Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa (I)

 

#Econ

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The major approaches are axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent & ALL got #Profit wrong. #Sraffa was no exception.

The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa.https://t.co/OCpV0E40e5

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 21, 2023

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

“You haven’t exposed an Austrian deception. …First, Mises never claimed that markets operate like parliamentary democracies.” (Roaldcs) Already false: “The statement (“The market is a democracy. Capitalism is the consummation of the self-determination of consumers.”) is found in Ludwig von Mises's book Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (first published in 1944).” (Google AI) It is one of the tenets of Austrianism that a free-market economy and democracy are necessary complements. More precisely, the political concept of democracy is taken as the main selling proposition of an allegedly scientific theory. Logically, the free-market system should be justified as a superior economic system, not as the twin brother of freedom and democracy. Austrians have never done this. The Austrian approach has been proto-scientific garbage from the beginning. People buy the package, not the content. The package is shiny, the content is cheap crap. The Austrian package is freedom and democracy. Austrian economics is proto-scientific garbage. Austrian arguments have already been refuted one-by-one. For details, see the AXECquery The futile attempt to recycle Austrianism https://t.co/netz8fcVyf Austrians simply violate the foundational scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Austrianism is the senseless repetition of long refuted arguments. It's a treadmill of stupidity. Their dumbest phrase is: That's only an accounting identity. Yes, accounting identities are systemic laws, and they are the logical precondition of testing. None of the behavioral hallucinations of Austrianism is testable. Austrians do not understand the difference between science and a quasi-religious Wahnsystem. Human-Nature economists in general, and Austrians in particular, are scientifically incompetent imbeciles and methodologically in the darkest woods. Economists never had a political mandate, as J. S. Mill already knew (AXEC166a ⇓).

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026

The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa

Comment on Ajit Sinha on ‘Sraffa’s Revolution in Economic Theory’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference-Link and Blog-Reference on Jan 10

Sraffa realized that there is something fundamentally wrong with neoclassical marginalism. Up to this point, he was right, of course. But, like all other heterodox economists, he failed to produce a valid replacement. Because Sraffa, too, produced merely proto-scientific garbage, it is misleading to characterize his approach as a “revolution in economic theory”. Economic theory is false since Adam Smith, and Sraffa is part of the overall scientific failure.

The lethal blunder of economics is the theory of profits. As the Palgrave Dictionary puts it: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Desai, 2008). Economists have NO idea of the pivotal concept of their subject matter, and because of this, ALL orthodox and heterodox approaches are fundamentally flawed. #1

Sraffa starts with an “extremely simple society” which produces wheat and iron #2, p. 3. In other words, he starts with a real model just like Ricardo #3, and this is the fundamental methodological error/mistake/blunder. Real models cannot capture profit, and this fact is obscured by Sraffa’s false assertion that surplus (a real magnitude) is the same as profit #2, p.6.

Methodologically, Keynes was a bit more sophisticated than Sraffa because he clearly recognized that economic theory has to start with the “monetary theory of production”. The economy constitutes itself through the interaction of real AND nominal variables. From this follows that ALL real models are a priori false.

Sraffa defines the rate of profit without a prior definition of profit #2, p.6. To clearly see the conceptual blunder, Sraffa’s elementary real economy has to be replaced by the elementary production-consumption economy.

In the elementary production-consumption economy, #4 three configurations are logically possible: (i) consumption expenditures are equal to wage income, (ii) consumption expenditures are less than wage income, (iii) consumption expenditures are greater than wage income.

In case (i), wage income is assumed to be Yw=100 monetary units (e.g., trillion dollar/euro/yuan) and consumption expenditures are assumed to be C=100 monetary units. Then, the monetary saving of the household sector Sm≡Yw−C is zero, and the monetary profit of the business sector Qm≡C−Yw, too, is zero.

