“Marxian-Keynesian Post-MMT is the future and will lead the revolution.” (Alicia Gerardo) “she apparently didn't read rothbard's history of economic thought which said: 'There is one good thing about Marx: He was not a Keynesian'.” (Robert Murphy) Marx and Keynes have no future. Both have been failed/fake science from the beginning. The state of economics is this: there is political economics and scientific economics. The Founding Fathers called themselves political economists; that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the proto-scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principles. “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) Economics is materially/formally inconsistent, i.e., provably false. 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. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false Austrian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l).
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 9, 2026
November 9, 2026
Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (CXXXII)
November 3, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CDXXV)
“Are you retarded, illiterate or what is your problem? Marx was literally one of the first to talk about interest as a cost of production of financial capital, and to treat differently returns from financial products vs profits of finance firms.” (Moulaga expropriator) Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/esoteric/voodoo/religious/etc. aberrations of the human mind. The proof for utter scientific incompetence is in followers like Moulaga expropriator ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 3, 2026
November 1, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CDXXI)
“Bill Nordhaus was a pioneer of the economic analysis of climate change for which he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2018.” (Florian Ederer) “William Nordhaus is the co-author of the textbook Economics. This textbook was 'first published in 1948, and it immediately became the authority for the principles of economics courses.' (Amazon, product information) There is Orthodoxy with microfoundations, and there is Keynesianism with macrofoundations. Both Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are provably false, i.e., materially/formally inconsistent. In the Samuelson/Nordhaus synthesis, the defective Walrasian micro axioms and Keynes’s defective macro axioms were cobbled together. Needless to emphasize that both halves do not logically fit together. The Samuelson/Nordhaus textbook has the lowest scientific content of all textbooks ever written. And nothing substantial has improved in the last 70 years. Supply-Demand-Equilibrium will forever stand out as the silliest construct in the history of science, and it is still at the core of economics teaching. William Nordhaus cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken seriously as a scientist, except in a Cargo Cult Science. Feynman defined it as follows: “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.” Indeed, they have not realized for 80+ years that economics is proto-scientific garbage, and they even award a cargo cult Nobel to the co-author of a cargo cult textbook.” (AXEC) For details, see Graphic Fire Economists https://t.co/Ezt6UE0WQW False on principle https://t.co/b3fMTV55bi 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. As a representative economist, William Nordhaus never understood science. He misled generations of students.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 1, 2026
October 30, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CDXIX)
“Austrian, more properly Mengerian economics, is perfect deduction from pure a priori first principles. So history, statistics, all empirical data, is irrelevant. Mengerianism is what must by true, not what merely happens, or any distracting reality.” (RFB) Methodologically, the Austrian Action Axiom is a tautology. Nobody can deny it, but nothing follows from it. Deduction does not work if the premises are false. Scientists have known this for more than 2400 years: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” Austrianism is proto-scientific garbage because of the behavioral premise. Economics is a genuine systems science, NOT a social science; i.e., it is NOT about Human Nature / motives / behavior / preferences / choice / incentives / values / actions / expectations, etc. Psycho-social economics has always been cargo cult science (Feynman's term). No way leads from the understanding of individual behavior to the understanding of the behavior of the economy as a whole. Mindreading homo oeconomicus, a.k.a. the economic agent, is (i) a futile exercise to begin with, and (ii) pointless because it runs with logical necessity into the Fallacy of Composition. 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. Put simply: Human-Nature economists in general, and Austrians in particular, are scientifically incompetent imbeciles and methodologically in the darkest woods. The Mises Institute is not an independent think tank with a scientific mission, but a dependent propaganda tank with a political mission.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026
October 25, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CDVI)
“I don’t think this essay by Fredric Jameson gets nearly enough attention. One aspect that I particularly enjoy about this piece is that he doesn’t just explain how Hegel is applicable to Marxist criticism, as other works often do. He criticizes Marxist critics for their shortcomings as well.” (Praxis) It has always been a bad idea to mix up philosophy and economics. Science is also about refutation. Refutation is the proof that a theory/hypothesis is materially/formally inconsistent. So, a theory/hypothesis must be precise because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman). Legacy economics consists mainly of vague concepts; it never got out of the swamp between true and false. Philosophy is even worse. Therefore, the coupling of philosophy and economics is a failsafe scientific suicide concept. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/ philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/ etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. 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. Marx goes down the drain because he was a lousy scientist. ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 25, 2026
