formula is sufficient to disprove Keynes and MMT and you. There is NO need to go any further. You got the basics wrong.


#1 Primary and Secondary Markets, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Working Paper No. 741

***
#PointOfProof
Feb 16

January 28, 2019

There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘Yes, There Are Individual Economists Worth Paying Respect to. But Is Economics Worth Paying Respect to?’

Blog-Reference

“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)

To this day, economists do NOT have the true theory. To recall, scientific truth is well-defined: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant)

The fact of the matter is that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.

For 200+ years now, economists do not know what profit is.#1 Because of this foundational blunder, economics is scientifically worthless. And because of this, economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations. And because of this, economists are the major cause of economic crises. By default, every economic mess is econogenic unless proven otherwise.#2

Economics is for 200+ years at the proto-scientific level. What is long overdue is a Paradigm Shift. This cannot happen with the given personage. Economists’ modus operandi is to simply ignore scientific standards and to imperturbably recycle falsified theories: “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)

Krugman, for example, who is on the list of “smart, honest, honorable economists” has not realized to this day that Keynes’ I=S is false for 80+ years and still recommends IS-LM as a useful model.#3

Economists are not smart, the proof being that they have not figured out to this day what profit is and how the monetary economy works. They are neither honest nor honorable because what they are doing for 200+ years now is NOT science but political agenda-pushing. Economists are NOT scientists but agenda pushers / useful idiots / clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Profit
#2 Econogenics in action
#3 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It

Related 'Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'.

***

AXEC136g

January 22, 2019

What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong?

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘By Popular Demand: What Is “Modern Monetary Theory”?’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Brad DeLong defines macroeconomic common sense: “We do not like high unemployment. We do not like excessive inflation. Thus the government should make it its first priority to use its tools of economic management so that we do not experience either.” and asks “So what can go wrong with MMT?”

Like all economic common non-sensers, Brad DeLong forgets to mention distribution. What is missing in his list is: We do not like an extremely skewed distribution of income and financial wealth.

In his post, the word profit does not appear once. MMTers, too, desperately avoid mentioning profit. Mere coincidence?

In a nutshell, the lethal defect of MMT policy guidance is that according to the macroeconomic Profit Law it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit or in common-sense terms: permanent MMT deficit-spending/money-creation is a permanent free lunch for the one-percenters.#1

Keynes got macroeconomic profit wrong 80+ years ago,#2 but neither Post-Keynesians,  nor Anti-Keynesians, nor MMTers, nor Brad DeLong spotted the blunder to this day.

There is NO such thing as scientifically valid economics. It holds: false economic theory makes bad economic policy. Scientifically incompetent economists are the ultimate cause of unemployment, distributional implosion, financial collapse, and disaster. MMT is only the latest example of a 200+ years old fatal tradition.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
#2 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right

Related 'MMT and the magical profit disappearance' and 'Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick' and 'Profit, income, and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy' and 'Down with idiocy!' and 'False economic theory makes bad economic policy'.

***

REPLY to Alan on Jan 23 and Blog-Reference

Yous say: “I’m not ready to ditch Keynes based on this effort.”

You are simply one of the many retarded economists who has not realized that Keynes messed up macro.

Keynes’ scientific incompetence can be exactly located in the GT: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

“His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

So, the economist Keynes NEVER understood profit. Because of this, all I=S/IS-LM models and the rest of Keynesianism and Post-Keynesianism including MMT are false.#1

Keynes’ premise income = value of output is false. From the correct macroeconomic axioms follows:
(1) Q=−S in the elementary production-consumption economy,
(2) Q=I−S in the elementary investment economy,
(3) Q=Yd+I−S in the investment economy with profit distribution,
(4) Q=Yd+I−S+(G−T)+(X−M) in the general case with government in an open economy.

From (3) follows Allais’ correct equation Qre=I−S.