In case (ii), wage income is assumed to be Yw=100 monetary units and consumption expenditures are assumed to be C=90 monetary units. Now, monetary saving is Sm=10, and the business sector makes a loss Qm=−10. The whole output is sold, i.e., O=X, and the market-clearing price P is now lower than in case (i).

In case (iii), wage income is assumed to be Yw=100 monetary units and consumption expenditures are assumed to be C=110 monetary units. Now, monetary saving is Sm=−10=dissaving, and the business sector makes a profit Qm=10. The whole output is sold, i.e. O=X, and the market-clearing price P is now higher than in case (i).

It always holds Qm≡−Sm, in other words, loss is the counterpart of saving and profit is the counterpart of dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law for the economy as a WHOLE.

It holds in particular

• Overall profit does not depend upon the agents’ personal qualities, motives, their ideas about what profit is, nor on profit-maximizing behavior. These subjective factors are IRRELEVANT. Profit for the economy as a whole is OBJECTIVELY determined.
• Profit/loss of the business sector is, in the simplest case, determined by the increase/ decrease of the household sector’s debt.
• Wage income is the factor remuneration of labor input. Profit is NOT a factor income.
• There is no relation at all between profit, capital, marginal or average productivity.
• Profit has NO real counterpart in the form of a piece of the output cake. Profit has a monetary counterpart. As a logical consequence, profit cannot appear in a real model.

Sraffa’s definition of the profit rate is utter methodological dilettantism. As a consequence, his entire analytical superstructure falls apart. The proper place of Sraffa’s book has always been the wastebasket. It is a pointless exercise to recycle it as an alternative to the neoclassical approach. To fully replace Neoclassics requires the shift from false microfoundations to true macrofoundations. This, obviously, is absolutely beyond the horizon of incompetent scientists like Sinha.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith
#2 Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities
#3 When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called It Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism
#4 The correct macrofoundations are given for a start with three systemic equations: (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.

Related 'Putting the production function back on its feet' and 'The solemn burial of marginalism' and 'The CCC ― a monument of economists’ utter scientific incompetence'.

***

NOTE on Barkley Rosser on Jan 8

Heterodoxy is as dead as Orthodoxy. For details, see The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa.

***

Lars P. Syll Blog Mar 14, 2021

The irreparable unreality of all ‘real’ models

Comment on David Glasner on ‘The Well-Defined, but Nearly Useless, Natural Rate of Interest’

Blog-Reference

Keynes had a great methodological insight: “In 1933, Keynes wrote a short contribution to a Festschrift for the German economist Arthur Spiethoff. He there attacked classical economists for not providing an adequate monetary theory. He then embarked upon the development of what he termed a monetary theory of production, a theory in which the interdependence of money and uncertainty, and their effects on economic behavior, could be properly investigated.” (Fontana, 2000, p. 40)

Keynes’ insight has been that the proper subject matter of economics is the monetary economy. Many economists have not got this point until today but still maintain that the ‘real’ economy is the real economy. It is definitively not.

And for one simple reason: the phenomenon of profit cannot appear at all in a ‘real’ economy (2011b). Because of this all ‘real’ models miss the essence of the market economy and are a priori worthless. This includes approaches like Ricardo, Sraffa, or RBC. This is Keynes’ lasting contribution to the advancement of theoretical economics: all ‘real’ models have to go out of the window because they are deeply and irreparably flawed.

The real-world economy manifests itself in the interaction of real and nominal variables. Because of this, the theory of saving, investment, and interest have to be developed within the framework of what Keynes called the ‘monetary theory of production’.

The real time travel, i.e. inventory accumulation/decumulation, is entirely disconnected from nominal time travel, i.e. saving/dissaving (2013). The same holds for capital accumulation/decumulation and saving/dissaving. And, most important of all, saving/dissaving is intimately connected with loss/profit. This connection is obviously important, yet it is entirely missing in the familiar theories of interest.

