Showing posts with label zEE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zEE. Show all posts

December 17, 2016

Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes

Comment on Diane Coyle on ‘Rescuing macroeconomics?’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Dec 18 and Blog-Reference on Dec 18

Macroeconomics cannot be rescued ― and certainly not by Roger Farmer’s silly belief function ― because it is already defunct for 80 years. Farmer writes: “Macroeconomics has taken the wrong path. The error has nothing to do with classical versus New Keynesian approaches. It is a more fundamental error that pervades both.” This is probably the most enlightened sentence in Farmer’s new book.

The fact of the matter is, though, that Roger Farmer does not spot the fundamental error in macroeconomics that pervades all of economics. In order to see this, one has to go back to Keynes.

Keynes realized that the classical microfoundations approach had led into a cul-de-sac and therefore switched to macrofoundations. This was ― in principle ― the right first step towards a Paradigm Shift, except for the fact that Keynes messed up his macrofoundations. This is why Keynesianism, too, is a failure.#1

The lesson from the history of economic thought is that theoretical economics has to proceed top-down, i.e. from macrofoundations down through intermediate levels (sectors, branches, firms, households) to the individual. What has to be recognized is the methodological insight that NO way leads from the understanding of microeconomic behavior to the understanding of how the monetary economy works. And this explains why the microfoundations approach has been doomed to failure from the very beginning.

What neither Orthodoxy nor Keynes ever understood was 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., 2010)

It is pretty obvious that an economist who cannot tell the difference between the fundamental economic magnitudes of profit and income is a laughing stock. This applies to Walrasians and Keynesians of all colors. The Profit Theory is the “more fundamental error” that pervades both microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Rescuing macroeconomics in the correct understanding means a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. This, of course, is entirely beyond the horizon of Roger Farmer.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The unfinished Keynes (I) and How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 Macro for dummies and How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down

Related 'Keynesianism is broken: Get over it!' and 'Rethinking macro' and 'Macroeconomics: self-delusion and empty promises' and 'The other half plus the hitherto missing true foundations of macroeconomics' and 'The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Profit.

***
Wikimedia AXEC121g


October 12, 2015

Time to make economics a science

Comment on Edward Fullbrook on ‘Key member of Swedish Academy of Sciences calls for immediate suspension of the “Nobel Prize for Economics”’

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

  • Science does not explain everything, but non-science explains nothing.
  • Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.
  • Economists cannot explain how the economy works. The profit theory is false since Adam Smith. There is much opinion and little knowledge.
  • Opinion is the realm of political economics, knowledge is the realm of theoretical economics.
  • Political economics is scientifically worthless.
  • Theoretical economics is built upon clearly stated premises, i.e., upon a set of axioms.
  • Orthodoxy got the axiomatic foundations wrong and traditional Heterodoxy has none at all.
  • Economics is a failed science.#1

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 For a new start see cross-references Paradigm Shift

Related 'Redefining economics' and 'How to be a good scientist'

October 4, 2015

How to be a good scientist

Comment on Diane Coyle on ‘How to be a good economist’

Blog-Reference

Towards the end of his book, Rodrik gives a summary for non-economists: “maths is useful; economists are not all alike; economists typically do understand how markets work.” (See intro)

While the triviality of the first two items is unsurpassable, the third assertion is simply false. Economics is a failed science and the representative economist can until this very day not tell the difference between profit and income. Because they do not understand what profit is, economists do not understand how the market system works (2015). Most of them have not yet realized that supply-demand-equilibrium is a ridiculous construct.

It is of utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics.
(i) The goal of political economics is to push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to explain how the actual economy works and nothing else.
(ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, scientific standards are observed.

Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false. The history of political economics, on the other hand, can be summarized as good/bad-moralizing and the perpetual violation of well-defined scientific standards.

The fact of the matter is that theoretical economics has since Adam Smith been dominated by the agenda pushers of political economics which can be characterized by three common traits.
(i) They are mainly occupied with sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, history, etcetera. By dabbling in the so-called social sciences they miss the core of the subject matter, that is, the objective properties of the economic system.
(ii) They use theoretical economics as a means/support for their agenda. By this, they abuse science.
(iii) As far as they have tried to underpin their agenda theoretically it can be rigorously demonstrated in each case that their approaches lack formal and material consistency.

Political economists are incompetent scientists and, by the same token, bad economists.

“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. Eclecticism is not a merit in science. Just the contrary: a heap of loosely connected and contradicting models is the very proof of failure. Rodrik defends the indefensible. A good scientist would not do this.

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.


Related 'Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics' and 'Knowledge only — no opinion'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Methodology.