AXEC: New Foundations of Economics: Search results for label:Consistency

Showing posts sorted by date for query label:Consistency. Sort by relevance Show all posts

November 8, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Profit (CLXIX)

“This is a macroeconomic accounting identity: aggregate profits equal investment plus capitalist consumption, the government deficit, and net exports, minus workers’ savings. One sector’s profits are determined by spending and saving decisions across the economy.” (Khazbi Budunov) This is one of the dumbest pronouncements in economics: This is a macroeconomic accounting identity, implying that it is true by definition. Actually, economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. For details, see The Levy/Kalecki Profit Equation is false https://t.co/pkoZclG49K Reminder: For 200+ years, economics has claimed to be a science. But it still is not. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory & axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. If the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. This also holds for the Levy/Kalecki profit equation. Khazbi Budunov has not been smart enough to figure out the macroeconomic basics. He goes down the scientific drain together with the rest of the Kalecki crowd.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026

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

“This debate between orthodox and heterodox economics may have been justified in the 2000s, but today economics is a diverse discipline in which a wide range of approaches are pursued.” (Mark Schieritz) True, the distinction between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is obsolete. Today, every economist produces his own approach. Diversity is the euphemism for inconsistency. 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 (⇓ AXEC109k). Economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. It has never been much more than the blather of confused confusers. The representative economist is NOT, and never has been, a competent scientist but an agenda pusher / useful idiot / impostor / phrase monger / storyteller / troll / pseudo-psychologist / self-gloryfier / 'good-cause' fighter / clown in the political Circus Maximus. Economics needs a Paradigm Shift. But the representative economist is too stupid for it: “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) In science, diversity is an almost sure sign of brain rot.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026

October 28, 2026

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

Link to Article; scroll for the comments

Comment on onebornfree

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

“What do you pretend to demonstrate? Many of your model variables (rho_E, rho_D and similar) are directly dependent on human factors such as emotions, irrationality, corruption, incompetence, etc... yet your model ignores those.” (Yope) The AXEC Axioms are systemic instead of behavioral. From the Austrian Action Axiom follows only empty blather. From the AXEC Axioms follows path-dependent random paths. Of course, they are not predictable. Only charlatans predict the future, and only morons take them seriously. When economists predict, this is no different from reading poultry entrails. For the methodological details, see Scientists do NOT predict the future (III) https://t.co/7x0ZkT367f The axioms are systemic, i.e., behavior-free. That does not mean that the AXEC approach is behavior-free. You obviously overlooked the Propensity Function: The Propensity Function as general formalization of Economic Man/Woman https://t.co/aiUTmdmA6l The Propensity Function replaces the Action Axiom. 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. More precisely, Austrianism is scientifically worthless. It has become a refugium for senseless blathering. I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Yope is either stupid or corrupt or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 28, 2026

October 26, 2026

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

“Grok does not agree, nor do I.” (RFB) Too bad for Grok. This blunder will send the stock price down the sink hole. AI/Grok has been trained on legacy economics. Accordingly, it brings back all the crappy slogans we have heard ad nauseam from the silly members of a failed/fake science. AI, too, works according to the garbage-in-garbage-out principle. For example: “It [economics] is not a classical natural science.” You cannot be more tautological. “The subject matter itself sets hard limits that physics does not face.” Yeah, that's one of the oldest excuses for incompetence. When economists are ridiculed for not having achieved anything of scientific value since Adam Smith, they retort with the Cobden excuse: “Years ago I heard Mr. Cobden say at a League Meeting that ‘Political Economy was the highest study of the human mind, for that the physical sciences required by no means so hard an effort.’” (Bagehot, 1885) Note the sick logic: science is what physicists do, but economics “falls short of the classical natural-science ideal for structural reasons.” Trivially true, but irrelevant. Scientific standards are defined independently of physics: “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, 1994, 31) Fact is that economics has been materially/formally inconsistent since the Founding Fathers. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. Grok does not realize it, but repeats the foundational error. 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 failed/fake science, but Grok doesn't realize anything. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. Grok has been trained on the wrong stuff, and never realized anything (⇓ AXEC 136j). Retry the exercise with the cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists https://t.co/f98ujAER8Q Scientific Incompetence https://t.co/uiyfRTZ3IL Proto-Science/Cargo Cult Science/Fake Science https://t.co/Kf9k12pnai
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 26, 2026

October 17, 2026

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

“Nothing works in this model, which is nevertheless at the heart of mainstream macro: ❌ Phillips Curve (eq.1): rejected by the data, ❌ Euler Equation (eq.2): same. And yet, we continue to teach it (and use it!) as if nothing had happened.” (François Geerolf) 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. As far as it is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. 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) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Teaching the Phillips Curve, the Euler Equation, or Demand-Supply-Equilibrium these days is a sure sign of either stupidity or corruption or both. This type of nonentity economics is rewarded with the EconNobel, and this is why we have a closed circle of idiocy.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 17, 2026

For more about the Phillips Curve in particular, see AXECquery.