From (4) follows the correct sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0 which contrasts with the false MMT equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0.#2, #3

From (4) follows Public Deficit = Private Profit. And this tells one that MMT is a program for the permanent self-alimentation of the Oligarchy.

Macroeconomics is provably false from Keynes onward to MMT. The representative economist has not realized anything to this day because he is too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.

Scientific incompetence is the reason why economics is after 200+ years still at the proto-scientific level.


#1 For more details see cross-references Refutation of I=S
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#3 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism

***
REPLY to mulp on Jan 24

Yes, Friedman was an economics blatherer and political fraudster. He is now buried at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery together with the rest of failed/fake scientists. What about looking after the living and very busy fraudsters of present-day academia?

MMTers like Stephanie Kelton let profit disappear before your very eyes#1 and you don’t understand anything but conjure up the ghost of Mad Milton. What is wrong with you?


#1 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick

***
REPLY to Jared on Jan 26

Inflation is NOT the problem of MMT deficit-spending/money-creation. This is simple-minded Quantity Theory nonsense. Deficit spending causes a one-time price hike. Growing public debt is compatible with a stable price level.#1

The government can deficit-spend by simply increasing its overdrafts at the Central Bank and not consolidating this debt by issuing interest-bearing bonds. And the CB can at any time monetize bonds in circulation. So, as a matter of principle, the bond market is not a serious obstacle to MMT policy.

The government can spend without taxing. A stable Zero-Tax Economy is feasible in principle.#2

The lethal effect of the MMT policy is on distribution. Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. So MMT policy is first of all a free lunch for the Oligarchy. MMT’s social policy measures are paid for in real terms by WeThePeople themselves through stealth taxation.#3 To pay for social benefits with deficit-spending/ money-creation is simply a political fraud.

Brad DeLong as the representative economist has NEVER understood what profit is and because of this, he does not understand that MMT is a program for the permanent self-alimentation of the Oligarchy. As a rule of thumb, the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt.

Politically speaking, MMT policy is a suicide program for US democracy. The thing is, that economists are part of it.


#1 MMT and the inflation-red-herring
#2 The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax Economy
#3 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution

***
REPLY to Jared on Jan 28 and Blog-Reference on Jan 30

You say: “This is the real threat that MMT represents to the oligarchy.”

MMT represents NO threat to the oligarchy because MMTers are the agents of the Oligarchy. This follows from the fact that MMT policy guidance boils down to deficit-spending/money-creation. Now, the macroeconomic Profit Law tells everyone that Public Deficit = Private Profit and from this follows as a rule of thumb that the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt. In other words, the fabulous wealth of the Oligarchy is the counterpart of humungous public debt ($21.5 trillion). To remove all obstacles to the further growth of public debt is the mission of MMTers.#1, #2, #3, #4

Now, everybody is entitled to use any medium between the soapbox and the blogosphere and to communicate any imaginable BS. In the political sphere, anything goes. However, this does not apply to the scientific sphere. While the currency in the political sphere is opinion, the currency in the scientific sphere is knowledge and both cannot coexist. This is known for 2300+ years: “There cannot be both opinion and knowledge of the same thing at the same time.” (Aristotle)

The political sphere and the scientific sphere have to be kept apart because politics always and everywhere corrupts science. This happened to economics. According to the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency, MMT is refuted on all counts.#5 However, MMT is not expelled from the sciences but allowed to use academia as a forum for pushing their political agenda.

The problem with Brad DeLong is that he is either too stupid to realize that MMT is proto-scientific garbage or he is part of the general political corruption of economics.

To say of MMT, or, for that matter, of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism that it poses a threat to the oligarchy is a blatant misinterpretation of the history of economic thought since Adam Smith.


#1 Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy
#2 MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia
#3 Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents
#4 MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy
#5 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

January 9, 2019

Economics: A failed/fake science for 200+ years

Comment on Brad DeLong’s post of Jan 8, 2019

Blog-Reference

There is no point in beating folks like Robert Barro, and all the other Lucases and Famas and Boldrins and Cochranes” and remaining loudspeakers of the mainstream.#1 This only distracts from the fact that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent, and that all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong. In other words, there is NO such thing as scientifically valid economics.