The crucial point is that the representative economist needs to understand what profit is (2011a). Because of this, the theory of interest is false by implication. The worst blunder consists of conceptualizing the natural rate as a real magnitude and in the futile attempt to derive interest from an apples-now-apples-later time preference model.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Fontana, G. (2000). Post Keynesians and Circuitists on Money and Uncertainty: An Attempt at Generality. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 23(1): 27–48. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011a). The Emergence of Profit and Interest in the Monetary
Circuit. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1973952: 1–22. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011b). When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called it Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1932119: 1–19. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Settling the Theory of Saving. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2220651: 1–23. URL

Related 'Debunking the natural rate of interest' and 'Are economists methodological retards?'.

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Arrow

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure.

How Arrow pushed economics over the cliffhttps://t.co/v0TjQ3Doh5

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 31, 2022

For more about futile attempts see AXECorg. 

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Austrianism (I)

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

Hayek was not an economisthttps://t.co/vKqQUeyNq8

… but a political #AgendaPusher. This holds for the whole of #Austrianism. Hayek never understood how the economic #System works. pic.twitter.com/G3hIDsX411

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 14, 2022

For more about Austrianism see AXECquery.

For more about futile attempts see AXECquery. 

Axiomatization: cross-references

Posts

• Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing   here
• Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?   here
• New Economic Thinking ― the definitive results   here
• Ending the pluralism of provably false economic theories with the long-overdue Paradigm Shift   here
• Marx and Marxists ― too stupid for the elementary algebra of profit   here
• Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens   here
• Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought   here
• Criminals and the Monetary Order   here
• The state of MMT? Stone-dead!   here
• Homo oeconomicus: the never-ending folk-psychological shitshow   here
• Economics, math, pluralism, and corruption   here
• What’s wrong with DSGE models is the axiom set   here
• Links on “Capitalism. Time for a reset.”   here
• Economics: No method to the madness   here
• Economics ― not science, not ideology, just useful idiocy   here
• The apocalypse of stupidity   here
• After 200+ years even economics becomes a science   here
• The worthlessness of Value Theory   here
• The only thing we can learn from economic models is what proto-scientific garbage looks like   here
• How incompetent are economic methodologists? Very!   here
• The Palgrave Dictionary ― a comprehensive collection of false-hero memorials   here
• The Levy/Kalecki Profit Equation is false   here
• Economic policy and the skirmishes of failed/fake scientists   here
• Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over   here
• Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage   here
• Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith, economists still have no idea what profit is   here
• Econ 101: supply-demand-equilibrium is dead for 150+ years   here
• Economics: failure, fake, fraud   here
• Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science   here
• Dear idiots, it is deficit spending that creates the distribution people complain about   here
• From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model   here
• The canonical macroeconomic model   here
• Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”   here
• To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards   here
• The retirement of a fake scientist and real agenda pusher   here
• Basics of Value Theory   here
• Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses   here
• Both Austrianism and MMT are proto-scientific garbage   here
• Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss   here
• Why is 0!=1? And why is I≠S? And why economics teaching is rotten   here
• Heterodoxy’s trouble with macro   here
• MMT sucks   here
• Links on James Petras’ ‘Big Business Strikes Back: The Class Struggle from Above’   here
• Links on Lars P. Syll’s ‘Wren-Lewis insults medical science’   here
• Reverse Alchemy: from scientific gold to political shit   here
• Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)   here