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

October 16, 2026

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

“But I don’t think my job teaching principles was to teach my idiosyncratic tastes. In some sense I’m teaching the field that’s the job.” (Brian Albrecht) Yes, but the field is proto-scientific garbage, and Brian Albrecht has still not realized that economics has been Cargo Cult Science from the beginning. 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. Teaching principles these days is a sure sign of either stupidity or corruption or both.
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 16, 2026

June 5, 2026

Occasional X: Economics and math ― they just can't get it together (XII)

“Murray Rothbard, like other Austrian Economists, believed that the heavy use of mathematics in economic analysis damaged economic understanding instead of enhancing it. This wasn't science, he said; it was 'scientism'.” (Mises Institute)

True, economics is not yet a science,…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) June 5, 2026

May 14, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXIX)

“'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 14, 2026

May 2, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCIII)

“Some fields work in theory but not in practice. Some fields work in practice but not theory. The uniqueness of economics is that it works in neither theory nor practice.” (Nassim Taleb)

Science works in theory AND practice: “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 2, 2026

Related 'Neo-Paleo-Stupidicism'

April 30, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCC)

“Best case they can produce words that sound reasonable, but there is never any substance.” (Per Bylund)

This is a spot-on assessment of legacy economics.

Per Bylund never understood profit and, as a consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-disqualifying.

The… pic.twitter.com/aLu7IuGXz8
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 30, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLXXXIX)

“New at ENTREX: 'How Definitions Matter: It's the Demarcation, Damnit'. (Per Bylund)

“It should be obvious that we must define core terms so that a reader of our work can understand the argument without needing to first decipher the author’s terminology. This goes for all types…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 30, 2026

April 26, 2026

Occasional X: AI — boosting scientific competence in economics (XIV) / DeepSeek

Dear DeepSeek,

The following post on my blog is a copy of an economics dialogue on X.

It is a double-refutation of both macroeconomics and Grok. The question is whether you can do better. Please prove that Grok's argumentation misses the crucial axiomatic/deductive proof that…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 26, 2026

November 23, 2025

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCXXVIII)

#Economics #AllYouNeedToKnow

“According to Horwitz’s Introduction to Austrian Economics, they claim to offer a more 'realistic' explanation of economic phenomena than mainstream economics does …” (Shahin Ashkiani)

The decisive criterion of science is material AND formal…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 23, 2025

April 14, 2025

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

#Economics #AllYouNeedToKnow

Your recommended Macro N Cheese podcast is MMT.

It should be known by now that MMT is refuted on all counts. When Artificial Intelligence/Grok can figure this out, your natural stupidity cannot avoid the conclusion that MMT is ripe for self-flushing…
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 14, 2025

For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

November 11, 2023

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Keynesianism (XXXIV)

#Economics #FailedFakeScience #Keynesianism #Keynes got macroeconomic #Profit wrong bc he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. #MacroFoundations are provably false, so the whole of #MacroEconomics is scientifically worthless. #AfterKeynesians don't get it to this day. pic.twitter.com/2M1oOmfc07
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 11, 2023

November 10, 2023

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Heterodoxy (IV)

#Economics #FailedFakeScience

Both #Orthodoxy & #Heterodoxy are axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent & ALL got #Profit wrong. Neither has a future.⇒

Yes, orthodox economics is poor science, but can Heterodoxy raise hope?https://t.co/6QVsf8jDlA
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 10, 2023

For details of the big picture see cross-references Heterodoxy.

October 25, 2023

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Keynesianism (XXXIII)

#Economics #FailedFakeScience #Keynesianism #Keynes got macroeconomic #Profit wrong bc he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. #MacroFoundations are provably false, so the whole of #MacroEconomics is scientifically worthless. #AfterKeynesians don't get it to this day. pic.twitter.com/VBeogPuHKP
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 25, 2023

For details of the big picture see cross-references Keynesianism.

For more about NAIRU see AXECquery.

October 24, 2023

Occasional Xs: The futile attempt to recycle Keynesianism (XXXII)

#Economics #FailedFakeScience #Economists #StupidOrCorruptOrBoth #Keynes got macroeconomic #Profit wrong because he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. Bc of this, #MacroEconomics is scientifically worthless to this day. Keynesians never got it. pic.twitter.com/GTOvu4YVOG
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 24, 2023

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Knowledge only — no opinion

Science does not explain everything, but non-science explains nothing.