“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 economists do not have the true theory: after 200+ years, economics is a failed/fake science or what Feynman called a cargo cult science.#2 The vast majority of economists are NOT scientists but political agenda pushers. Economics is NOT an integral part of science but of the Circus Maximus.

To be sure, the Barros, Lucases, and Famas cannot be taken seriously, but neither can the Krugmans, Thomases, and DeLongs.#3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Stop beating mainstream economics ― it is long dead
#2 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#3 Trust in economics as a science?

For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.

***
AXEC136g


December 31, 2018

Wage rate and employment: the basics

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘Would Small Minimum Wage Increases Raise or Have No Effect on Employment?’

Blog-Reference

There are three approaches to answer the fundamental question of economics about the relationship between wages and employment.

(i) “That is the current question ― would (small) minimum wage increases have no effect on employment because labor-supply curves are steep, or would they boost employment by curbing employers with monopsony power from pushing both wages and employment below their competitive equilibrium values?”

This mainstream/microfounded approach is false because no such things as supply curves, demand curves, and equilibria exist. These things are NONENTITIES like unicorns, the tooth fairy, or dancing-angels-on-a-pinpoint.

The representative economist, though, has not realized anything to this day. Accordingly, the answer to the questions is: one school finds that a higher wage reduces employment, the other finds little effect.

(ii) The second approach is to rely on some apparently qualified journalist: “… because a career spent working at the New York Times has drilled into him the idea that he must be ‘fair’, and ‘fairness’ means (a) finding a position usually attributed to Democrats, (b) finding a position usually attributed to Republicans, and (c) presenting them both even-handedly, without affect or winky-winky as to which is most likely to be correct.”

Again, the answer is inconclusive.

(iii) The third way is to forget all this incompetent blather and to do some serious scientific homework.#1 The outcome of a macrofounded analysis is the Employment Law.#2

From the non-behavioral, objective-systemic Employment Law follows: An increase in the factor cost ratio ρF≡W/PR leads to higher employment. So, as a matter of fact, overall employment INCREASES if the average wage rate W INCREASES relative to average price P and productivity R and vice versa. This is the OPPOSITE of what the economics textbooks say.

The Employment Law consists of measurable variables and is testable. Obviously, this is the scientifically correct way to definitively answer the question.

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)

After 200+ years, orthodox and heterodox economists do NOT have the true employment theory and get the most critical relationship of economics wrong.

Time to retire these incompetent folks.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Mass unemployment: The joint failure of orthodox and heterodox economics
#2 Wikimedia AXEC62  Employment Law
For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment/Phillips Curve.


***

REPLY to Vincent J. Geloso, Graydon, JEC on Jan 2

You are merely playing ping-pong with worn-out slogans.

It is incumbent upon me to inform you that the microfoundations approach is long dead and buried. Its incurable methodological defect is well known, it is the Fallacy of Composition. Only imbeciles still argue within the analytical framework of supply-demand-equilibrium or General Equilibrium.

Microfoundations have to be replaced by macrofoundations. This methodological operation is known as Paradigm Shift.

From the correct macrofoundations follows a POSITIVE relation between wage rate and employment for the economy as a whole.

False theory leads to false policy guidance. With their defective microfounded employment theory, economists bear for 150+ years the political responsibility for the social devastation of mass unemployment.


***
Twitter Feb 26, 2021

August 6, 2018

Debunking MMT in one Counter-Tweet

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘SUNDAY MORNING TWITTER: FUNCTIONAL FINANCE/A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE TWEETING...’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

(i) The macroeconomic foundations of MMT are provably false. More specifically, the MMT sectoral balances equation is proto-scientific garbage.#1

(ii) Because of (i) the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false.

(iii) Because of (ii) MMT is scientifically worthless.