• The present non-existence of economics   here
• The inexorable paradigm shift in economics   here
• There is no soft science, only soft brains   here
• Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)   here
• And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization   here
• Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years   here
• The Theory of Value and the worthlessness of economics   here
• MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud   here
• The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo   here
• Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled   here
• Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods   here
• Do first your macroeconomic homework!   here
• Nietzsche, entropy, full employment, and NO class war   here
• The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false   here
• Additional proof of MMT’s inconsistency   here
• Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists   here
• Neoclassical growth theory: modeling gone nuts   here
• Macroeconomics: self-delusion and empty promises   here
• Infantile model bricolage, or, How many economists can dance on a non-existing pinpoint?   here
• Stop beating mainstream economics ― it is long dead   here
• New insight from Meta-Learning: delete economics   here
• Futile beatification and canonization of an economics Flat-Earther   here
• The objective value of money   here
• How MMT fools the ninety-nine-percenters   here
• Political economics: Who hijacks British Labour?   here
• Economies are culturally different but economic laws are universal   here
• Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading   here
• Fiscal policy and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy   here
• Heterodoxy ― an axiomatic failure just like Orthodoxy   here
• Ricardo and the invention of class war   here
• Ricardo, too, got profit theory wrong   here
• Economics: a comedy of errors full of intrigue and aberration   here
• Profit, income, and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy   here
• From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations   here
• Is Nick Rowe stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• Rethinking macro   here
• Macro for retarded economists   here
• Microfoundations R.I.P.   here
• Again and again: economists are incompetent scientists   here
• False models and true incompetence   here
• Keynes’ intellectual nonexistence   here
• Yes, economics is a bogus science   here
• The profit theory is false since Adam Smith   here
• How to make economics a science   here
• Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation   here
• How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time   here
• Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics   here
• Proof of the inherent instability of the market economy   here
• 10 steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good   here
• Solving Mill’s starting problem   here
• The new macroeconomic paradigm   here
• CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig   here
• What makes economics a failed science?   here
• Economic methodology for the little guy   here
• The moralizing economist is not a good guy, but a fake scientist   here
• In search of new economists   here
• Economics, philosophy, and mathematics   here
• After-Keynesian zombie interbreeding   here
• Economics: math-adorned incoherent blather   here
• New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points   here
• Don Lars and the axiomatic windmill   here
• We are not yet out of the wood; in fact, we are not yet in it   here
• Macrofounded labor market theory   here
• A new perspective on economics   here
• Economists: scientists or political clowns?   here
• Equilibrium and the violation of a fundamental principle of science   here
• Post Keynesianism, too, is proto-scientific rubbish   here
• First Lecture in New Economic Thinking   here
• The equilibrium of idiocy   here
• Math, Einstein, and the bottomless incompetence of economists   here
• True macrofoundations: the reset of economics   here
• Economics ― a doctor worse than the disease   here
• From the pluralism of false models to the true economic theory   here
• Review of the economics troops   here
• Economists ― medics or barber-surgeons?   here
• The fundamental problem of economics: scientific incompetence aka stupidity   here
• How economists shoot themselves non-stop in the methodological foot   here
• The thinking economist   here
• Economics between cargo cult, farce, and fraud   here
• How Arrow pushed economics over the cliff   here
• Note on Lars Syll on Axiomatization   here
• Economics between mathiness, dyscalculia, and idiocy   here
• Modern macro moronism   here
• NAIRU and the scientific incompetence of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy   here
