Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLXVIII)

“The AI we have today is already superintelligent. And it's going to revolutionize science.” (Noah Smith)

Neither mainstream nor heterodox economists had any idea what science is all about. They still can't do the Paradigm Shift that will make economics a science; neither can…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) March 2, 2026

Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (LII)

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“An English prof recently declared that economics was 'fake' because economists don't read Marx.” (Noah Smith)

Economics is failed/fake Science, so it is a waste of time to read Marx or the rest of this proto-scientific stuff.

For 200+ years,… pic.twitter.com/Q1bBJ0AeqA

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 13, 2025

Occasional X: What economists really do (CDVII)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#HallOfShame

“Paul Krugman was the greatest of us economics pundits. He will be sorely missed. ” (Noah Smith)

Paul Krugman NEVER understood what profit is and how the economic system works. That's rather bad for an economist. For details see ⇒…

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 11, 2024

Occasional Tweets: Economics is not becoming more like a science but is still a disinfotainment shitshow

 

#Economics is #FailedScience/#FakeScience because #Economists are NOT #Scientists but #Clowns in the political #CircusMaximus.

Economics is not "sciences"https://t.co/sW3IHvA0os

Noah Smith is an #EconBlocker who violates the Code of Professional Conduct. pic.twitter.com/37jyGKLQCM

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 13, 2021

For more about the EconNobel see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: The dumb economist ― a jack of all trades

 

#Econ#FakeScience

The feeble thinker and #EconBlocker Noah Smith does NOT know how the #Economy works and what #Profit is. He is too stupid for the elementary math that underlies #MacroEconomics.⇒https://t.co/vTNWwrNUxA

And this #Clown tells people how to think about #China. pic.twitter.com/24XQ4GU9XP

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 30, 2021

For more about Noah Smith, see AXECquery.

For more about economics imperialism, see AXECquery.

For more about Jack of all trades, see AXECquery.

Occasional Tweets: From proto-scientific garbage to true macrofoundations

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Keynes messed up #MacroEconomics 80+ years ago because he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. Nothing has improved since then.

Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for sciencehttps://t.co/vTNWwrNUxA pic.twitter.com/uVyJSkVuuz

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 26, 2021

Economists are not scientists but clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.

For more about Paul Krugman, see AXECquery.

For more about Noah Smith, see AXECquery.

For more about macrofoundations, see AXECquery.

Economics a science? Surely you're joking, Mr. Cochrane

Comment on John Cochrane on ‘Smith, MMT, and science in economics’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

MMTers assert that mainstream economics is defective. MMTers are right. Mainstreamers, in turn, assert that MMT is defective. Mainstreamers are right.

The fact of the matter is that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and that all get the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. Economics is a failed science. As a consequence, discussions between mainstream and MMT never get above the talk-show level.#1, #2, #3

John Cochrane freely admits that he did not “read about things [MMT] in some detail, ideally from original sources, before reviewing them, which I have not done. Life is short.” Yes, but fortunately it is long enough to waste it on brain-dead blather.

John Cochrane has not realized that orthodox economics, which he represents, is proto-scientific garbage. Neither does he refute MMT in a scientifically correct way by proving material/formal inconsistency.#4 He simply echoes Noah Smith’s slander of MMT as a Guru-based theory.

After having himself exposed as an incompetent scientist, John Cochrane goes fully off-topic by extensively waffling about the “sociology of science”. This “sociology” is essentially a description of how contemporary academic economics works. It confirms what Feynman has described long ago as cargo cult science: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”

What is still missing in economics after 200+ years is the true theory. Economics is a failed science. This is the common denominator of mainstream economics and MMT. Both are refuted on all counts.#5

Life is short ― trivially true ― so, in no case waste it with the fake science of economics, not with the proto-scientific garbage of mainstream and MMT, and not with the confused blatherers who call themselves scientists but have never been anything else than clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 MMT vs Mainstream: examining proto-scientific garbage in detail
#2 The not so funny MMT vs Neoliberalism slapstick
#3 Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage
#4 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
#5 Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times

Related 'Economics is a science? You must be joking!' and 'What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure' and 'MMT is better than mainstream economics but still not good enough' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science' and 'From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model' and 'Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption'.

Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science

Comment on Noah Smith on ‘Beware of Economic Theories Claiming to Explain Everything’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference (Link) and Blog-Reference (Link)

“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 goal of science is the true theory. The true theory is the human's best mental representation of reality. Science has been defined for 2300+ years by material and formal consistency. Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.