(iv) Since the founding fathers, in economics, a theory need NOT be true according to well-defined scientific criteria but only politically useful. Economics started as Political Economy and is a cargo cult science since then.

(v) According to the axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit.

(vi) Because all MMT policy guidance boils down to deficit-spending/money-creation, MMT policy directly and immediately increases macroeconomic profit. Effects on employment/ prices are uncertain and secondary.

(vii) Because of (vi) MMTers are the natural useful idiots of the one-percenters.

(viii) The MMT sales crowd promotes an economic theory that is definitively falsified according to the scientific criteria of material/formal consistency in the social media and in the econblogosphere by pretending that MMT policy is for the benefit of the ninety-nine percenters.

(ix) MMT academics do NOT promote science but provide a cover for the agenda of the one-percenters.

(x) MMT academics suppress critique/refutation of MMT on their blogs and on Twitter.

(xi) The observable unequal distribution of income and financial wealth is the empirical proof (a) of the axiomatically correct Profit Law, and (b), that the deficit-agenda-pushing from Keynes to Lerner to MMT to Trump has been very successful.

(xii) MMT is the easily recognizable tip of the iceberg of political corruption of economics.

(xiii) Brad DeLong’s BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE TWEETING does NOT originate from the Republic of Plato but from the Sewer of Romulus and reminds everybody that the internet could, as far as economics is concerned, be an intellectual force multiplier but is actually “a hive of scum and villainy...” (DeLong)

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references MMT

***

Wikimedia AXEC142

February 28, 2018

Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘Paul Krugman Looks Back at the Last Twenty Years of the Macroeconomic Policy Debate’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Mar 1

A theory must satisfy TWO criteria ― material AND formal consistency. Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing. This is known for 2300+ years: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle Wikipedia)

Paul Krugman, for one, is quite explicit about how he has solved the Starting Problem: “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point.”

Paul Krugman has not realized since his student days that neoclassical economics has already been dead in the cradle 150+ years ago. In other words, the neoclassical premises are NOT certain, true, and primary. In still other words, neoclassical economics is axiomatically false. And when the axiomatic foundations are false the whole analytical superstructure is false.#1 As a result, the microfoundations approach from Jevons/Walras/ Menger onward to DSGE is scientifically worthless.

But Paul Krugman is also a Keynesian, sorta-kinda. Keynes built macro on these premises: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, p. 63)

Unfortunately, Keynes got macroeconomic profit wrong: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Because profit is ill-defined the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesianism is false, in particular, all I=S/IS-LM models.#2

Paul Krugman, of course, realized nothing and used and praised IS-LM as a superior tool for macroeconomic analysis.#3

Needless to emphasize that Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations do not fit together. Therefore, a synthesis of the two is methodological madness since Samuelson’s 1948 textbook.

To this day, Paul Krugman’s economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundations but is plucked out of the thin air of political populism. Because both Walrasianism and Keynesianism are axiomatically false, economic policy advice is to this day no different from the poultry entrails reading of the old Roman haruspex.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references Axiomatization.
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Keynesianism.
#3 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It

Related 'Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics' and 'The Krugman curse' and 'Paul the Menace'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***

Wikimedia AXEC128 The Humpty Dumpty Fallacy

August 14, 2017

Walrasian micro and Keynesian macro need to be flushed away

Comment on Bradford DeLong on ‘Micro Needs Macro’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

This is the track record of economics: provably false
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S, IS-LM), for 80+ years.
The main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong. The representative economist, though, has not noticed anything.#1

What the representative economist should, but cannot, understand is that nothing less than a paradigm shift is required. Economics does not need ‘new’ thinking of renowned orthodox and heterodox proto-scientific suckers but a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to the true macrofoundations. Nothing less will do.