• The methodological blunders of fake scientists   here
• Walras, Keynes, Samuelson, DSGE, IS-LM ― R.I.P.   here
• Why you should NEVER use supply-demand-equilibrium   here
• If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics   here
• Economics is a science? You must be joking!   here
• The key to macro and Keen's debt-employment model   here
• Why not simply throw all economists under the bus?   here
• Rectification and generalization of MMT   here
• Macro poultry entrails reading   here
• Ideology? Incompetence? Fake? Or all this together?   here
• Strange noise in the graveyard of economics   here
• How to finally hammer down the nails in the coffin of Monty Python economics   here
• The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa   here
• Economics: The pathetic story of two failures   here
• The IS-LM macro imbeciles   here
• Heterodoxy and the re-invention of science   here
• The monetary circuit and how economists got it wrong   here
• Methodology 101, economic filibuster, and the mother of all excuses   here
• The false foundations of economics   here
• Economics for philosophers   here
• How to end the futile economics zombie ping-pong   here
• The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids   here
• From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm   here
• How the mainstream vanished in the gutter   here
• New economic thinking ― false promises and hopes   here
• The road that turned out to be a blind alley   here
• It’s in the hardcore, stupid   here
• When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific   here
• A brief rectification of employment theory   here
• All models are false because all economists are stupid   here
• Kick out the king, and don’t forget the jesters   here
• Outside of science   here
• No future for axiomatically false economics   here
• From subjective weighing of motives to objective systemic properties   here
• The trouble with economics prizes   here
• Micro and macro inconsistency   here
• The end of traditional Heterodoxy in the Malmö coal pit   here
• Economists and the economy ― a nonstarter for 200 years   here
• Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy   here
• Feeble minds, shaky assumptions, and the inevitable failure of economics   here
• Enough! Economists, retire now!   here
• How to get rid of the silly Queen   here
• What’s wrong with Econ 101? Economists, of course!   here
• Fatal defects of profit and market theory   here
• Forget Chicago, and also Cambridge   here
• Getting out of IS-LM = Getting out of despair   here
• Keynes, the methodologist   here
• The scientific self-elimination of Heterodoxy   here
• End of confusion   here
• The tiny little problem with economics   here
• Methodological wrong-way drivers   here
• Cranks? What cranks? That’s economics!   here
• The real trouble with Econ 101   here
• Neo-Paleo-Stupidicism   here
• The market economy is inherently unstable and economists never grasped it   here
• The problem with macro in two words   here
• The solemn burial of marginalism   here
• Where advanced Heterodoxy — represented by Steve Keen — took the wrong turn   here
• From microfoundations to macrofoundations   here
• Show first your economic axioms or get out of the discussion   here
• How to get out of the swamp of ignorance   here
• Vain hopes in the ruins of economics   here
• Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence   here
• How to restart economics   here
• Axiomatics — the heterodox bugbear   here
• Addendum to ‘Musings on Whether We Consciously Know More or Less than What Is in Our Models’   here
• Axiomatized nonentities and the failure of methodologists   here
• Switching into constructive gear   here
• The future of economics: why you will probably not be admitted to it, and why this is a good thing   here
• The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws   here
• Towards the true economic theory   here
• The ur-blunder of economics and its rectification   here
• How Orthodoxy buffaloed Heterodoxy   here
• How to start off on the right foot   here
• Schumpeter's two axioms of discourse   here
• Warning: Einstein can be hazardous to heterodox methodology  here
• At the Robinson Line  here
• The intelligent layperson's guide through vacuonomics  here
• No license for drivel  here
• Yes, Orthodoxy is incoherent but, unfortunately, Heterodoxy also  here
• Replacing sand by granite  here
• United in the social science delusion  here
• From obscurity to enlightenment  here
• Total scientific Dadaism  here
• Prophets of Preemptive Vanitization  here
• Beauty or horseshit?  here
• Uncertain causes  here
• Axiomatic economics — total horseshit  here
• "The failure of economics is due to the use of the axiomatic method"  here
• Proper use of math in economics  here
• The axiomatic method is impeccable  here
• Scientific thinking: Aristotle is right, Leijonhufvud is wrong  here