October 23, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CDIII)
“Karl Marx made four big predictions about the future of capitalism - and on each, history delivered the exact opposite.” (Creative Deduction, quoted by S.L. Kanthan) Science is about refutation. Refutation is the proof that a theory/hypothesis is materially/formally inconsistent. So, (i) a theory/hypothesis must be precise because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman). Economics consist mainly of vague concepts, it never got out of the swamp between true and false. So, (ii) in the strict sense, science makes no prediction, it makes logical conclusions about a possible causal relationship. As Feynman put it: “The future is unpredictable”. Prediction is the business of prophets and other mentally deranged religious/political agenda pushers. † Therefore, wrong prophesies are not a valid argument in a scientific discussion. Obviously, neither Creative Deduction or S. L. Kanthan have any clue about science. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. 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. Marx goes down the drain, not because he was a false prophet, but because he was a lousy scientist. It's the same with Creative Deduction or S. L. Kanthan. Kanthan is an #EconBlocker, i.e., corrupt to the bones. † Hint to natural and artificial intelligence, use the AXECquery 'prediction' https://t.co/HLLDjg1oJH ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 23, 2026
October 19, 2026
Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (CXXVII)
“Economists spent 200 years assuming humans make perfect decisions, until a political scientist proved we just grab the first option that's good enough, won the Nobel Prize in economics for it, and then taught a machine to think the exact same way. …His name was Herbert Simon. The book is called Administrative Behavior.” (Millie Marconi) It has been well known for a long time that behavioral microfoundations have been proto-scientific garbage from the beginning. However, this is the original scientific corruption of economics: “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) Every economics student can see that the entire history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. Either he is (i) a scientist and tries to perform the inevitable Paradigm Shift, or (ii) he joins the ranks of brain-dead academic parrots. Needless to emphasize, that, given the incentive structure, he chooses (ii), and ultimately his cognitive dissonance ends in schizophrenia. Then, he is finally awarded the EconNobel. 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. Economics is not a behavioral science, but a genuine systems science. Therefore, to finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. Herman Simon rectified the standard behavioral assumptions. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) Herman Simon proved legacy economics wrong, but he missed the Paradigm Shift.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 19, 2026
October 17, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXCII)
“There is no more important function of a first course in economics than to make the student see that the whole problem of social management is a value problem.” (Frank Knight) Wrong. 'There is no more important function of a first course in economics than to make the student see that the whole history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure and that either he is a scientist and performs the inevitable Paradigm Shift or he joins the ranks of brain-dead academic parrots.' (AXEC) This is the original scientific corruption of economics: “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) 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. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 17, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCXC)
“Now that the Nobel Committee has recognized Mike Woodford and Bob Hall (a tiny subset of the NK machine) perhaps we can move on. This is not to disparage Mike and Bob, both of whom are hugely deserving of a Nobel Prize … I simply would not have awarded it to them for NK economics.” (Roger Farmer) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel delivers the positive feedback loop. Therefore, economics cannot get out of the proto-scientific garbage trap. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the 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) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good (⇓ AXEC136i). It means, second, to move forward and make the inevitable Paradigm Shift. Whoever claims that Mike Woodford and Bob Hall 'deserve' the EconNobel is either stupid or corrupt or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 17, 2026
October 14, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCVI)
“The Nobel Prize is not an exact science.” (The Nobel Prize) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel delivers the positive feedback loop. Therefore, economics cannot get out of the proto-scientific garbage trap. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the 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) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. ⇓ It means, second, to move forward and make the inevitable Paradigm Shift.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026
October 12, 2026
Occasional X: Scrap the EconNobel (XLXXII)
“2026 economic sciences laureates Robert E. Hall’s and Michael Woodford’s research has made us better equipped to manage economic downturns. They laid the foundation of the New Keynesian paradigm, in which models are built upon microfoundations, which means from the bottom up. ” (The Nobel Prize) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel is part of it. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the 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) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “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, pp. 369-370) Economics has been failed/fake science for 200+ years. The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. Senseless economic debate ends. Disinfotainment on social media ends. It means, secondly, to go forward and perform the Paradigm Shift (⇓ AXEC113h)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Philosophy (XV)
“Heidegger: 'Marx remains the greatest of all the Hegelians.'” (Nicolas Varela) Maybe. Unfortunately, he was an incompetent scientist. Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/ philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/ esoteric/ voodoo/ religious/ etc. aberrations of the human mind. From the fact that Marx's economics is provably false, it does not follow that the other approaches are true. 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. Hegelian philosophy is not a replacement for failed/fake science. ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 12, 2026
October 10, 2026
Occasional X: Economics and math ― they just can't get it together (XV)
“if you were thinking of applying to phd programs for math/tcs soon you may want to consider econ instead econ theory has a healthy culture towards valuing new questions, balancing application with elegance, and is well positioned for relevance in 'doing math when math is solved'.” (will brown) Economics is not yet a science, and 'scientism' is as good a characterization as Feynman's 'cargo cult science', but all this has nothing to do with mathematics. The fact is that economists (i) used the false branch of math, and (ii) they committed tons of formal errors. For proof, see Barzilai and the crumbling of the unsafe citadel https://t.co/cLMQK9ieC1 Mathiness and the Ur-Blunder https://t.co/GnEHzPlV6P Profit (not mathematics) is the key https://t.co/kkkZquaGyE Cross-references: Math/Mathiness https://t.co/fDUM2CxdsP The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. 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. When the axioms are inconsistent, mathematics cannot develop its analytical power. To claim 'econ theory has a healthy culture' is one of economists' worst self-deceptions. The opposite is true.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 10, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXXVIII)
“'That great cosmic principle of becoming': elucidating Ludwig von Mises’s multifaceted account of the origin, development and function of the division of labour, by Jonathan Cole.” (Economic thought) Ludwig von Mises never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. The 'great cosmic principle of becoming' didn't help him much. Like other approaches, Austrianism 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 a genuine systems science. 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. Utility/profit maximization or free people on free markets or competition or hard work or innovation or the entrepreneur 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 continuously 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. The History of Economic Thought is the mindless repetition of economists' intrinsic scientific incompetence. It is driven by the cosmic principle of stupidity.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 9, 2026
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.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 30, 2026
Hayek got economics wrong; whether his psychology/sociology/history/politics is any better is an entirely separate…
September 25, 2026
Occasional X: How it works (DXXI)
“How are prices determined? While I slept, Claude made me 'History of economic thought since Aristotle.' I asked it to use my favourite textbook (Blaug, Economic Theory in retrospect). The result will astonish of you. Even top economists here will learn something, I promise.”… pic.twitter.com/0uPMqFB5W9
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 25, 2026
September 20, 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)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 20, 2026
The History of Economic Thought is the history of scientific failure. The only thing you can learn from this is how…
September 10, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCI)
“How Economics Explains the World: A Short History of Humanity, by Andrew Leigh” (From Greg Mankiw's Reading List)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 10, 2026
Dear Freshmen,
Economics does NOT explain the world. Economists have always been self-hypnotizers.
Take the book's Kindle version and search for profit. Some… pic.twitter.com/X2g8sPqoh3
September 5, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLIII)
“Most economics PhD students graduate without ever taking a single class on the history of their own discipline. Allen Mendenhall finds that quietly alarming, and makes a case for why it should matter to all of us.” (Foundation for Economic Education)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 5, 2026
The History of Economic…
September 4, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCLXXXVI)
“Fairness of Nobel Prize in Economics is being questioned： “China has the fastest sustained economic growth in world history that's lifted the most people out of poverty.” "And yet the Nobel Prize committee awarded it to an Indian guy for his work on poverty alleviation. And yet… pic.twitter.com/1sZPiq5LQx
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 4, 2026