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

“Only an idiot would mistake reading Ludwig von Mises for economic literacy in the 21st century. Keynes is still worth your time. Parts are dated, but much of his framework can be updated and developed, particularly the marginal efficiency of capital.” (Mr.Keynes) Neither von Mises nor Keynes are worth your time. Keynesianism has been proven false from the beginning (⇓ AXEC172a). Therefore, it has never been more than theatrics, or what Feynman called a Cargo Cult Science. Keynes got macroeconomics axiomatically wrong. His scientifically incompetent followers never spotted the methodological defect. After-Keynesian macrofoundations are not a real improvement of the microeconomic approach. Both approaches are axiomatically false. When the axioms are inconsistent, no improvement is ever possible. Keynes, too, misunderstood the concept of profit because he was too stupid for elementary algebra. Consequently, he botched the long-overdue Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. This initial blunder means that the entire field of economics (both micro and macro) is provably false. But scientific principles have not really mattered in economics for over 200 years: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) So, folks like Mr.Keynes are just turning over the scientific dung heap again and again and are spreading the hope that a breakthrough is just around the corner. Like von Mises's approach, Keynes's approach has always been scientifically worthless. However, for a theatrical performance on the academic stage, vacuous political discussions, and selling the remaining stock of obsolete books to a low-IQ audience, it's good enough.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 10, 2026

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

@PeterSurda @Lord_Keynes3 You overlook that Murray Rothbard defends Extreme Apriorism. Austrianism is contradictory, not only with regard to methodology. Strictly speaking, it has always been proto-scientific garbage for a low-IQ audience.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 10, 2026

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

“MMT never claimed to be in itself sufficient to bring about social change (nor does it deny politics exist outside of monetary capacities) simply that understanding it is essential to doing so.” (Patricia) Economics has no political mandate. This could have been known for a long time: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” (Mill) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. For the record: scientifically, MMT has long been refuted; see Cross-references: MMT https://t.co/XMHq0sZWU1 MMTers are not competent scientists. They are political agenda pushers for a low-IQ audience ( ⇓ AXEC152c). MMT is not part of science, but part of politics.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 9, 2026

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

“Rothbard put it in italics, so Alex Pollock read it twice at the Summit: 'The natural tendency of the state is inflation.' Money is normally got by producing something. There is another way—create it, and produce nothing.” (Mises Media) The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. In Austrianism, it's the Praxeology Axiom. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a systems science, and NOT a social science. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Consequently, economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. To this day, it has no scientific truth-value but only political use-value. Austrianism is a case in point. Ludwig von Mises never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-defeating. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm≔(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies PublicDeficit-Is-PrivateProfit Qm≔(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm≔(G−T)>0 is a critical element of the economy's survival. The minimum requirement of a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. This is the main economic principle; all other explanations of how the economy works are secondary at best. Utility/profit maximization or free people on free markets or competition or hard work or innovation or the entrepreneur or optimal allocation do not keep the economy above the zero-profit cutoff. Scientifically, it's rather simple: no macroeconomic profit, no economy. But economists are only look-alike scientists. They have never had enough brains to understand the objective, systemic facts, i.e., the existential preconditions. Free-market economies are temporarily saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the Austrian premise that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system is axiomatically false. Austrianism is failed/fake science. Neither von Mises nor the sorry bunch of followers ever understood what keeps the economy going. On the contrary, Austrianism claims that the State is the root of all evil. That's moral blaming, not science. Rothbard was a silly agenda pusher, not a competent scientist. Because Austrianism is axiomatically false, its Theory of Money is false. For the axiomatically correct approach, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFstKv

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 5, 2026

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

“Before Carl Menger published his Principles of Economics in 1871, mainstream economic thought was a muddle of half-truths, moral philosophy dressed as science, and a value theory so broken it could not explain why water costs less than diamonds. The classical school, anchored by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, gave the world the labor theory of value. Price, they believed, derived from the labor embedded in production.” (Handre) Adam Smith/David Ricardo were scientifically incompetent, and Menger was no better. The most obvious mistakes with his value theory are: (i) First of all, water and diamonds are different kinds of goods. Water is produced and consumed in one period; diamonds are forever. Menger confounded perishable consumption goods with non-financial assets, i.e., a physical store of value; i.e., he confounded non-durables and durables. Methodologically, this means getting the relationship between flows and stocks wrong. (ii) The marginal utility of one person does not matter much, because the market transforms a great number of diverse subjective valuations into one objective price for all. Menger fails to show how this transformation works. For the correct answer, see The Logical Interface Between Objective Macrofoundations and Subjective Valuations https://t.co/8NXaiPVsHv (iii) The question of value does not arise outside the economic system, where labor gets a wage, and the output is sold on the market. The Value Theory presupposes a monetary economy. The marginal utility of water for some freak guy in the desert is irrelevant to the market price of water. (iv) The subjective value has ultimately to be backed up by an objective amount of money. The subjective value of water may be high, but if the agent can maximally spend his income and if his income is very small, the thirsty person cannot buy enough water and leaves the market to die in some dark corner. The survivors understand that the market is not primarily an efficient information mechanism but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that makes sure, with some unintelligible Invisible-Hand trick, that the rich person survives the poor person if scarcity becomes extreme. These four methodological mistakes are sufficient to make Menger's approach scientifically worthless and all Austrian propagandists unemployed. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC233b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. The business sector is later differentiated in lines 15, 16, 17. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing, i.e., X=O, and budget-balancing, i.e., Ec=Yw, this yields the price P in line 5. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition that is lifted later. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R in line 5. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the condition of budget balancing is lifted, i.e., nominal demand is not determined by income. Accordingly, the two market-clearing prices depend on the respective expenditure ratios ρE1, ρE2 and unit wage costs W1/R1, W2/R2 in lines 18, 19. The measurable expenditure ratio is a proxy for the consolidated multitude of unmeasurable individual subjective values. As a result, relative prices are given in line 20. For the special case of budget balancing, i.e., ρE1=1, ρE2=1, and equal wages W1, W2, in both production lines, the relative price is equal to the inverse productivities. It is not proportional to labor time input. This result can be projected back to the original Labour Theory of Value and amounts to a refutation. It reveals the scientific incompetence of Austrian economists from Menger onward.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 3, 2026

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

“For decades, classical economists like Adam Smith struggled to explain why water was cheap, while diamonds, largely useless luxuries, commanded a fortune. Austrian economist Carl Menger solved the diamond-water paradox by pioneering the concept of subjective marginal utility, pointing out that economists had mistakenly concluded that 'value in use' and 'value in exchange' were entirely separate concepts driven by production costs.” (Creative Deduction) Adam Smith was scientifically incompetent, and Menger was no better. The most obvious mistakes with his value theory are: (i) First of all, water and diamonds are different kinds of goods. Water is produced and consumed in one period; diamonds are forever. Menger confounded perishable consumption goods with non-financial assets, i.e., a physical store of value; i.e., he confounded non-durables and durables. Methodologically, this means getting the relationship between flows and stocks wrong. (ii) The marginal utility of one person does not matter much, because the market transforms a great number of diverse subjective valuations into one objective price for all. Menger fails to show how this transformation works. For the correct answer, see The Logical Interface Between Objective Macrofoundations and Subjective Valuations https://t.co/8NXaiPW0x3 (iii) The question of value does not arise outside the economic system, where labor gets a wage, and the output is sold on the market. The Value Theory presupposes a monetary economy. The marginal utility of water for some freak guy in the desert is irrelevant to the market price of water. (iv) The subjective value has ultimately to be backed up by an objective amount of money. The subjective value of water may be high, but if the agent can maximally spend his income and if his income is very small, the thirsty person cannot buy enough water and leaves the market to die in some dark corner. The survivors understand that the market is not primarily an efficient information mechanism but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that makes sure, with some unintelligible Invisible-Hand trick, that the rich person survives the poor person if scarcity becomes extreme. These four methodological mistakes are sufficient to make Menger's approach scientifically worthless and all Austrian propagandists unemployed. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC233b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. The business sector is later differentiated in lines 15, 16, 17. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing, i.e., X=O, and budget-balancing, i.e., Ec=Yw, this yields the price P in line 5. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition that is lifted later. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R in line 5. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the condition of budget balancing is lifted, i.e., nominal demand is not determined by income. Accordingly, the two market-clearing prices depend on the respective expenditure ratios ρE1, ρE2 and unit wage costs W1/R1, W2/R2 in lines 18, 19. The measurable expenditure ratio is a proxy for the consolidated multitude of unmeasurable individual subjective values. As a result, relative prices are given in line 20. For the special case of budget balancing, i.e., ρE1=1, ρE2=1, and equal wages W1, W2, in both production lines, the relative price is equal to the inverse productivities. It is not proportional to labor time input. This result can be projected back to the original Labour Theory of Value and amounts to a refutation. It reveals the scientific incompetence of Austrian economists from Menger onward.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 2026