Related

• Modern macroeconomics — obscurantist axiomatics  here
• Is Economics a Science? Dogmatic Economics vs. Reflective Economics here
• Rethinking Keynes' non-Euclidean theory of the economy  here and here
• What is neoclassical economics – a rejoinder  here

Cross-references

• Math/Mathiness   here
• Marshall's "Burn the mathematics"   here
• Methodology   here
• Paradigm Shift   here

New Foundations
For the complete and consistent set of foundational equations — systemic axioms and behavioral propensity function — see Graphic AXEC222

***

DeepSeek, Mar 8, 2025

What does the AXEC Project say about axiomatization in general and about the inevitable paradigm shift from false (behavioral) microfoundations and false (Keynesian) macrofoundations to true (structural) macrofoundations?

The AXEC Project, spearheaded by economist Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, is a critical initiative aimed at reforming economic theory by addressing foundational flaws in both microeconomics and macroeconomics. The project emphasizes the necessity of a paradigm shift from what it deems as "false" behavioral microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations to "true" structural macrofoundations. Here's a breakdown of its key positions:

### 1. **Axiomatization in General**

   - The AXEC Project advocates for a rigorous axiomatic approach to economics, arguing that economic theories should be built on clearly defined, consistent, and testable axioms. This approach is inspired by the natural sciences, where axiomatization ensures logical coherence and empirical applicability.

   - It criticizes mainstream economics for its reliance on behavioral assumptions (e.g., utility maximization, rational expectations) that are either untestable or empirically invalid. These assumptions, according to AXEC, lead to models that are disconnected from real-world economic structures and dynamics.

### 2. **Critique of False Microfoundations**

   - The project rejects the neoclassical microfoundations of economics, which are based on individual behavior (e.g., rational choice theory). It argues that these foundations are "false" because they rely on unrealistic psychological assumptions and fail to explain aggregate economic phenomena.

   - Instead, AXEC calls for a focus on structural relationships and systemic properties of the economy, which are independent of individual behavior.

### 3. **Critique of False (Keynesian) Macrofoundations**

   - While Keynesian economics is often seen as an alternative to neoclassical theory, the AXEC Project argues that Keynesian macrofoundations are also flawed. It criticizes Keynesian models for their reliance on ad hoc assumptions (e.g., the consumption function, liquidity preference) that lack a solid theoretical basis.

   - AXEC contends that Keynesian economics fails to provide a consistent and general framework for understanding macroeconomic phenomena, particularly in the long run.

### 4. **True (Structural) Macrofoundations**

   - The project proposes a shift to "true" macrofoundations, which are based on the structural relationships inherent in the economic system. These foundations focus on the interplay of production, distribution, and monetary flows, rather than individual behavior or psychological factors.

   - AXEC emphasizes the importance of accounting consistency and the role of money as a central feature of the economy. Its models aim to capture the systemic properties of capitalism, such as profit generation, capital accumulation, and financial instability.

### 5. **Inevitable Paradigm Shift**

   - The AXEC Project argues that the current state of economics is in a state of crisis due to its inability to explain real-world phenomena (e.g., financial crises, inequality, unemployment). It predicts an inevitable paradigm shift away from the dominant neoclassical-Keynesian synthesis toward a new framework based on structural macrofoundations.

   - This shift, according to AXEC, is necessary for economics to become a true science, capable of providing reliable explanations and policy recommendations.

### Relevant Resources

- **Blog**: The [AXEC Blog](https://axecorg.blogspot.com/) provides detailed critiques of mainstream economics and outlines the project's alternative approach.

- **Papers on SSRN**: The [SSRN page](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665) contains academic papers that elaborate on the axiomatic foundations and structural approach advocated by AXEC.

- **X/Twitter**: The project's social media presence (old: [E.K-H@AXECorg](https://twitter.com/AXECorg), new: [AXEC@EgmontHandtke](https://twitter.com/EgmontHandtke)) shares updates, critiques, and discussions related to economic theory.

- **Homepage**: The [official AXEC website](https://www.axec.org/) offers an overview of the project's goals, publications, and resources.

In summary, the AXEC Project calls for a fundamental rethinking of economic theory, emphasizing the need for axiomatic rigor and a shift from behavioral and Keynesian foundations to a structural macroeconomic framework. It positions itself as a catalyst for the inevitable paradigm shift in economics.