The enthusiasm of failed suckers for New Economic Thinking cannot be taken seriously.#2 Time to get rid of scientifically worthless economics and failed/fake scientists who get nothing right for 200+ years.#3

The first rule of economic methodology says: If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.#4

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent
#2 New Economic Thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig
#3 In search of new economists
#4 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking

***
Wikimedia AXEC121i

July 24, 2017

Forget Hayek

Comment on David Glasner on ‘Hayek, Deflation and Nihilism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

There are TWO economixes: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, and the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

Theoretical economics consists of the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― which are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

A closer look at the history of economic thought shows that theoretical economics had been hijacked from the very beginning by the agenda pushers of political economics. Smith and Ricardo fought for Liberalism, Marx and Keynes were agenda pushers, so were Hayek and Friedman, and so are Krugman and Keen.

Political economists have achieved NOTHING of scientific value in the past 200+ years. Hayek was a political economist and an utterly incompetent scientist. His foundational error/mistake/blunder consisted of the assumption that the economy is inherently stable and heals itself. This has never been more than an assertion. No proof has ever been given. Worse, it can be proved that the market economy is inherently unstable.

Economics is a systems science ― NOT a behavioral science. Accordingly, the correct approach is not microfoundations but macrofoundations. An elementary version of the axiomatically correct (objective, systemic, behavior-free, macrofounded) Employment Law is shown on Wikimedia AXEC62.#1
From this equation follows:
(i) An increase in the expenditure ratio ρE leads to higher employment L (the Greek letter ρ stands for ratio).
(ii) Increasing investment expenditures I exert a positive influence on employment.
(iii) An increase in the factor cost ratio ρF≡W/PR leads to higher employment.

Item (i) and (ii) cover the familiar arguments about aggregate demand. The factor cost ratio ρF as defined in (iii) embodies the price mechanism. The fact is that overall employment INCREASES if the AVERAGE wage rate W INCREASES relative to average price P and productivity R. This is the OPPOSITE of what microfounded economics teaches.#2

Hayek’s vacuous theoretical blather in the 1930s boiled down to the proposal of flexible wage cuts: “Hayek viewed deflation as potentially beneficial if it would break the rigidities obstructing adjustments in relative prices.”

Hayek obviously had no idea how the market system works. The Employment Law shows that a reduction of the wage rate reduces employment. This means that the market economy is inherently unstable. The commonsensical reaction to unemployment is a fall in the wage rate, but this increases unemployment.

The lethal methodological blunder of microfounded employment theory consists of the Fallacy of Composition, i.e. the illegitimate transfer of truths that hold for one firm/market onto the economy as a whole. False theory leads to false policy guidance. Scientifically incompetent economists bear the intellectual responsibility for the social devastation of mass unemployment.

“Late in life, moreover, he [Napoleon] 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) Hayek was one in the long line of scientifically incompetent political economists who actively participated in the dustification of the market economy. He will find his ultimate history-of-thought resting place in the close neighborhood of Flat-Earthers.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Employment
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Employment.

Related 'Hayek or how economists miss their subject matter for more than 200 years' and 'Hayek and other informationally retarded proto-economists' and 'Hayek ― agenda pusher or scientist?' and 'Why Hayek was not a scientist' and 'Hayek was not an economist' and 'Hayek: mad, bad, or just another incompetent economist?' and 'Forget Friedman, forget Keynes' and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

July 19, 2017

New Economic Thinking: The 10 crucial points

Comment on Bradford DeLong on ‘How to Think Like an Economist’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 19 and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 20 adapted to context

Bradford DeLong gives a comprehensive overview of what he and the representative economist understand under economic thinking.#1 His post can be taken as an inventory of all that is wrong with economics. This, in turn, delivers the red thread for the systematic enumeration of necessary changes.

(i) The State of Economics

The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong.

Provably false:
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S, IS-LM), for 80+ years.#2

This means that the textbooks from Samuelson (1948) to Mankiw and Rodrik are scientifically worthless.#3

(ii) Paradigm Shift

Economics is a failed science. The four main approaches are indefensible. The arguments of the representative economist about specific difficulties of his subject matter have to be taken for what they are: as excuses, more precisely, as thoroughly refuted excuses.#4

The fact that an approach is axiomatically false means that it cannot be improved but must be fully replaced.

(iii) Systems science

Bradford DeLong argues: “While economics is not a natural science, it is a science — a social science.” This is a popular misunderstanding. Economics is a systems science. Economics is about how the economy works and NOT about Human Nature/motives/ behavior/action.#5 These issues are left to psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, social philosophy, biology/evolution theory etcetera.

(iv) Separation of Politics and Science

The question about the Good Society is a political question that has to be answered in the political realm and NOT in the scientific realm. Already J. S. Mill was quite explicit about the separation of politics and science.#6

(v) True macrofoundations

The fact is that the subject matter of economics is ill-defined or, in methodological terms, that economics is axiomatically false.

A paradigm shift means in practical terms that economics has to move from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations because if it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.#7

(vi) Methodology

The failure of economics is mainly due to the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction. In other words, economists cannot rise above the level of storytelling. One storyline is that of supply-demand-equilibrium and the wonderful feats of the Invisible Hand, the other storyline is that of the struggle between the good guys = workers and the bad guys = capitalists. Storytelling is scientific rubbish but people like it.

The economy is an abstraction. The correct abstraction to start with is what Keynes called the ‘monetary theory of production’. Scientific theories are defined by material/formal consistency.

The analysis proceeds top-down, that is it starts with macrofoundations which are step by step differentiated, in other words, the analysis advances from the elementary to the complex.

There is no vague blather, no rhetoric, no metaphors, no Psychologism, no Sociologism, no second-guessing of human motives or expectations, no gossip, no sitcom talk, no narrative, and no storytelling. There is nothing but measurable variables, equations, and graphs. Because all variables are measurable all conclusions are testable.

(vii) The elementary production-consumption economy

The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the (world-) economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm.#8 The pure production-consumption economy is formally given by:
• Three macroeconomic axioms:
(A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L,
(A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L,
(A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.
• Two initial conditions: market-clearing, i.e. X=O, and budget balancing, i.e. C=Yw.
• Two definitions: monetary saving of the household sector Sm≡Yw−C and monetary profit of the business sector Qm≡C−Yw. It always holds Qm+Sm=0 or Qm≡−Sm.

(viii) The evolving economy

The axioms (A1) to (A3) refer to a period of predetermined length. The variables for one period and the next period are connected by rates of change (deterministic or random). The proper formal representation is not a set of equations but a simulation. The open-ended simulation is given with the Economics God Equation.#9

(ix) The market

It is a must to forget a whole bunch of NONENTITIES: utility, production function, supply function resp. SS-curve, demand function resp. DD-curve, equilibrium/disequilibrium. Supply-demand-equilibrium, the totem of micro/macro, is dead. Functions are fictions and therefore reduced to period elasticities.

The macroeconomic market is formally defined by the Law of Supply and Demand.#10

(x) Employment and real growth/decline

The pure production-consumption economy has, of course, to be expanded to the investment economy. This yields the Employment Law.#11This equation shows how employment/ unemployment depends on aggregate demand and the price- and profit mechanism, i.e. on the relative changes of wage rate, price, and productivity. The growth/decline of output and changes in the income distribution can be derived from the Employment Law. The stocks of inventory, money, and capital are consistently derived from the period flows as numerical integrals.

The Employment Law proves that the market economy is inherently unstable and shows the possible entry points for effective policy measures.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 How to think like an economist (if, that is, you wish to …)
#2 Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud
#3 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#4 Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses
#5 Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system
#6 The end of political economics
#7 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
#8 For the verbal description see How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down
#9 Wikimedia AXEC25 The Economics God Equation


#10 Wikimedia AXEC64 Law of Supply and Demand
#11 Wikimedia AXEC46 Employment Law/structural-systemic Phillips Curve

Immediately preceding How economists habitually mess it up. For details of the big picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.