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency.

Economists cannot explain how the economy works. The Profit Theory is false since Adam Smith. There is much opinion and little knowledge.

Opinion is the realm of political economics, knowledge is the realm of theoretical economics.

Political economics is scientifically worthless.

Theoretical economics is built upon clearly stated premises, i.e., upon a set of axioms.

Orthodoxy got the axiomatic foundations wrong and Heterodoxy has none at all.

Economics is a failed science. Economists are incompetent scientists.

Profit

Neither Classicals, nor Walrasians, nor Marshallians, nor Marxians, nor Keynesians, nor Institutionialists, nor Monetary Economists, nor MMTers, nor Austrians, nor Sraffaians, nor Evolutionists, nor Game theorists, nor EconoPhysicists, nor RBCers, nor New Keynesians, nor New Classicals ever came to grips with profit. Hence, they all fail to capture the essence of the market economy.

Because of this, economists have nothing to offer in the way of a scientifically founded economic policy guidance.

The hybrid science

As a first approximation, one can agree on the general characteristic that the economy is a complex system.

However, with the term system one usually associates a structure with components that are non-human. In order to stress the obvious fact that humans are an essential component of the economic system the market economy should be characterized more precisely as a complex hybrid human/system entity.

The scientific method is straightforwardly applicable to the sys-component but not to the hum-component. While it is clear that the economy always has to be treated as an indivisible whole, for good methodological reasons the analysis has to start with the objective system-component.

In gestalt-psychological terms the economic system is the foreground, individual behavior the background. Common sense wrongly insists that the hum-component must always be in the foreground. This fallacy compares to geo-centrism. The economic system has its own logic which is different from the behavioral logic of humans. The systemic logic is what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

There are systemic laws but no behavioral laws. Systemic laws have the same methodological status as physical laws.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy can tell what the systemic laws of the actual monetary economy are.

Whether the outcome of the human/system-interaction is good or bad is a politcal question that lies outside of theoretical economics. Theoretical economics explains how the actual economy works - no less, no more.

Narrative vs.Theory

Psychological, sociological or behavioral assumptionism cannot yield anything other than a gossip model of the world. Second-guessing the agents is not economic analysis.

Science deals exclusively with propositions that can in principle be decided by objective means. The rest is opinion, faith, phantasy, motive speculation, allegation, hallucination, myth, paranoia, ink-blot association, psychology, philosophy, in one word: storytelling.

Storytelling is the original mode of communication in the social realm — except science.

Political economics is storytelling and, by default, the natural habitat of confused confusers. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are social narratives and not scientifically valid representations of reality.

"The truth is, most persons, not excepting professional economists, are satisfied with very hazy notions." (Fisher)

In marked contrast, theoretical economics lives up to the standards of material and formal consistency. A scientific theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible.

Theory starts with a set of objective and consistent axioms.

Paradigm Shift

"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)

"As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction." (Nell)

"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)

"Is it not a fact, which stares at us from the histories of all sciences, that it is much more difficult for the human mind to forge the most elementary conceptual schemes than it is to elaborate the most complicated superstructure when those elements are well in hand?" (Schumpeter)

"The task of producing knowledge against the grain requires imagination." (Mirowski)

"A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination." (Feynman)

"The scientific imagination dreams of explanations and laws." (Peirce)

"It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science." (Evans)

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

Selftest and to watch for

You apply one of these items

• supply-demand-equilibrium,

• general equilibrium,

• marginal utility,

• well-behaved production functions,

• total income = value of output,

• total income = wages + profits,

• I=S,

• wage rate down - employment up,

• behavioral axioms?

Then you are out of science because of unnoticed material or formal inconsistency.

Every economist who uses the concept of equilibrium is scientifically incompetent because she/he failed to notice that equilibrium is an economic nonentity.

Practically this means: as soon as the word equilibrium appears in an economic text it can be thrown into the waste basket. The same holds for all other nonentities.

The vast majority of economists deals mainly with nonentities. This is why Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is scientifically worthless.

Since Adam Smith, economic policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations.

To be replaced (1)

The core premises of Orthodoxy are uncertain and false and this fully explains the failure of the research program.

“As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: 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 inescapable Paradigm Shift consists of the move from this obsolete hard core to the superior set of structural axioms.

To be replaced (2)

The fundamental equations of macroeconomics have been formulated by Keynes in two lines.

"Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment."

This elementary syllogism is demonstrably false. The demonstration consists in the proof that Keynes could not solve the Profit Puzzle. Neither did Post-Neo-New-Keynesians.

In the most general terms, the economics Paradigm Shift consists in switching from the behavior-centric bottom-up approach to the structure-centric top-down approach. This is comparable to the Copernican turn from geo-centrism to helio-centrism.