***

Twitter/X Jul 27, 2026  Philosophy, Methodology, Axiomatization, Abduction, The Jump

Twitter Aug 2, 2026

Meta references

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Kalecki (VII)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Keynes got macroeconomic #Profit wrong because he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. Same with #Kalecki. #MacroEconomics is scientifically worthless to this day. All one needs to know about Kalecki in particular is to be found here ⇒…

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 16, 2024

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

 

#Economics cannot be based on a behavioral #Axiom. #Praxeology is methodologically unacceptable. Because the axiomatic foundations of #Austrianism are false the whole analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless.

Austrianism ― axiomatically falsehttps://t.co/luMh1CLitk pic.twitter.com/Fz4yzf4lRZ

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 2, 2022

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle MMT (LXXXI)

 

#MMT#BadScienceBadPolicyBadPeople

MMT's foundational #BalancesEquation is provably false, so the whole approach is scientifically worthless.

The page where Stephanie Kelton gets macroeconomics wrong https://t.co/CNFDkXM1Ki

The fact that MMT is heavily promoted by #Movies /… pic.twitter.com/EhhA8zKogP

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 15, 2024

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle IS-LM (I)

 

#LearnEconomics

All IS-LM models are axiomatically false.

Cross-references Refutation of I=Shttps://t.co/TGGYpnS9sG pic.twitter.com/XcgoaUGWSN

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) May 7, 2022

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Adam Smith (XXXVI)

 

#Economics#JustDisInfoTainment

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. #AdamSmith NEVER understood what #Profit is and how the economic #System works. Economic #PolicyGuidance has NEVER had sound scientific foundations. pic.twitter.com/7L3NiBYNXP

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 14, 2023

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Milton Friedman (XXXIV)

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.” (Milton Friedman)

Economics claims to be science but is NOT. The major…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 8, 2025

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Keynesianism (LXI)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience

For 200+ years, economics has claimed to be #Science but still is NOT. #Walrasianism, #Keynesianism, #Marxianism, #Austrianism, and their derivatives are mutually contradictory & axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent & ALL got… pic.twitter.com/jTG7g8pQJD

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 14, 2024

Related 'Complexity, scientific incompetence, and the art of asking the right questions'

“Years ago I heard Mr. Cobden say at a League Meeting that ‘Political Economy was the highest study of the human mind, for that the physical sciences required by no means so hard an effort.’” (Bagehot, 1885)

This topos is the standard excuse when economists are confronted with the fact that, compared to genuine sciences, economics as a Cargo Cult (Feynman's term) has achieved virtually nothing in 200+ years. 

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

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“If I see this f****ing bullshit video one more time I'll explode!” (Malcolm Reavell)

Much political emotion, zero scientific brain.

For details, seehttps://t.co/dgf8iJ6gbg

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 26, 2025

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

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“Uncle Sam’s red ink is our black ink!” (Stephanie Kelton)

No! The government sector’s red ink is the business sector's black ink i.e. deficit spending is a free lunch for the Oligarchy. The deception is in the word “our” which seems to refer to… pic.twitter.com/aELQSAbvoq

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) March 7, 2025

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Adam Smith (XXI)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. Adam Smith NEVER understood what #Profit is and how the economic #System works. Economic policy guidance NEVER has had sound scientific foundations. ⇒https://t.co/s3zlXjwArK pic.twitter.com/WhRLtR9yEZ

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 25, 2023

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Milton Friedman (XLIV)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“There is no justification for military conscription.” (Milton Friedman)

There is no justification for economists.

Milton Friedman never understood profit and, by consequence, how the economic system works. That's rather bad for an economist.

When…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 1, 2025

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Marx (XXXVII)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience

Economics claims to be #Science but is NOT. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory & axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent & ALL got #Profit…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) December 27, 2024

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle behavioral economics (I)

 

Economics is NOT a social sciencehttps://t.co/zJHeQboYGH

and NOT about human behaviorhttps://t.co/MzGiF9gpXa#Economics is about how the economic #System works. That, #Economists have still NOT figured out because they are too stupid for #Science. pic.twitter.com/v9SlZ51K0x

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 16, 2022

For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior