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

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“I used my experience at Cambridge because I was to some extent at the epicentre of heterodoxy. The faculty of economics there is amazing.” (Pontus Rendahl)

Cambridge has always been a place where morons meet.

Marshall and the Cambridge school of…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) December 2, 2025

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Marshall (II)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

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

Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberishhttps://t.co/7Pr9uG2TmV

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 13, 2023

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

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberishhttps://t.co/7Pr9uG2TmV

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 13, 2023

For more about Marshall see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle Cambridge economics

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

Cambridge has always been better at drinking than thinking. Bc #Keynes was too stupid for the elementary #Algebra of #MacroFoundations, he got the concept of #Profit wrong. Bc of this, the whole of #Macro/#Micro is scientifically worthless. pic.twitter.com/zoG3a1M4pG

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 19, 2022

Related 'Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish'

Occasional Tweets: Alfred Marshall and the history of fake science

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

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

Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberishhttps://t.co/7Pr9uG2TmV

Things have NOT improved to this day. pic.twitter.com/Pg5BM1JcIy

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 28, 2022

For more about Marshall see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: A nice place for economists, but not for science

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

Heart-warming to see Girton College, Cambridge, in their age-old heroic struggle for the poor and oppressed of the world. In marked contrast to the Downing Street party mob, these good folks respected the Covid social distancing rules!

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 19, 2022

Related 'Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish'. 

Occasional Tweets: Macroeconomics ― lots of fun with teaching proto-scientific garbage

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for sciencehttps://t.co/vTNWwrNUxA#DefundEconomics #FireEconomists #ScrapTheLot pic.twitter.com/DJJ7qZwJ3X

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 31, 2021

For more about macrofoundations see AXECquery.

For more about the Cambridge School see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: The Cambridge School of consistent scientific failure

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

I, too, recommend the renowned Cambridge School of Plain Economic Gibberish and the brilliant Carolina Alves for updates on the ongoing scientific failure of economics. ⇒https://t.co/MWuyJY8trR

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 6, 2021

For more about the Cambridge School see AXECquery. 

Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind

Comment on David Glasner on ‘Jack Schwartz on the Weaknesses of the Mathematical Mind’

Blog-Reference

David Glasner quotes Jack Schwartz approvingly: “In a psychological description of the computer intelligence, three related adjectives push themselves forward: single-mindedness, literal-mindedness, simple-mindedness. Recognizing this, we should at the same time recognize that this single-mindedness, literal-mindedness, simple-mindedness also characterizes theoretical mathematics, though to a lesser extent.”

This worn-off cliche of the small-minded mathematician is contrasted with the flamboyant artistic scientist: “Part of what goes into the making of a good scientist is a kind of artistic feeling for how to adjust or interpret a mathematical model to take into account what the bare mathematics cannot describe in a manageable way.”

This echoes Keynes’ hallucinatory self-description of the master economist: “The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in that the master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts. He must be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher ― in some degree. He must understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a politician.”

Never has scientific incompetence advertised itself better. The fact is that Keynes was too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics. #1

Keynes ― the trained mathematician ― stated in his General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This is provably false. The mathematically correct relationship reads Q≡I−S with Q as macroeconomic profit. #2, #3

Let this sink in, the master-economist Keynes had NO idea of 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.) Now it holds: when the foundational concepts are false, the whole analytical superstructure is false. In other words, Keynes’ General Theory is scientifically worthless. #4

That is bad enough, but it gets worse: After-Keynesians did NOT spot Keynes’ blunder to this day. For example, Paul Krugman still applies IS-LM. So, not only Keynes but Post- and Anti-Keynesians alike have been too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics.

Economics (Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, Austrian) is mathematically flawed. As Georgescu-Roegen put it: “It is difficult to contemplate the evolution of the economic science over the last hundred years without reaching the conclusion that its mathematization was a rather hurried job.” This means that economic policy guidance NEVER had valid scientific foundations. Note that the fault lies NOT with mathematics but with economists. Their proven mathematical/scientific incompetence notwithstanding, the pathetic master economists award themselves the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. #5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Economics, math, pluralism, and corruption
#2 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#3 Graphic AXEC143: Macroeconomic Profit Law with increasing complexity of the economy

#4 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Keynesianism
#5 Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times

Related 'What it takes to become a great economist' and 'Who or what exactly did Keynes save?' and 'The unfinished Keynes (III)' and 'Keynes, the methodologist' and 'Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled' and 'Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish' and 'Links on ‘Keynes: socialist, liberal, or conservative?’' and 'Forget Keynes' and 'Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science' and 'Keynesianism is broken: Get over it!' and 'From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model' and 'Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses' and 'The economist as storyteller' and 'The real problem with the economics Nobel' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'.

***

Twitter/FRED The correlation of profit and investment

Links on Alfred Marshall

Comment on Timothy Taylor on ‘Alfred Marshall in 1885: The Present Position of Economics’*

Blog-Reference

Marshall got the subject matter of economics wrong. Economics is NOT about how humans behave but about how the economic system behaves. Time to bury Marshall in the darkest corner of the Flat-Earth-Cemetery. For details see

► Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence
► A note on Marshall's Magic Wand
► From Marshall to Georgescu-Roegen
► Marshall and some skewed arguments
► What engine?
► Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
► Misled by ordinary intuition and common sense
► Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST

Related 'Show first your economic axioms or get out of the discussion' and 'The Cambridge crap curriculum'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior.

Lars Syll ― a particularly stupid/corrupt fake scientist

Comment on Lars Syll/Imad Moosa on ‘Econometrics ― a con art with no relevance whatsoever to real world economics’

Blog-Reference

A closer look at the history of economic thought reveals that 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; 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 historical 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: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. Political economists are NOT scientists but clowns/useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus. #1, #2, #3
 
Economics claims to be science and, by consequence, the economist has to uphold scientific standards. Scientific standards are well-defined since antiquity: “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)

Scientific knowledge is embodied in the true theory. The true theory is the human's best mental representation of reality. This defines the economist’s task: “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)

This translates into the methodological basics: logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art econometric testing.

So, there are the hard rocks of true or false, and there is the vast swamp between them. The swamp is where stupid/corrupt political economists thrive since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman)#4 It is, therefore, quite understandable that the political economist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen which consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, the faux humility of ‘I know that I know nothing’, and the post-modern replacement of true theory by storytelling.#5

The stupid/corrupt political agenda pushers try to defend the swamp where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes) by arguing that the axiomatic-deductive method and state-of-art testing does not work in economics and by denouncing the adherence to the scientific method as “physics envy” and by intimating that physics is just as crappy as the so-called social sciences, i.e. “physics too is really about arbitrary and fickle social consensus”. (R. S. Mitchell)

The popular swampie arguments are

• “Economics is a social science where the behaviour of decision makers is not governed purely by economic considerations but also by social and psychological factors, which are not amenable to econometric testing. This is why no economic theory holds everywhere all the time.” (Moosa)

• “And just as Moosa, Keynes certainly did not misunderstand the crucial issues at stake in his critique of econometrics. Quite the contrary. He knew them all too well ― and was not satisfied with the validity and philosophical underpinnings of the assumptions made for applying its methods.” (Syll)

• “Tinbergen’s model assumes that all relevant factors are measurable. Keynes questions if it is possible to adequately quantify and measure things like expectations and political and psychological factors. And more than anything, he questioned ― both on epistemological and ontological grounds ― that it was always and everywhere possible to measure real-world uncertainty with the help of probabilistic risk measures.” (Syll)

• “In his critique of Tinbergen, Keynes points us to the fundamental logical, epistemological and ontological problems of applying statistical methods to a basically unpredictable, uncertain, complex, unstable, interdependent, and ever-changing social reality.” (Syll)

The lethal blunders of Lars Syll/Imad Moosa are: (i) economics is NOT a social science but a systems science, and (ii) Keynes was a political agenda pusher and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken seriously as a scientist. #6

Keynes famously stated in the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This two-liner 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.)

Let this sink in: the economist Keynes NEVER understood profit, i.e., the fundamental concept of economics. Because he was too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics, the whole of Keynesian theory and methodology is proto-scientific garbage. Instead of I=S, Q≡I−S is true with Q as macroeconomic profit (formal summary on AXEC143d).

So, Keynes got it wrong 80+ years ago, but Lars Syll/Imad Moosa have not figured it out to this day and instead blather about methodology. That’s how the swampies of political economics have been for 200+ years now: stupid or corrupt or both. Lars Syll is both.#7

All political economists have to be expelled from the sciences. This applies also to Lars Syll’s Sweden, where fake scientists/political agenda pushers are to this day rewarded with the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. What a farce: economists are the swampies that have, in 200+ years, not figured out what profit is. Neither Orthodoxy nor traditional Heterodoxy has any scientific content.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Economics: failure, fake, fraud
#2 Economics: A science without scientists
#3 Economics: The greatest scientific hoax in modern times
#4 Getting out of the economics swamp
#5 The economist as storyteller
#6 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#7 For the full-spectrum refutation of Lars Syll, see the label zLPS on AXEC

Related 'How to spot economics trolls' and 'How incompetent are economic methodologists? Very!' and 'Economics: Math is NOT the problem, scientific incompetence is'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption and cross-references Methodology and cross-references Math/Mathiness.

For more about Lars Syll, see AXECquery.

***

Graphic AXEC144c

***

#PointOfProof

Jul 14

before

after

***

Twitter Mar 18, 2021

How to spot economics trolls

Comment on Craig Murray on ‘How To Spot A Twitter Troll’*

Blog-Reference

Craig Murray summarizes: “It is a matter of simple fact that the British government employs a very large number of people whose full time job is to influence the political narrative on social media. The 77th Brigade of the British Army, the Integrity Initiative, MI5 and MI6 and GCHQ all run major programmes of covert online propaganda. These information warriors operate on Twitter, Facebook, and in comments sections across the internet. I have long been fascinated by the disconnect by which people, who do know and understand that the security services employ tens of thousands of people and have budgets of billions, nevertheless find it hard to accept that they may come personally into contact with their operations.”

Does this come as a surprise? No: “Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners’ reality. Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the manufactured reality that is the shadows seen by the prisoners. The inmates of this place do not even desire to leave their prison; for they know no better life.” #1

The situation has not fundamentally changed since the ancient Greeks. Newspapers, radio, TV, and social media only multiply the shadows on the blank wall. The communicative situation is schematically summarized with a graphic AXEC153. #2

So, we have three elements reality-medium-consciousness. Who controls the medium manufactures reality as it appears in consciousness. The British government has been a major player in this business since around WWI, and social media added merely a new facet to the communication mix, which consisted originally of rumor, horror stories (enemy), hero stories (own), disinformation, and censorship.

While everybody knows since George Orwell that history and actuality are, for the most part, literary fiction and medial stagings of scribes/Ministry of Truth/entertainment industry, one tends to think that science is non- and anti-hallucinatory.

The task of science is to eliminate all distortions between reality and consciousness. A materially/formally consistent theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible. Science is binary, i.e., true/false with nothing in between. The ultimate goal of science is the true theory.

This, of course, also holds for 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 of the matter, though, is this: The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, etc. ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit ― the foundational concept of the subject matter ― wrong. Economics is not a coherent body of certain knowledge but a heap of provably false theories.

So, economics has no scientific content but is propaganda in a scientific bluff package. There has been no scientific progress for 200+ years. False theories are not replaced by true theories but simply repeated. Oskar Morgenstern criticized his academic peers back in 1941: “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.”

From this follows that the vast majority of economists were already trolls long before the launch of the econblogosphere. The characteristic of economics is that production and distribution of communicative content have traditionally not so much been under the control of the government as of the Oligarchy. Well-known examples are pivotal institutions like the London School of Economics, #3 the Cowles Commission, #4, or the University of Chicago. #5 This, though, is only the historical tip of the iceberg. The conclusion is not too far-fetched that, in the meantime, academia and the greater part of economics publication/ communication are orchestrated and sponsored by a handful of activist billionaires. This carries quite naturally over to the econblogosphere.

Since the scientific failures of Adam Smith/Karl Marx, who both did not understand profit and how the monetary economy works, economics has not been science but political agenda pushing. This starts with econ textbooks and ends with the EconNobel.

Spotting economics trolls is easy, they identify themselves by waving their camp flag (Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, Austrian, MMTer, Pluralist), announcing to improve/save the world, hype their current bellwether (excellent article, Paul), stubbornly repeat proto-scientific garbage, utter their silly left/center/right opinion, stage their pointless debates, gossip extensively about their private lives, and play their dirty tricks in the background. #6, #7, #8. There is not the slightest idea of scientific truth, i.e. of material/formal consistency, in what they produce. An economist is the epitome of a useful political idiot.

James Buchanan, himself a billionaire-funded economic agenda-pusher, called his colleagues “a bevy of camp-following whores” and more cannot be said about the academic and non-academic folks that populate the econblogosphere. It is troll business as usual.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Craig Murray
#1 Wikipedia Allegory of the Cave
#2 Graphic AXEC153 Allegory of the Cave
#3 “The London School of Economics was founded in 1895 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, initially funded by a bequest of £20,000 from the estate of Henry Hunt Hutchinson. Hutchinson, a lawyer and member of the Fabian Society, left the money in trust, to be put ‘towards advancing its [The Fabian Society's] objects in any way they [the trustees] deem advisable.’
“In 1895, he [Sidney Webb] helped to establish the London School of Economics, using a bequest left to the Fabian Society. He was appointed Professor of Public Administration in 1912, a post he held for fifteen years. In 1892, Webb married Beatrice Potter, who shared his interests and beliefs. The money she brought with her enabled him to give up his clerical job and concentrate on his other activities. Sidney and Beatrice Webb founded the New Statesman magazine in 1913.” (Wikipedia)
#4 “Alfred Cowles III … was an American economist, businessman and founder of the Cowles Commission. He graduated from Yale in 1913, where he was a member of Skull and Bones. He was the grandson of Alfred Cowles, Sr., who was a founder of the Chicago Tribune.” (Wikipedia)
#5 “Veblen’s first job was at the University of Chicago, the university bought and paid for by John D. Rockefeller the classic robber baron, …. Rockefeller called the university ‘the best investment’ he ever made, since he intended to use it to advance the interests of his class and suppress opposition.” (Zimmermann)
#6 The economist as storyteller
#7 Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
#8 Economists/MMTers: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors

Related 'Economics, Plato’s Cave and the Silver Blaze Case' and 'MMT and the woes of useful political idiots' and 'The end of political economics (I)' and 'The end of political economics (II)' and 'Are economics professors really that incompetent? Yes!' 'Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish' and 'Oxford economics — still at the proto-scientific level' and 'Economists: Jacks-of-all-trades ― except economics' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Economics debate ― just another variant of hardcore wrestling' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Right troll left troll pack your bag and get out of economics'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.

***

Graphic AXEC139d

***

Also, to keep an eye on 'Trolls of a feather flock together' see for example Wikipedia for history

Political Economy Club

Cambridge Apostles

Mont Pelerin Society

Colloque Walter Lippmann

Economics societies

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

or BuzzFeed News for present-day “Science Philanthropy”.

***

Twitter/X Feb 10, 2024, The media watershed moment

Links on ‘Keynes: socialist, liberal, or conservative?’

Blog-Reference*

Scientifically, Keynes is long dead ― more precisely, since the General Theory p. 63. Keynes got the Profit Theory wrong. This means that the whole analytical superstructure of the GT is scientifically worthless and that Keynes’ policy proposals NEVER have had sound scientific foundations. After-Keynesians failed to spot Keynes’ foundational blunder to this day. For details see:

► Forget Keynes
► Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes
► How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
► Keynes’ intellectual nonexistence
► Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
► Marshall and the Cambridge school of plain economic gibberish
► Post-Keynesianism vs MMT: a Zombie debate
► Keynesians ― terminally stupid or worse?
► From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


For the failure of the methodologists Sheila Dow and Victoria Chick to spot plain proto-scientific garbage see 'Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show' and 'Ending the economic Froschmäusekrieg a.k.a. Batrachomyomachia' and 'What Keynesian revolution?.

Related 'Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science' and 'Keynes’s Missing Axioms' and 'Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It'. For the full-spectrum refutation of Keynesianism/Post-Keynesianism see cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.

*Michael Roberts Blog

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 6

You say: “The tweaking is politics and many of us prefer sicialism.”

“Tweaking” is a euphemism for scientific fraud. Keynes was a political agenda pusher, NOT a scientist. Same holds for socialists. See Socialism and scientific incompetence.

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 7

General Theory p. 63: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.”

“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.”

Let this sink in: Keynes had NO idea of profit, i.e., of the fundamental concept of economics.

Keynes’ I=S is false, and AXEC’s Q≡I−S is true. See Do first your macroeconomic homework.

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 8

“Keynes: socialist, liberal or conservative?” Wrong question!

The right question: “Keynes: scientist or useful political idiot?”

Right answer: Keynes messed up macroeconomics, and because of this, he is buried at the darkest corner of the Flat-Earth Cemetery. See also cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***

Graphic AXEC143d

Dialectic: the swampies’ methodology of choice

Comment on Matt Franko on ‘Dialectic Method’

Blog-Reference

Matt Franko observes: “Probably 99.99% of the Economics discipline is operating under the Dialectic Method and accordingly the material result is the manifest shit-show we are watching every day … a moron-fest goat rodeo … Its NOT the discipline of Economics that is the problem, we often can see the discipline taking a lot of heat … imo its unfair criticism of a discipline … its rather the dominant dialectic methodology commonly used within that discipline that is fucking everything all up.”

Matt Franko is not the first to realize that economics has a methodology problem. What he does not realize, though, is that this is not a bug but a feature. Economics has firmly established itself in the dialectical impasse of 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, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

The dialectical impasse consists of the manifest contradiction between the claim that economics is a science and the fact that it is a political agenda pushing.

Science is digital=binary=true/false and NOTHING in between. There is NO such thing in science as roughly right or roughly wrong; it is only materially/formally true/false. The swamp between true/false, where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes), is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, blatherers, fraudsters, trolls, and incompetent scientists. #1, #2, #3, #4

Swampies euphemize their inability/unwillingness to resolve inconsistencies as dialectic method: “According to Kant … the ancient Greeks used the word ‘dialectic’ to signify the logic of false appearance or semblance. To the Ancients, ‘it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks, the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak for every empty assertion.'” #5

The philosophical father of modern dialectics is Hegel. Schopenhauer had not much good to say about him: “If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.” #6

In marked contrast to swampies, scientists drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true and false: “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)

Formal consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.

The profession of useful political idiots has no genuine interest in a clear-cut true/false outcome of research and debate but seeks to keep everything and everybody in the status quo swamp. Swampies subscribe to dialectical inconclusiveness, i.e., anything goes, truth is subjective and relative, reality is a social construct, nobody has the truth with a big T, everybody has some truth with a small t, and to the pluralism and peaceful coexistence of provably false theories.

As Popper summarized it: “Hegel’s intention is to operate freely with all contradictions. ‘All things are contradictory in themselves’, he insists, in order to defend a position which means the end not only of all science, but of all rational argument. And the reason why he wishes to admit contradictions is that he wants to stop rational argument, and with it scientific and intellectual progress.” #7

Political economists prevent scientific progress to this day. Economics is still at the proto-scientific stage, which is characterized by material/formal inconsistency.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 It is better to be precisely right than roughly wrong
#2 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#3 Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist
#4 Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over
#5 Wikipedia
#6 Goodreads
#7 A Free Left Blog

Related 'Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods' and 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'Getting out of the economics swamp' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems' and 'Economics, too, is pre-truth' and 'Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption' and 'Economics is locked in idiocy: How could this happen?' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses' and 'And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization'.

***

Graphic AXEC176b  Economics, Communication, Disinfotainment

Twitter/X May 12, 2026 Adrián Ramírez, LIBERALISM AND THE RISE OF ERISTICISM or the application of Schopenhauer's Die Kunst Recht zu behalten

Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage

Comment on Peter Cooper on ‘Currency Value in Terms of Socially Necessary Labor’

Blog-Reference

There is NOT ONE concept in economics that is clearly defined and consistently adhered to. #1 Because of this, every economic debate ends with karmic necessity in the swamp of cross-talk, interpretation, and second-guessing of “what Keynes [or anybody else, for that matter] REALLY meant.” #2 One of the worst examples is the double-whopper Value of Money. In 200+ years, economists have not made up their minds about what value and what money are and how both are related.

Peter Cooper, according to the preeminent philosopher Tom Hickey, “the preeminent authority on the relationship of Marx and MMT”, has no scruples to again display his lamentable incompetence: “An economy’s minimum wage equates a unit of the currency to an amount of labor time. For instance, in Marxist terms, a minimum wage of $15/hour sets a dollar equal to 4 minutes of simple labor power. At a macro level, this enables currency value to be defined in terms of simple labor. There are, however, at least two ways in which this connection between currency value and labor could be drawn. One way would be to adopt a labor command theory of currency value. In effect, modern monetary theory (MMT) takes this approach. A second way would be to link the value of the currency to the commodity labor power. Adopting the second approach leads to a definition of currency value that is distinct from the MMT definition but closely (and simply) related to it.”

Let us forget the blather and settle the matter here and now ― once and for all.

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 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 as the dependent variable is given by P=W/R (1a). The price is determined by the wage rate W, which takes the role of the nominal numéraire, and the productivity R. The elementary production-consumption economy is shown under the label of Graphic. #3

What is needed for a start are 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.

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 under the label Graphic. #4

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 amount of transaction money (commonly referred to as stock) as M=κYw, with κ determined by the transaction pattern. If employment L is doubled, the average amount of transaction money M doubles. In a well-designed fiat money economy, growth is not hampered by a lack of a transaction medium. Money is endogenous and neutral.

The macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand (1a) implies W/P=R (1b), i.e., the real wage is always equal to the productivity, no matter how the wage rate W is set. In other words, the real value of money in the elementary production-consumption economy is equal to the productivity R and has NOTHING to do with “socially necessary labor”.

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) amount of money M, (ix) the functionality of monetary institutions and the value of money does NOT depend on the taxing power of the State.

Bottom line: both Marx and MMT got the Value of Money wrong. Unfortunately, “the preeminent authority on the relationship of Marx and MMT” and the rest of the MMT crowd #5 lack the brain-power to grasp it. Fortunately, they still have enough blather-power available to pollute the econblogosphere with proto-scientific garbage.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is
#2 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#3 Graphic AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy
#4 Graphic AXEC98 Idealized transaction pattern
#5 Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook

Related 'Value — the Bermuda Triangle for economic theories' and 'The creation and value of money and near-monies' and 'The Theory of Value and the worthlessness of economics' and 'How to get out of psychology/sociology/wish-wash' and 'Basics of Value Theory' and 'Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists' and 'The objective value of money' and 'MMT and Marxism: A debate between proto-scientific zombies' and 'Neoclassics and MMT ― much like pest and cholera' and 'Rethinking the Profit Law' and 'How to end the Punch and Judy Show about profit' and 'The thing with profit and exploitation' and 'The Logic of Value and the Value of Logic' and 'The Value of Water and Diamonds: Back to Square One'.

***

REPLY to Detroit Dan on May 8

You say: “Interesting discussion, Calcagus and Andre. Thanks.”

Not so. The value of money is given by W/P=R as derived above for the most elementary case. The rest is uninteresting troll-talk, claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage.

Both MMT and Marxianism are refuted on all counts. #1


#1 For the detailed refutation of specific points, go to the AXEC blog and search for ‘Peter Cooper’ (the preeminent authority on the relationship of Marx and MMT according to the preeminent philosopher Tom Hickey).

***

REPLY to Calgacus on May 11

You say: “Basically, I think everyone agrees with the labor theory of value. … I think empirical work shows that prices are explained by labor with correlation of 95% or something. Joan Robinson said something like- what other choice is there? The problem is formulating the labor theory of value, just right.”

Indeed, that’s the problem of any theory.

The elementary production-consumption economy is, for a star,t defined by three macro axioms (Yw=WL, O=RL, C=PX) and two conditions (X=O, C=Yw). This yields the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand as P=W/R.

Now imagine two countries that are equal in all real respects except for productivity. Clearly, the market-clearing price is lower in the country with higher productivity. So, the purchasing power of the wage, a.k.a. the value of money is higher, it holds W/P=R.

Note that in both countries, the labor input L is exactly the same. But this does not matter because the value of money does not depend on “Socially Necessary Labor” or other figments of the poor imagination of socially unnecessary economists.

Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times

Comment on Ikonoclast on ‘Mathematics and the constructions and emergent outcomes of socioeconomic phenomena’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Taking Isaac Newton and Adam Smith as roughly simultaneous reference points, no one can fail to notice that economics has, in the last 200+ years, not risen above the proto-scientific level.

Needless to emphasize that economists do not run out of arguments to explain their obvious scientific failure. This is the classic excuse: “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) #1 In other words, physics and the natural sciences are kids’ stuff but economics is the real challenge. Taking this into account, economists are second to none.

Ikonoclast reiterates the old refrain of economics as “separate and inexact science” (J. S. Mill): “When we are dealing with physical phenomena, the fundamental laws of the cosmos are independent of human understanding or modelling of them. No matter what you or I or any human thinks of the Laws of Thermodynamics or even whether we are ignorant of them, the fundamental phenomena follow a course which can be well modeled by those laws when those laws are mathematicized to permit accurate descriptions and empirically verifiable predictions. However, when it comes to socioeconomic phenomena, what we think and believe enter into the constructions and emergent outcomes of socioeconomic phenomena themselves (along with fundamental law effects also entering into the constructions and outcomes). At this level, any theory of the system enters into the system as a compounding or complicating element. Thence meta-theory (theory of the impact of theories on the system) will also enter into the system.”

In short, complexity, reflexivity, emergence/novelty, and ontological uncertainty are the ultimate reasons why economists have not produced much, if anything, of scientific value.

This, of course, is plain methodological nonsense. The simple fact of the matter is that economists are scientifically incompetent. 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. Economics is a mutual acceptance and stubborn repetition of provably false theories. #2, #3, #4 Economic policy guidance NEVER has had sound scientific foundations. Fiddling with false theories in the public space, economists are a hazard to their fellow citizens.

Let us just pick macroeconomics as a pertinent example.#5 Keynes stated the formal foundations in the General Theory as follows: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

This mathematically simple syllogism (Y=C+I, S=Y−C) 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.)

Let this sink in: the economist Keynes NEVER understood the foundational concepts of his subject matter, i.e., profit and income. #6, #7

But it is worse: neither Keynesians nor Post-Keynesians nor New Keynesians nor Anti-Keynesians nor orthodox economists nor heterodox economists spotted Keynes’ blunder to this day.#8 Economists are simply too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics. Because the foundations are false, the whole analytical superstructure of economics is proto-scientific garbage.

What economists do not understand to this day is that economics is NOT a social science and that they have to change the definition of their subject matter:
• Old definition, subjective-behavioral: Economics is the science that studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means that have alternative uses.
• New definition, objective-systemic: Economics is the science that studies how the monetary economy works.

Since the founding fathers, economics has claimed to be a science. It is NOT, it is what Feynman called a cargo cult science. #9 Economists are NOT scientists but merely useful political idiots. #10 The fact is that there is NO greater fraud in the history of modern science than economics.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses
#2 How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time
#3 Economic recommendations out of the swamp between true and false
#4 There is no soft science only soft brains
#5 Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
#6 The correct relationship reads in the elementary case Q_m≡I−S_m with Qm as monetary profit.
#7 Except Allais see How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#8 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#9 The economics Cargo Cult Prize
#10 Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science

Related 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Just for the record: Economics is dead' and 'And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization' and 'Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud' and 'From obscurity to enlightenment' and 'The zombie wars are over' and 'Crisis, cranks, and scientists' and 'Scientists do not predict' and 'Causality in economics' and 'Why economists have not been effective in economics' and 'Lacking the Midas touch of science' and 'Economists: just too stupid for counting' and 'When substandard thinkers dabble in science it is called economics' and 'A political stench is in the air' and 'Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist' and 'New economic thinking = old political fake' and 'The general theory of scientific incompetence' and 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'Real-World Economics: The sanctuary of stupidity and corruption' and 'Trust in economics as a science?' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics' and 'Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it!' and 'Econogenics in action' and 'How to make economics a science' and 'The inexorable Paradigm Shift in economics'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Paradigm Shift and cross-references Axiomatization.

***

#PointOfProof

May 4

before

after

***

REPLY to Anonymous on May 4

You ask me to make myself understandable: “I carefully read through the work and all that makes sense is the anger. At least try to be simple enough to be understandable apart from the anger.”

Here we go:

(i) Economics, i.e., Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism, is refuted on all counts.

(ii) Economists either do not realize the material/formal inconsistency of their approaches. In this case, they are stupid.

(iii) Or, economists know quite well that their approaches are scientifically worthless but promote them nonetheless for ulterior reasons. In this case, they are corrupt.

(iv) In either case, the claim that economics is a science and that economists are doing science is provably false.

(v) By consequence, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or the John Bates Clark Award does not reward genuine scientific achievements but attempts to deceive the general public about the dismal state of economics.

(vi) Barkley Rosser either has not realized the dismal state of economics or he is part of the False-Hero-Memorial scam.

(vii) Your attempt to nudge the point at issue from the scientific sphere of consistency/ proof/test to the psychological sphere of emotion/resentment proves that you are an incompetent scientist or, in simple psychological terms, an imbecile asshole.

(viii) You obviously do not know the difference between anger and militancy: “Truth on these subjects is militant, and can only establish itself by means of conflict.” (J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Kindle, Pos 71)

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 5

You say: “I am sorry, but I am not gong to bother ‘intepreting’ Egmont. He does seem to have lost it calling you an ‘asshole.’ He is not usually that offensive.”

Indeed, but you are:

.........................................................................................................

rosserjb@jmu.edu said...

Anonymous Asshole,

Maybe you did not get it. If you start using a name, even if it is one that is made up, I shall stop "using profance language" in regard to you. As it is, I have already made it clear that I have nothing but utter contempt for people who lecture me on anything while identifying themselves as "Anonymous." Get it, asshole?

Oh, and few of my atudents come here, but those that do will probably accept how I am treating you. I do not speak this way in classes, where I do not deal with people lecturing me while hiding behind a veil of anonymity.

So now you can go and repeately fuck yourself until your bottom falls off. Have a nice day!

October 7, 2018 at 5:42 PM

.........................................................................................................

***

REPLY to Anonymous on May 5

You say: “Right, I am surely too foolish and ignorant to understand your writing, other than the uncontrollable anger, so I will never bother to try again. (You are scary.) Bye, bye.”

What do you not understand?

(i) Barkley Rosser is a stupid/corrupt academic economist.

(ii) Barkley Rosser is not some unique lone nut exception, but as representative economist, part of a tight-knit institutional network of political economics (= agenda-pushing) that has overgrown and stifled theoretical economics (= science).

(iii) All this is common knowledge: “Veblen’s first job was at the University of Chicago, the university bought and paid for by John D. Rockefeller the classic robber baron, and leader of the leisure class. Rockefeller called the university ‘the best investment’ he ever made, since he intended to use it to advance the interests of his class and suppress opposition.”#1

(iv) What holds for Chicago can, with some degree of confidence, be generalized for the majority of Faculties of Business and Economics and the institutional superstructure from the ASSA Annual Meetings to the publishing houses.

(v) Accordingly, the purpose of economic journals and the peer-review process is not the promotion and dissemination of scientific knowledge as it is in the genuine sciences, but attention/perception management, gatekeeping, and selection/promotion/positioning of future opinion leaders.

(vi) Prizes like the economics Nobel or the John Bates Clark Award are part and parcel of establishing scientific reputation and authority. These are tried and tested instruments of public relations/propaganda and have no scientific significance whatsoever.

(vii) Economics is a fake science beginning with economic textbooks#2 and ending with the faux Nobel.#3

(viii) Academic economics ― orthodox and heterodox, that is ― is beyond repair or reform or hope or rejuvenation; it can only be burnt to the ground like a termite-infested shack.

(ix) Needless to emphasize that (viii) is a metaphor for perplexed and clueless non-economists who have no chance of figuring out the actual state of economics and what the methodological term Paradigm Shift means in practice.

(x) Needless to emphasize that the current inhabitants of the rotten shack with the pretty scientific facade ― the retarded heirs of Adam Smith/Karl Marx ― are retired in a timely manner with all the academic honors.

There is nothing to fear for Barkley Rosser and trolls like you except perhaps that you will eventually be buried at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery in the section for political clowns.


#1 Veblen’s insights come back to haunt us
#2 To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards
#3 The real problem with the economics Nobel

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 6

Just answer the simple scientific question, which of the two macroeconomic sectoral balances equations is true, i.e., materially/formally consistent?
(a) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
(b) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 7

You answer: “Depends on how you define and measure the variables, Egmont, obviously. And these variables have been defined and measured differently at different times by different entrities. So, they can both be true or not true depending.”

This is the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy,#1 the Pavlovian reflex of all swampies.#2 Popper called it an immunizing stratagem. #3

Science is binary true/false with NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). #4 The swamp is the habitat of what Feynman called cargo cult scientists.#5

The correct answer to the question, which of the two macroeconomic sectoral balances equations, i.e., (a) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 or (b) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0, is true is unequivocal, and demonstrably (b). All variables in (a) and (b) are identical except for Q = macroeconomic profit and Yd = distributed profit. Eq. (a) lacks these two variables altogether, and because of this, it is FALSE. This means, in turn, that both orthodox and heterodox macroeconomics are FALSE. So, economics is refuted on all counts.

As a professional economist at the age limit you have never known and still do not know the scientifically correct answer. It is pretty obvious that you have always been a fake scientist. This, though, was not a disadvantage, rather the opposite, because economics has always been a fake science.#6

Because economics is a fake science, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is a fraud. Same for the John Bates Clark Award. Time to drain the swamp.#7


#1 Humpty Dumpty is back again
#2 And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization
#3 Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems
#4 Lousy scientists
#5 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#6 Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times
#7 Enough! Economists, retire now!

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 8

You say: “Yes, Egmont, we have seen you previously declare that taking account of retained earnings, what your petty equation does, is the most supremely important thing in economics. It is not remotely. It is an utterly trivial item that gets taken account of in current accounting practices.”

Yes, Barkley Rosser, distributed profits appear in National Accounting.#1 This, though, is NOT the point. So let us take distributed profits Yd out of the picture for a moment, i.e. Yd=0. Then, the all-decisive question reduces to:

Which of the two macroeconomic sectoral balances equations is true, i.e. materially/formally consistent?
(a) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
(b) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−Q=0

Let us go one step further and simplify by taking government and foreign trade out of the picture, i.e. G, T, X, M = 0.

Then we have
(a) (I−S)=0 or I=S,
(b) (I−S)−Q=0 or I−S=Q.

I=S is provably false since Keynes. So, all I=S/IS-LM models are false from Hicks onward to Krugman and beyond.#2, #3, #4

Economists have not realized this to this day. Neither the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, nor the John Bates Clark Award winner Emi Nakamura, nor Lord Meghnad Desai, nor Professor Barkley Rosser, nor the rest of the fake heroes.

Economics is proto-scientific garbage to this day because economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.

Time to give these scientifically incompetent folks a dishonorable discharge and to make economics, after 200+ years of capture by stupid/corrupt agenda pushers a.k.a. useful political idiots, a science worthy of the title.


#1 The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach
#2 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It
#3 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#4 Rectification of MMT macro accounting

***

AXEC172