Consensus

Economics is a science without scientists. Because they are ignorant of the elementary difference between profit and income, the present generation of economists has not made and cannot make a significant contribution to the discussion about how the actual economy works.

Every orthodox or heterodox economist can convince himself/herself that their profit theory is defective.

Every non-economist can — by applying elementary logic — convince himself that conventional profit theories are false. See 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down'.

Because the profit theory is false the whole of conventional economic theory has to be rejected.

"What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse." (McCauley)

No scientist will ever accept Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, or Austrianism. These approaches are logically and/or empirically refuted. This is the actual methodological state-of-art. Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, or Austrians are still at the proto-scientific stage. These approaches cannot be improved, only abandoned.

Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.

About me

“Bottom line is that your profit law is just a definition you made up nobody else agrees with, nobody. You are all alone with your precious tautology.” Barkley Rosser

“In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with.” Brian Romanchuk

"Your stuff is at least original: it's quite cool after a couple of decades at this to see a fresh Economics. But real promises are not advanced: they were around for millennia until the Greeks obscured them with Metaphysics." Chris Cook

"No mate, they're you-blockers. You have all the personality traits of a crank, and the rest of them have tired of you. You could be 100% right, and you'd still die as your only follower." Steve Keen

"What you are doing fills is all with joy, your constructive critique is most welcome!"

Achim Truger,

German Council of Economic Experts,

in a failed attempt to be ironic

"200+ years of thought and yet you are the only one who gets it—or even understands your argument. Thank god we have you, pseudonymous Twitter user. Otherwise no one would know."

William Luther

Assistant Professor of Economics

in a failed attempt to be funny

"Egmonts profit law is the perfect equation that demonstrates this in action. Put the equation into a spreadsheet and then add government spending and watch how it flows into profits. Enter in some debt (-Sm) and watch too how that flows into profits. It can't go anywhere else."

Dean

About the rest of economics

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/ formally inconsistent. Economics is a failed science.

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” Leonardo da Vinci

In economics, the overwhelming majority belongs to Class III. This explains why economics is after 200+ years still at the proto-scientific level.

The obvious task for every economist is to advance from cargo cult science and political agenda-pushing to science. This is absolutely beyond the means of Class III people.

For 200+ years now, economists are not scientists but agenda pushers, useful idiots, clowns in the political Circus Maximus.

Nopopop

This blog does not add to any popular/un- popular opinion.

This blog does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup of society, to get out of national/global depression, nor about how to save humankind or any subgroup thereof.

This blog is about the true theory of the actual monetary economy.

"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)

Focus

Science is of primary interest and importance. Scientists are of secondary interest.

With regard to science, most people lose focus easily because of a natural preference for anecdotes and gossip over facts or subjectivity over objectivity.

Hence, Schumpeter once considered it necessary to remind his habitually disoriented fellow economists: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”

Science is about true/false and nothing else.

Disclaimer

Missing Blog-Reference links: AXEC does not guarantee that their comments can at any time be recovered from where they have been posted intitially because the availability depends on the publication policy of the blog owner which is implicitly accepted on entering a debate. See also: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?'

Texts: Parts of arbitrary length of any of the author's texts is and will be used again by the author in papers, books, websites, blogs, and other media without explicit reference. The right to make corrections or minor textual improvements on reutilization is reserved. Therefore, it is always a good idea to double-check for the latest version.

Caution: Do not expect a corroboration of your political view. Neither a refutation. Political economics has been scientifically worthless since Adam Smith. Politics has to be separated from economics because it is categorically different from science. The best science can do and has always done is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been objectively wrong or ignorant until now. Science goes beyond the naive common sense of today and becomes the sophisticated common sense of tomorrow.

See also Terms of Use and Legal at www.AXEC.org

Outlook

To recall, while political economics is storytelling, theoretical economics adheres to scientific standards.

The first task of theoretical economics is to get the axiomatic foundations right. This is what J. S. Mill called the opus magnum. Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy came up with a reasonable solution to this day. This explains the secular stagnation of economics.

There is no serious alternative to structural axiomatic economics. This is not a matter of opinion but of proof. The sole criteria are material and formal consistency.

All of economics has to be reconstructed from the ground up.

Major economic policy implication

The price mechanism does not work as standard economics hypothesizes. The axiom-based Employment Law states that overall employment increases if the average wage rate increases relative to average price and productivity. This gives one the lever to improve the employment situation all over the world and to fend off deflation without rising debt and without artificial capacity growth. To increase the average price relative to the average wage rate and productivity increases unemployment.

Right policy depends on true theory.

“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)

Lacking the true theory, economists promote for more than 200 years opinion instead of knowledge.