According to the criteria of material/formal consistency, economics is a failed science. Economists do not possess a true theory. The fact of the matter is that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.

Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). This corresponds approximately to Noah Smith’s mistaken idea of science: “What it [orthodox macroeconomics] is, is science. Not the clean, idealized lab science of physics or chemistry, or the simple, convincing studies of microeconomics. But as messy and limited as it is, empirical macro represents a real, honest, ongoing attempt by dedicated researchers to explore the ins and outs of a hideously complex and hard-to-measure system. Someday, thanks to their modest, diligent efforts, we will probably understand the phenomena of booms and busts much better than we do now.”

Noah Smith thinks that Orthodoxy has a communication problem: “But elected politicians looking for a bold policy program and asset managers looking for a bold investment thesis are frequently tempted by heterodox economic theories claiming to have simple, sweeping solutions. Two examples are Austrian economics and modern monetary theory.” And: “The boldness and confidence of these predictions — and the comparative lack of math — makes these theories much more attractive to politicians and investors compared to the turgid scribblings of professors.”

No, communication is neither the problem of Orthodoxy nor of Heterodoxy. Scientific content is the problem. Both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy are proto-scientific garbage. Both orthodox and heterodox economists are scientifically incompetent. As a consequence, Noah Smith’s conclusion misses the point: “In other words, both policy makers and politicians should be reluctant to embrace the sweeping claims of unconventional theorists. Instead, a cautious approach, relying on judgment, data, and an eclectic mix of theories, seems best.”

There is no way around it: economics does NOT need an “eclectic mix” of provably false theories but the true theory. After 200+ years, economics has to get out of the swamp of what Feynman called cargo cult science. In methodological parlance, economics has to abandon false Walrasian microfoundations#1 and false Keynesian macrofoundations#2 and move to true macrofoundations.#3 Economics needs a Paradigm Shift. The materially/ formally inconsistent orthodox and heterodox models have to be buried at the Flat-Earth Cemetery. All orthodox and heterodox economists have to be expelled from the scientific community.

To this day, the axiomatic foundations of economics are provably false. This holds for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and also for MMT.#4 MMT has the methodological advantage that it is based on a clearly defined sectoral balances equation. This enables the straightforward application of the scientific method. Accordingly, the question is which of the two foundational macroeconomic equations is true, i.e., materially and formally consistent:

• the MMT sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 or
• the axiom-based equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0.

Both equations consist of measurable variables and are testable with the precision of two decimal places. This is a clear-cut true/false question that can be unambiguously decided according to well-established scientific criteria.

The MMT equation is logically/mathematically false. Economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.#5 Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false. Because the theory is false, MMT policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundations ― just like Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism.

Right policy depends on true theory. To this day, economists do NOT have the true theory. There is no escape: false theory becomes political fraud#6 and incompetent scientists become useful political idiots. This is the state of present-day economics.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* BloombergOpinion
#1 Microfoundations are given with this axiom set: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub) Accepting these axioms has always been a reliable indicator of idiocy.
#2 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#3 True macrofoundations are given with this axiom set: (A0) The most elementary configuration of 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.
#4 Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled
#5 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#6 MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud

Related 'Economists: too stupid for counting' and 'Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics' and 'How economists murdered the economy and got away with it' and 'Economics is locked in idiocy: How could this happen?' and 'Dani Rodrik, fake scientist' and 'Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science' and 'Are economists natural born scientific failures?' and 'Confused Orthodoxy vs. confused Heterodoxy' and 'Eclecticism, anything goes, and the pluralism of false theories' and 'The creative destruction of Wren-Lewis' and 'The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both' and 'From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Smart young empirically-minded economists: another vain hope' and 'Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro' and 'Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both' and 'Proving Bill Mitchell wrong ― burying MMT for good' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”' and 'Profit' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'.

***

Graphic AXEC118d

From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model

Comment on Merijn Knibbe on ‘What’s in a model … (an economic one, that is)’

Blog-Reference

Merijn Knibbe refers to a post of Noah Smith: “This time he however stated: ‘accounting is not a model of the economy’. Which is wrong. The national accounts are a model of the economy. And economists have to learn it is. The way the entities are conceptually defined matters as this also defines the monetary relations we see.”

Under the heading Formal Models vs. Guru-Based Theories Noah Smith demanded: “These days, most economic theories are collections of mathematical models. If you want to know what the theory says, you can parse out the models and see for yourself. You don’t have to go ask Mike Woodford what New Keynesian theory says. You don’t have to go ask Ed Prescott what RBC theory says. You can go read a New Keynesian model or a Real Business Cycle model and figure it out on your own. MMT is different. There are many wordy explainers and videos that will explain some of the concepts behind MMT, or tell you some of MMT’s policy recommendations. But that’s different than having a formal model of the economy.”#1

The problem with economics is this: microfoundations are false and because of this, ALL microeconomic models are false. Supply-demand-equilibrium is proto-scientific garbage. However, macrofoundations are also false and because of this, ALL macroeconomic models are false since Keynes. Proofs have been given elsewhere.#2

The question of correct macrofoundations is closely related to macroeconomic accounting. Merijn Knibbe is spot on: “National accounts do use a model of the economy, the accounting identities are based on the fundamental social properties of money and monetary transactions but for the way we measure them a conceptual model is key.”

The problem with both orthodox and heterodox economists is that they are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting.#3, #4, #5

From the overall failure of economics follows that a new theory has to be macrofounded but not Keynesian because Keynes messed things up. What is required is the Paradigm Shift from false microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations.

From true macrofoundations follows the macroeconomic Profit Law as Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M). The Profit Law, in turn, yields the correct macroeconomic sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0 which compares to the false Keynesian/Post-Keynesian/MMT equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0. The equations are testable with the precision of two decimal places. Exactly here, macroeconomic accounting is needed in order to settle matters empirically.

Because neither orthodox nor heterodox economists got the foundational concepts, the elementary math, and the basic accounting identities right, ALL macroeconomic models are provably false from Keynes onward to this day.#6

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Noah Smith Examining an MMT model in detail
#2 The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo
#3 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#4 The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach
#5 For details of the big picture see cross-references Accounting
#6 The canonical macroeconomic model

The canonical macroeconomic model

Comment on Noah Smith on ‘Examining an MMT model in detail’

Blog-Reference (Link) and Blog-Reference

Under the heading Formal Models vs. Guru-Based Theories Noah Smith demands: “These days, most economic theories are collections of mathematical models. If you want to know what the theory says, you can parse out the models and see for yourself. You don’t have to go ask Mike Woodford what New Keynesian theory says. You don’t have to go ask Ed Prescott what RBC theory says. You can go read a New Keynesian model or a Real Business Cycle model and figure it out on your own. MMT is different. There are many wordy explainers and videos that will explain some of the concepts behind MMT, or tell you some of MMT’s policy recommendations. But that’s different than having a formal model of the economy.” and “I want to be able to read a concrete, formal, well-specified model like the Tcherneva model above, and answer these questions myself.”

The problem with economics is this: microfoundations are false, and because of this, ALL microeconomic models are false. Supply-demand-equilibrium is proto-scientific garbage. However, macrofoundations are also false, and because of this, ALL macroeconomic models are false since Keynes, including MMT. Proofs have been given elsewhere.

However, critique of Mainstream or MMT has run its course: “The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory.” (Blaug)

From the overall failure of economics follows that a new theory has to be macrofounded but not Keynesian because Keynes messed things up. What is required is the Paradigm Shift from false microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations.

So, let us forget methodological individualism and kick off the “concrete, formal, well-specified” macrofounded approach. 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 Graphic. #1

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

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 Graphic. #2

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

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

The general price level P can be anchored by setting the wage rate W. In order to avoid both inflation and deflation, the rate of change of W has always to be equal to the rate of change of R. The Quantity Theory is dead because M is not a price determinant.

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.

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

The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e. it holds X=O. The condition of budget balancing, i.e., C=Yw, is now skipped. The monetary saving/dissaving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C. The monetary profit/loss of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw. Ergo Q≡−S.

The balances add up to zero. The mirror image of household sector saving S is the business sector loss −Q. The mirror image of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Q≡−S is the elementary version of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

Ramifications: (i) Because the mirror image of saving is loss, Keynes’ I=S is false, (ii) ALL IS-LM models are false, (iii) Post Keynesianism in ALL variants is false.

Now, additional sectors can be introduced. The complete macroeconomic Profit Law is given by Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M). #3, #4 In order to focus on the interactions between the household, business, and government sector, it is here reduced to Q≡−S+(G−T). Legend: Q macroeconomic profit, S household sector saving, G government expenditures, T taxes, (G−T)>0 government deficit.

If the government’s budget is balanced, i.e., G=T, and if the households dissave, then the business sector makes a profit, i.e., Q is positive.

If the government’s budget is balanced and the households save, i.e., S≡Yw−C>0, then the business sector makes a loss, i.e., Q is negative.

If the government’s budget deficit, i.e., (G−T)>0, is equal to the household sector’s saving, i.e., (G−T)=S, then macroeconomic profit Q is zero.

If the government’s deficit is greater than household sector saving, then the business sector makes a profit.

If the household sector’s saving is zero, i.e., S=0, and the government deficit is greater than zero, i.e., (G−T)>0, then it holds Q=(G−T), i.e., the business sector’s profit equals the government sector’s deficit. So, if the State deficit-spends in the elementary production-consumption economy, it follows (i) a one-off price hike (NO inflation) under the condition of market clearing, (ii) Public Deficit = Private Profit. Bringing money into the economy by public deficit spending is NOT distributionally neutral, just the opposite: it is a free lunch for the Oligarchy.

MMT’s sectoral balances equation is false. Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure is false. MMT policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations and is harmful to the ninety-nine-percenters. MMT is refuted on all counts.

Any model that lacks true macrofoundations is scientifically worthless. Axioms (A0) to (A3) define the canonical macroeconomic model. The rest of microfounded and macrofounded economics goes down the scientific drain.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Graphic AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy
#2 Graphic AXEC98 Idealized transaction pattern
#3 The Profit Law yields the correct macroeconomic sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0, which compares to the false MMT equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0. The equations are testable with the precision of two decimal places.
#4 Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook

Related 'MMT vs Mainstream: examining proto-scientific garbage in detail' and 'The Law of Supply and Demand: Here It Is Finally' and 'How to Get Rid of Supply-Demand-Equilibrium' and 'The real trouble with Econ 101' and 'MMT sucks' and 'Where MMT got macroeconomics wrong' and 'Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It' and 'Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science' and 'MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy' and 'New Economic Thinking: The 10 crucial points' and 'Economics for Economists'. For details of the big picture, see Paradigm Shift, and for the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT.

***

Graphic AXEC121i

***

LINKS on Pavlina Tcherneva’s ‘MMT, Models, Multidisciplinarity’ on Apr 8 and Blog-Reference

Pavlina Tcherneva’s model is NOT false because of some behavioral assumptions but because her macroeconomics is provably false. The model is built upon this defective accounting identity G+I=T+S. For details see

► MMT vs Mainstream: examining proto-scientific garbage in detail

► The canonical macroeconomic model

***

REPLY to André on Apr 9

You say: “To understand finance or economics, you need first to understand what currency is (a tax credit). It is a prerequisite. You can’t move one step without it.” and “Send an email to any of them (Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, Scot Fullwiler, etc) and they will tell that ‘taxes drive money’ is the pillar and integral part of MMT. Also, everything you read in MMT is a direct or indirect consequence of ‘taxes drive money’, 

Take notice that the assertion that taxes drive money is false and has been refuted.

► MMT: fundamentally false

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

► The canonical macroeconomic model

***

As of Jun 2020, Amazon.de, BoD, Amazon.com, etc.

MMT vs Mainstream: examining proto-scientific garbage in detail

Comment on Noah Smith on ‘Examining an MMT model in detail’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

MMT claims that mainstream economics is defective. MMT is right. Noah Smith, in turn, claims that MMT is defective. Noah Smith is right. The scientific fact of the matter is that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism/MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and that all get the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. Economics is a failed science. By consequence, any discussion between Mainstream and MMT never gets above the level of moronic blather.

Noah Smith becomes concrete and debunks an MMT model of Pavlina Tcherneva. However, he messes up the debunking. Generally speaking, the blunder of MMT lies in the macroeconomic foundations. Noah Smith, though, gets stuck with criticizing this assumption: “The economy produces one service only, fighting fires.”

To make matters short here: the lethal blunder of MMT lies in the macroeconomic accounting identity G+I=T+S (i). Written as sectoral balances equation this gives (I−S)+(G−T)=0 (ii) or I=S (iii) for the elementary case of G,T=0.

I=S is provably false since Keynes’ General Theory (p. 63) but neither MMTers nor Mainstreamers like Noah Smith have realized it to this day.#1, #2 The reason is that economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.

The correct sectoral balances equation reads (I−S)+(G−T)−(Q−Yd)=0 (iv) with Q as macroeconomic profit and Yd as distributed profit. Curiously, the word profit does NOT appear in MMT models. Curiously, Noah Smith does not realize this. Without realizing it, the whole MMT vs Mainstream discussion goes about a zero profit economy. As long as this planet exists there NEVER was a zero profit economy. Macroeconomics is false since Keynes.

When the theory is false the policy guidance is false. Equation (iv) can be reduced to the limiting case Q=(G−T) (v) which says in plain words Public Deficit = Private Profit. In even plainer words, the MMT policy of permanent deficit-spending/money-creation is a permanent free-lunch for the Oligarchy. The empirical result is the somewhat biased distribution of income and financial wealth that most people find somewhat irritating. MMTers, though, sell their proto-scientific garbage as a benefit for the ninety-nine-percenters.

It holds with mathematical certainty: MMT is a scientific/social/political fraud ― just like the Mainstream.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism
#2 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

Related 'MMT vs WSJ: Another futile exercise in moron bashing' and 'Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook' and ''MMT: fundamentally false' and 'Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (II)' and 'Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (I)' and 'Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation' and 'Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT fund private savings'.

Immediately following The canonical macroeconomic model.

Economists: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors

Comment on Noah Way on Inês Goncalves Raposo’s ‘On Modern Monetary Theory’

Blog-Reference

Overview

Economics: a hereditary mental disease with scientific incompetence as father and political fraud as mother
Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems
Fraud comes always in the cloak of charity, salvation, or threat of doom
If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people
Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
Economics is a science? You must be joking!
Economists, stupid or corrupt or both?

Twitter/X blocking/muting by

#EconBlocker: Stephanie Kelton

#EconBlocker: Brian Romanchuk

#EconBlocker: Sara Holland

#EconBlocker: Lord Keynes

#EconBlocker: Onlyindreams

#EconBlocker: Mark Flowerchild

#EconBlocker: Patricia Pino

#EconBlocker: The Real Progressives

#EconBlocker: Richard Tye

#EconBlocker: Tony Weston

#EconBlocker: Nick Rowe

#EconBlocker: Rethinking Economics

#EconBlocker: Steve Grumbine

#EconBlocker: Jo Michell

#EconBlocker: Scott Fullwiler

#EconBlocker: Gower Initiative

#EconBlocker: Eric Lonergan

#EconBlocker: Raul Carillo

#EconBlocker: James Tapper

#EconBlocker: Fadhel Kaboub

#EconBlocker: Kim Driver

#EconBlocker: Noah Smith

#EconBlocker: Nathan Tankus

#EconBlocker: Nathan Becker

#EconBlocker: Pavlina Tcherneva

#EconBlocker: Moneymonopolist

#EconBlocker: Steven Hail

#EconBlocker: Edward Harrison

#EconBlocker: Economic Questions

#EconBlocker: Tobias Hlobil

#EconBlocker: Louis-Philippe Rochon

#EconBlocker: Rebuild Macroeconomics

#EconBlocker: MMT podcast

#EconBlocker: Dina Pomeranz

#EconBlocker: Simon Nevin

#EconBlocker: Democratic Restoration Movement

#EconBlocker: Civic Action

#EconBlocker: Relearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Thomas Fazi

#EconBlocker: Lana Dell

#EconBlocker: VeriDelisi

#EconBlocker: Unlearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Deficit Owls

#EconBlocker: Money on the Left

#EconBlocker: Charles J Engine of Hope

#EconBlocker: Jeff Baker

#EconBlocker: Paul Hünermund

#EconBlocker Andrés Bernal

#EconBlocker: Andreas Peichl

#EconBlocker: Sherry Reson

#EconBlocker: Maurice Höfgen

#EconBlocker: Richard Baldwin

#EconBlocker: Macro N Cheese

#EconBlocker: Steve Roth

#EconBlocker: Wolfgang Theil

View Twitter/X for details

#EconBlocker: Paddy Carter

#EconBlocker: Sebastian Gechert

#EconBlocker: Greek Stav

#EconBlocker: Blub_29

#EconBlocker: Minivan Man Tim

#EconBlocker: Lars Jorgensen

#EconBlocker: Tercero-Lucas

#EconBlocker: Lukas Freund

#EconBlocker: Jason Smith

#EconBlocker: George Selgin

#EconBlocker: Sebastian Dullien

#EconBlocker: Dennis Gottschlich

#EconBlocker: Sam Levey

#EconBlocker: Clint Ballinger

#EconBlocker: Philip Armstrong

#EconBlocker: Jan Schnellenbach

#EconBlocker: Post-Keynesian Economic Society

#EconBlocker: Marshall Steinbaum

#EconBlocker: Fiat Money

#EconBlocker: Tobias Kohlstruck

#EconBlocker: Benjamin Born

#EconBlocker: Mark Fabian

#EconBlocker: John Giles

#EconBlocker: Neil Smith

#EconBlocker: Bill Goggin

#EconBlocker: Bill @TxEx

#EconBlocker: Rudi Bachmann

#EconBlocker: Monika Köppl Turyna

#EconBlocker: Patrick Nüß

#EconBlocker: Max Discohouser

#EconBlocker: Devil E. Cheese

#EconBlocker: Jengis Osman

EconBlocker: Unegv Ugidali

#EconBlocker: ABC of MMT

#EconBlocker: John Quiggin

#EconBlocker: Steve Keen

#EconBlocker: Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity

#EconBlocker: Chris McArdle

#EconBlocker: Optimist

#EconBlocker: Paul Gambles

#EconBlocker: Scott Ferguson

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Australia

#EconBlocker: Cambridge University

#EonBlocker: Colin Camerer

#EconBlocker: Nadia Netti

#EconBlocker: Snittroll

#EconBlocker: Marcel Dimke

#EconBlocker: Stephan Ewald

#EconBlocker: Rose Ann Rabiola Miele/Real Progress in Action

#EconBlocker: Pearkes

#EconBlocker: Kathryn Cannon

#EconBlocker: Dominika Langenmayr

#EconBlocker: Max Hauser

#EconBlocker: Dirk Ehnts

#EconBlocker: Angus Armstrong

#EconBlocker: Bichler & Nitzan

#Blocker: ABCs of MMT

#EconBlocker: Pablo Melito

#EconBlocker: Flavio Toxvaerd

#EconBlocker: AusMMT

#EconBlocker: Paul Lewis

#EconBlocker: Jonathan Hahn

#EconBlocker: Australian Real Progressives

#EconBlocker: Justin Wolfers

#EconBlocker: Brotyboy

#EconBlocker: Ashish Barua

#EconBlocker: MMT Switzerland

#EconBlocker: Maxximilian Seijo

#EconBlocker: Stephen Williamson

#EconBlocker: Wojtek Kopczuk

#EconBlocker: Beyond the Spectrum

#EconBlocker: Alan Luchetti

#EconBlocker: Simard-Casanova

#EconBlocker: Drizt81

#EconBlocker: politicswithnick

#EconBlocker: Seminar Marxist Theory

#EconBlocker: Jayne Flanagan

#EconBlocker: Gio de Biase

#EconBlocker: Plurale Ökonomik Wien

#EconBlocker: Arash Molavi Vasséi

#EconBlocker: Shengwu Li

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Scot

#EconBlocker: Cory Doctorow

#EconBlocker: Jennifer Doleac

#EconBlocker: Economists for Future

#EconBlocker: MMT France

#EconBlocker: Lucia Pradella

#EconBlocker: Ferdinand Fichtner

#EconBlocker: Sophia Kuehnlenz

#Econblocker: Graham Brownlow

#EconBlocker: Lars Syll

#EconBlocker: Francesco Trebbi

#EconBlocker: Sakshi Aravind

#EconBlocker: Lorna Slater

#EconBlocker: Jeff Coventry

#EconBlocker: Fundacja Lipińskiego

#EconBlocker: Rohan Grey

#EconBlocker: cdubford

#EconBlocker: Foes

#EconBlocker: MMT India

#EconBlocker: Nick Testa

#EconBlocker: Beatrice Cherrier

#EconBlocker: David Roberts

#EconBlocker: Pufendorf Ges.

#EconBlocker: Francesco Sergi

#EconBlocker: KynarethNoBaka

#EconBlocker: Brad DeLong

#EconBlocker: NOUS_Network

#EconBlocker: Claudia Sahm

#EconBlocker: Cartesian Otter

#EconBlocker: Carl Mühlbach

#EconBlocker: Man in a pit

#EconBlocker: Andreas Botsch

#EconBlocker: Ramona Massachi

#EconBlocker: Aaron Sahr

#EconBlocker: Thibault Laurentjoye

#EconBlocker: Ben Golub

#EconBlocker: Matthew Klein

#EconBlocker: Pascal Michaillat

#EconBlocker: Cléo Chassonnerie-Zaïgouche

#EconBlocker: Microfounded

#EconBlocker: ECONtribute

#EconBlocker: Sant'Anna

#EconBlocker: Farzad Saidi

#EconBlocker: Frances Coppola

#EconBlocker: Nuno Palma

#EconBlocker: KriWis Berlin

#EconBlocker: Michael Clemens

#EconBlocker: Charles Hayden

#EconBlocker: Thomas Beschorner

#EconBlocker: TakingHayekSeriously

#EconBlocker: Popcornpunch

#EconBlocker: Christian Bayer

#EconBlocker: Steven Medema

#EconBlocker: Lukas

#EconBlocker: Economic Ethics

#EconBlocker: Isabella Weber

#EconBlocker: Philip Jung

#EconBlocker: Cameron Murray

#EconBlocker: Ben Moll

#EconBlocker: Jim G

#EconBlocker: 50linesonly

#EconBlocker: Paul

#EconBlocker: Beautiful Loser

#EconBlocker: Timon Henze

#EconBlocker: Noah Williams

#EconBlocker: Institute for Humane Studies

#EconBlocker: Post-Monetarist Political Economy

#EconBlocker: Arjun Jayadev

#EconBlocker: Antonio Andreoni

#EconBlocker: Johanna Sprondel

#EconBlocker: Carlo Masala

#EconBlocker: Warren Mosler

#EconBlocker: Picss3o

#EconBlocker: Ty Keynes

#EconBlocker: Productivity Institute

#EconBlocker: Joules / Jules

#EconBlocker: Fabian Lange

#EconBlocker: Bruno Frey

#EconBlocker: Malcolm Reavell

#EconBlocker: Yes

#EconBlocker: Leo Mühlenweg

#EconBlocker: Claire Jackson-Prior

#EconBlocker: Jan Schulz-Gebhard

#EconBlocker: David McNab

#EconBlocker: Michael Thrower

#EconBlocker: Brian Albrecht

#EconBlocker: Per Bylund

#EconBlocker: MMT101

#EconBlocker: Ashis Barua

#EconBlocker: Jesús Fernández-Villaverde

#EconBlocker: Steve Hall

#EconBlocker: Mark Thoma

Twitter/X Aug 6

#EconBlocker: Ezquid

#EconBlocker: Modern Money Australia

#EconBlocker: Aaron B

#EconBlocker: Tom Hickey

#EconBlocker: Payam Sharifi

#EconBlocker: Ingrid Kvangraven

#EconBlocker: Steve Keen

#EconBlocker: Scott Fullwiler

#EconBlocker: Carolina Alves

#EconBlocker: Bill Mitchell

#EconMuter: Brian Romanchuk

#EconHider: Per Bylund

#EconBlocker: Andrew McLeod

#EconBlocker: Rudy Havenstein

#EconBlocker: Relearning Economics

#EconBlocker: Insane Economist Quotes

Blog blocking/muting/censoring by

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Bill Mitchell’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Lars Syll’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder

Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs

#EconBlocker: Bill Mitchell #EconBlocker: Lars Syll #EconBlocker:  Real-World Economics Review #EconBlocker: Mark Thoma #EconBlocker: Nick Rowe

Scientific incompetence and lack of integrity

For details of the big picture, see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'You don’t see what you don’t see: censorship in the econblogosphere' and 'Economics, free speech, and censorship' and 'Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs' and 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?' and 'Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”' and 'Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion'.

***

#PointOfProof
#EconBlocker
#HallOfScientificShame

***

For more about #Econblocker, see AXECquery.

 

***

#EconBlockers violate clearly defined professional standards

***

It is noteworthy that the #EconBlocker Unlearning Economics of all people has put a video about The Toxic Culture of the Economics Profession on YouTube.

***

Twitter/X, Nov 11, 2024  Visibility