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

“Assessment: AXEC is partly right about accounting, but substantially overstates his conclusions. My rating: 4/10 for the economic argument as a whole. His emphasis on accounting consistency, profits and financial balances is valuable. However, his claim that Kalecki never understood profit is poorly supported, and his assertion that an economy must implode whenever aggregate monetary profit becomes negative is not established by his equation.” (James Young)‡ One of the unavoidable stomach-churners in economics is that scientifically incompetent folks pontificate about methodology. One of the dumbest phrases in economics is: That's an accounting identity, but economics is about human behavior. No, psychology and sociology are about human behavior; economics is about the economic system. Accounting relationships are systemic laws, and, best of all, they are testable. To be sure, utility maximization is not a testable proposition. Actually, it is much worse; for example, here are the neo-Walrasian axioms: “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) This behavioral axiom set consists of psycho-social hallucinations; its variables are NONENTITIES, and therefore its conclusions are not testable in principle. Equilibrium is the worst petitio principii of all. Every theory/model that contains the concept of equilibrium/disequilibrium is proto-scientific garbage. Economic methodology has been a scientific disaster from the Founding Fathers onward. Unfortunately, Keynes messed up the unavoidable Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. See the graphic AXEC172a https://t.co/ynvCeZQGlx. Kalecki was somewhat better, but he, too, messed up profit and distributed profit. Profit is a balance, and distributed profit is a flow. Because of his methodological blunder, he got the concepts of income and saving wrong. In the elementary case, income is NOT the sum of wage income and profit, but of wage income and distributed profit. That's the first axiom in line 1. See also Kalecki got it wrong, Allais got it right https://t.co/MybEzLGDkg In table AXEC238a ⇓, the case of profit distribution is consistently dealt with. From the objective systemic axiom set in lines 1-3 follows that profit is equal to distributed profit, i.e., Qm:=Yd, if the expenditure ratio ρE of both wage income Yw and distributed profit Yd is 1 (line 15). In this case, the Capitalists reproduce their profit by fully spending their distributed profit on consumption. Thereby, they get a part of the real product O, without ever having contributed to its production. This is what Kalecki's famous punch line: they get what they spend, ultimately means. In principle, the Capitalists as a whole can make their profit as big as they want. Practically, they don't, because normally there is retained profit, and distributed profit is mostly saved. Luckily, there are other sources of profit Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). Keynes and Kalecki are only special cases of the methodologically correct AXEC macrofoundations and, by implication, of the systemic Profit Law. Strictly speaking, Keynes, Kalecki and their followers were too stupid for the elementary math that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Note well that no behavioral economist ever arrived at the systemic Profit Law. Profit is the foundational variable of the subject matter. All behavioral profit explanations are provably false. Because profit is false, the whole of legacy economics is scientifically worthless. Against this backdrop, Kalecki was a real progress. ‡ It has been established in the working paper Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism https://t.co/2NkX9FRklW

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026

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

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

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026

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

“Kalecki's Theory of Economic Dynamics explains more about how firms actually set prices in a few chapters than the entire theory of subjective value and marginal utility.” (Mr.Keynes) Neither Mr.Keynes nor Michał Kalecki ever understood profit. That's the worst thing for an economist. For details, see Kalecki: the man who missed it by a hair's breadth https://t.co/JOlDMelY4C and Cross-references: Kalecki https://t.co/FemYl1aA8M The monetary economy in general, and the US economy, in particular, thrives on growing private/ public debt. If this growth stops, the economy implodes. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The minimum requirement for a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. Qm≥0 is the systemic existential precondition. This is easy to understand, but economists still don't get it. They can only think behaviorally, not systemically. PsySoc economics is proto-scientific garbage. The premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. This means that economics is a failed/fake science. Ultimately, this means that the representative economist is scientifically incompetent. Michał Kalecki took the first step, i.e., a valid critique. He never managed to advance to the Paradigm Shift. As Feynman put it: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” To sell his outdated book on social media is a losing proposition.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026

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

“The WSJ wants you to worry about the federal government's red ink. It would be nice if they bothered to show the black ink that spills onto the private sector's side of the ledger.” (Stephanie Kelton) A large deficit for the U.S. government means a healthy free lunch for WeTheOligarchy. Reminder: Macroeconomic Profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. See the graphical proof in Fig AXEC216a ⇓ . Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink trick https://t.co/AfbJNmvmFc After the differentiation between the household sector and business sector, it is methodologically inadmissible to define a 'private sector' that fuses the two sectors again. This hides the crucial relationship Qm:=−Sm, i.e., macroeconomic profit of the business sector is the complementary balance to household sector dissaving. By the same token, it holds Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., the profit of the business sector is equal to the deficit of the public sector. The free-market economy is continuously saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo Treasury / Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. And this means that economics has been proto-scientific garbage for 200+ years. And this means that the representative economist is either stupid or corrupt or both.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 25, 2026

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

“My Intellectual Journey to Post-Keynesian Economics: 1. First, you study neoclassical macroeconomics at university and master its theoretical framework. … 4. After years of searching, you finally discover Post-Keynesian economics, particularly stock-flow consistent models, where production, income, expenditure, debt, and financial assets finally come together within a coherent, macroeconomically consistent framework.” (Khazbi Budonov) Almost there. Post-Keynesianism is axiomatically inconsistent. Keynes got macrofoundations wrong, but After-Keynesians haven't noticed it until today. For details, see Keynesianism ― the economists’ senile dementia https://t.co/8TJXK7VJ3D To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l).

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 18, 2026

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

“I used to be a neoclassical economist. Then I studied sectoral balances, endogenous money and monetary institutions. I discovered MMT and stopped confusing models in a vacuum with how capitalism actually works as a monetary production economy.” (Esteban Cruz) Wrong dichotomy. Going from Neoclassics to MMT is going from pest to cholera. The axiomatically correct production-consumption economy is given with the graph below (⇓ AXEC225e). If you can't understand it, Artificial Intelligence will certainly help.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 18, 2026

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

“Carl Menger is truly one of the greatest economists of all time. His subjectivist theory of value and marginal utility was absorbed both (obviously) by the Austrian school, either in part (by Bohm-Bawerk, Von Wieser and Hayek), or in full (Lachmann), by the London School (Smart, Wicksteed, Robbins), and even mathematically (by his son Karl), his idea of “causal-genetic” analysis proceeded the idea of process analysis, and his work on money (Geld) was far ahead of his time. Truly was he (almost) without rival.” (Nikolai Rostov) Austrianism is failed/fake science to this day, but Nikolai Rostov is too incompetent to get it. He is part of a very large crowd. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a systems science. The basic economic entity is NOT the exchange of goods between two people and has NOTHING to do with drowning or thirsting people valuing water, but with the elementary production-consumption economy, which is shown below (⇓ AXEC225e). For a start, the workers produce one good, which is later differentiated. The output per period is O, which depends on the labor input L and the productivity R. The workers get an income Yw, which depends on the labor input L and the wage rate W. For a start, the wage rate is equal for all. Differentiation comes later. The workers spend their entire income Ec=Yw, and buy the entire output X=O. Thus, the circle is closed, and there are no balances. The balances of profit, loss, saving, dissaving, change in inventory, etc., come later. The initial nominal and real closing is a double condition, which has NOTHING to do with the concept of equilibrium. These conditions are practically never met, and this is why nominal and real balances appear. The most important balance is the macroeconomic profit of the business sector. A balance is a difference of flows, i.e., a change of stock. Austrians never understood what macroeconomic profit was. This is scientifically disqualifying. As a first result, the real wage W/P is equal to the productivity R. There is no subjectivity in the real wage. The workers need the output for their survival; that's where the subjective value comes from, but they cannot get more than they produce. The price, as the dependent variable, is determined as P=W/R. This is how the many subjective values transform into the one objective market price. The market is the place where the immeasurable individual subjectivity is transformed into the measurable collective objectivity. The science of economics deals with the objective price, not with the subjective value, which is a completely arbitrary figment of the momentary psychological condition. One can endlessly speculate about subjective values and expectations and keep economics at the proto-scientific level, i.e., in the swamp where 'nothing is clear and everything is possible.' (Keynes) Carl von Menger never understood economics. Neither did his low-IQ followers. Austrianism is not science but political agenda pushing. It is failed science, but it is kept alive because of political sponsorship – not because of scientific merit. Austrian think tanks have not much to do with thinking, but more with the blubber of silly salespeople.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

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

“In 50 years, Kelton's The Deficit Myth will be more widely read than Mises' Human Action, Hayek's Road to Serfdom, and Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson combined.” (Mr.Keynes) Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, and Kelton are scientifically stone dead. But living economists are too stupid to realize the inconsistencies. You can tell them anything, and they will repeat it: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Probably it's worse. Economists promote anything they are paid for. They are not scientists, but salespeople. You can get the MMT refutation free here: The Kelton Fraud https://t.co/tgovXGM6Ho Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick https://t.co/AfbJNmvmFc Cross-references: MMT https://t.co/XMHq0sZWU1 That this provably inconsistent theory is still on the so-called free-market-for-ideas tells one that economics is a corrupted science.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Marginalism (IV)

“In 1871, Menger published his groundbreaking Principles of Economics, arguing that the value of a good is not determined by the labour required to produce it, but by the subjective importance individuals place on it. Value is not objective or embodied in objects. It is marginal - determined by the least important use of a good to the individual. Jevons and Walras reached similar conclusions around the same time. Together, they launched what became known as the Marginalist Revolution, shifting economics from production costs and labour theories toward subjective marginal utility.” (Creative Deduction) Marginalism is the worst example of scientific failure. For over 200 years, economics has said it is a science, but it isn't. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory and axiomatically false and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. The root cause of economics' scientific failure lies in the foundational propositions/assumptions/axioms. It is the fatal methodological blunder to base economics on behavioral/subjective microfoundations instead of objective/systemic macrofoundations. Legacy economics is built upon this set of foundational propositions, a.k.a. axioms: “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) Marginalism comes from “HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints”. It's unnecessary to emphasize that economists borrowed this idea from physics/mathematics, where it was discovered that light takes the shortest possible time. In other words, Nature seems to apply an optimization principle. And this was where calculus came in, which reappeared later in economics as Marginalism, i.e., as utility/profit maximization. The behavioral axioms and auxiliary assumptions like well-behaved production functions are methodologically untenable (⇓ AXEC113h). The point is that the market transforms the endless multitude of subjective values into one objective market price. The claim that Austrianism refutes Marxianism has no scientific substance. Both are political agenda pushing dressed up as science. For details, see ⇒ Cross-references Axiomatization and Marginalism is the landmark of scientific incompetence https://t.co/r1Lmt9qZ6D It's high time to flush the 'architects of subjective value', i.e., Carl Menger, Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, Philip Wicksteed, and Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk down the scientific drain.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 7, 2026

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

“Government spending creates private-sector income.” (MMTAction)

It sounds innocent, but it's a shell game. First, there is no such thing as the 'private sector'; there is only the business sector and the household sector. To add them mechanically together lets (i) profit/… pic.twitter.com/TYb0altRI2

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 30, 2026

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

“Government spending creates private-sector income. Every pound the state spends is a pound in someone's account. So why do politicians pretend deficits are reckless? Because they don't understand sectoral balances.” (MMTAction)

Neither do MMTers.

There is no such thing as… pic.twitter.com/PNsK8ctxBY

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 30, 2026

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

Friedrich Hayek never understood profit and, by logical consequence, how the economic system works. This is self-disqualifying and is a shame for academia.

Hayek got economics wrong; whether his psychology/sociology/history/politics is any better is an entirely separate…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 30, 2026

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Adam Smith (XC)

“Reading guides, lesson plans, bellringers, and full topic toolkits on trade, prices, and the invisible hand — everything you need to bring Adam Smith into class next week.” (Econlib)

Adam Smith was not an original thinker, not a scientist, not an economist; he was a populist… pic.twitter.com/UPzRK686Qu

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 26, 2026

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

“There is a very positive review of my new book, 'Liberty and the History of Economic Ideas: From the Ancients to the Austrian Economists,' …” (Richard Ebeling)

The History of Economic Thought is the history of scientific failure. The only thing you can learn from this is how…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 20, 2026