Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (CXXXII)

“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

Occasional X: Paradigm Shift (CXXXI)

“Total garbage. The human action axiom is simply a synthetic a posteriori proposition. There is no reason to think (Kantian) synthetic a priori propositions exist and Einstein famously REJECTED synthetic a priori knowledge such as in geometry.” (Lord Keynes) “If then it is the case that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be an inference from experience, but must be free invention, have we any hope that we shall find the correct way?” (Einstein) “In the definition which we have attempted to frame of the science of Political Economy, we have characterized it as essentially an abstract science, and its method as the method à priori.” (J. S. Mill) Science is binary true/false and nothing in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The state of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical 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. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). 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 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. Von Mises's Action Axiom refers to human behavior; therefore, it is unsuitable as a starting point. Aristotle put it thus: “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.” (Aristotle, Analytica) What Austrians, as incompetent scientists, overlook is that behavioral premises are neither 'certain, true, nor primary'. Methodologically, the Action Axiom is the wrong starting point. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l).

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026

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

“The core Keynesian error is treating consumption as the engine of wealth. Keynes fixated on aggregate demand, the total spending flowing through an economy, as the variable governments must manage. Boost it artificially, and you rescue the economy. Production precedes consumption. …Government stimulus spending doesn't create resources. It redirects them. When Washington borrows a billion dollars and injects it into infrastructure or green energy, it pulls that capital away from whatever private actors would have funded.” (Handre) Economic debate suffers from the fact that economics is a failed/fake science. Economists do not know what profit is, and consequently, how the economic system works. It's been that way ever since Adam Smith. Both Keynesianism and Austrianism is proto-scientific garbage. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm≔(I−Sm)>0 for Early Capitalism, and it implies Qm≔(G−T)>0 for Late Capitalism. Keynes observed that investment expenditures I were insufficient; therefore, the balance (I−Sm) was too low. He proposed to compensate the shortfall with a bigger balance (G−T) of public deficit spending. Handre's claim that this “pulls capital away from whatever private actors would have funded” is a hallucination because the actual problem was that there never were private actors in the wings to fund private investment I in the first place. In the monetary economy, investment is not restricted by the household sector's saving Sm. If Sm is zero, investment is fully financed by credit and retained profit. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for 200+ years. So, Qm≔(G−T)>0 is a crucial ingredient of Capitalism's life elixir. Everybody understands that the overriding principle of economics is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero; otherwise, firms start going bankrupt, and the breakdown begins. All other principles are secondary at best. Neither utility maximization nor profit maximization nor efficient resource allocation keeps the economy above the zero-profit cutoff. Currently, the free-market economy is temporarily saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of legacy 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 too stupid to understand the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Austrians can't get beyond their microeconomic/ behavioral horizon. Math was never their strong suit. From the fact that the free-market economy thrives on positive/increasing macroeconomic profit, which, in turn, stems mainly from the State's deficit-spending/money-creation, it follows immediately that budget-balancing/debt-reduction turns macroeconomic profit into loss, and this means that the free-market economy cannot dismount from the debt tiger. Because of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., of the free lunches for the Oligarchy, the distribution of income/wealth becomes progressively more extreme. As the debt grows, the number of millionaires/billionaires/zillionaires grows exponentially. Since the household sector is taxed for interest, there is an absolute upper limit for the growth of public debt, which is given by public_debt times avg_interest_rate ≦wage_income. Economic problems, though, start much earlier because of other irreducible items in the budget (military, health, etc.) and a not exactly known upper tax-to-income limit. The breakdown of the free-market economy is a systemic inevitability. The important thing is not whether it will happen, but when. The current system can only exist as a nominally growing economy. If debt growth stops, macroeconomic profit approaches zero, and the economy implodes. Austrians correctly observe the lethal weaknesses of the free-market system. Their communicative modus operandi is to simply attribute all economic misdevelopments to the State and to advertize the unchained entrepreneur as the economic savior who is eagerly waiting in the wings. The fact is, behind the wings there has never been anything.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 7, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCIV)

“In his 1957 essay In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’, Murray Rothbard embraces and defends Ludwig von Mises's methodology of praxeology against critics who claimed its rejection of empirical testing was too extreme. Rothbard argues that economics is fundamentally different from the natural sciences; rather than relying on testing hypotheses against external facts, economic theory is built on absolutely true axioms derived from the indisputable reality of human action.” (Google AI) “Psychic profit is the gain an actor obtains by achieving his most valued end instead of the most valued end he had to give up (this gain is intensive, not extensive, because value is ordinal and not cardinal). … This is a description of how people really act, not a fiction.” (Martin Gamazo) “In the definition which we have attempted to frame of the science of Political Economy, we have characterized it as essentially an abstract science, and its method as the method à priori.” (J. S. Mill) Science is binary true/false and nothing in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The state of economics is this: there is political economics and theoretical 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. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). 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 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. Von Mises's Action Axiom refers to human behavior; therefore, it is unsuitable as a starting point. With his Extreme Apriorism, Murray Rothbard echoes Aristotle: “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.” (Aristotle, Analytica) What Murray Rothbard, as an incompetent scientist, overlooked is that behavioral premises are neither 'certain, true, nor primary'. Methodologically, the Action Axiom is the wrong starting point. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l) No Austrian will survive the Paradigm Shift intellectually. Austrianism is not Extreme Apriorism but Extreme Stupidity.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 5, 2026

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

“James K. Galbraith shows why exponents of the discipline’s 'orthodoxy' are struggling to counter 'heterodox” insights.' (Project Syndicate) Both Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy are failed/fake science. 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 orthodox microeconomic approach. Both are axiomatically false. 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. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. 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) Together, the orthodox and heterodox economists are just turning over the scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle. The After-Keynesian critique of mainstream economics is spot on, but their alternative is also scientifically worthless. However, for a theatrical performance on the academic stage, it's good enough. After all, the show must go on. For details, see Cross-references: Keynesianism https://t.co/ZoIDUg46Lg Cross-references: Heterodoxy: https://t.co/3Ec3ZDuv5p

— 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 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

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

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

“Keynes: on stage and on our minds.” (Markus Brunnermeier) Keynesianism has always been proto-scientific garbage. It 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 legacy microeconomic approach. Both are axiomatically false. 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. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. 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) The After-Keynesian critique of mainstream economics is spot on, but their alternative is also scientifically worthless. However, for a theatrical performance on the academic stage, it's good enough. After all, the show must go on. For details, see Cross-references: Keynesianism https://t.co/ZoIDUg46Lg

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 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

Occasional X: I=S ― the biggest idiocy in macroeconomics (X)

“Everything is a budget constraint or supply and demand, as in Principles of Micro.” (Brian Albrecht) The most important balance of economics —profit— is missing in Brian Albrecht's charts. This tells one that economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Macroeconomic profit or loss Qm, i.e., the business sector's balance, is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). This boils down to Qm:=(I−Sm) for the elementary case of a consumption-investment economy. Normally, I, the investment expenditures of the business sector, are greater than the saving Sm of the household sector. This is how profit comes into the world. In the case of I=Sm, macroeconomic profit is zero, and if I<Sm the economy breaks down. Microbrains like Brian Albrecht never understood the basics. The Principles of Micro are proto-scientific garbage. Let this sink in: economists still get the subject's foundational concept of profit wrong. They have been scientifically incompetent since Adam Smith. Economics is scientifically worthless to this day. For details, see Cross-references: Profit https://t.co/taznr3RMBt

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 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 foul spirit of political economics (CCCLVI)

“Homero Cuevas used to say in Principles of Economics class that Sraffa began writing this book in 1927 and finally published it in 1960. 33 years. Original length in English: 99 pages. He figured out the average: 3 pages per year.” (Edwin López Rivera)

For the record:

Piero…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 9, 2026

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

“Carl Menger did what no economist before him had managed: he located value inside the human mind rather than inside the object being traded. Vienna, 1871. His Principles of Economics landed quietly, then detonated slowly across the discipline. … Before Menger, economists…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 5, 2026

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

 

“Murray Rothbard sat down and wrote Man, Economy, and State in 1962, and produced what remains the most rigorous reconstruction of economic theory from first principles ever attempted by a single human mind. You should treat this book the way physicists treat Newton's Principia:… pic.twitter.com/ZKOJWJewyN

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) August 10, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Value (II)

“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… pic.twitter.com/mRXVWf9BjI

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) August 3, 2026

Related 'The value of water and diamonds: back to square one' and 'Value — the Bermuda Triangle for economic theories'

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

“Socialists not only understand economics just as well as capitalists ... but can solve their years of mismanagement through an embrace of our principles.” (Zohran Mamdani)

There aren't many topics that are more ridiculous than Capitalism vs Socialism.

The major approaches… pic.twitter.com/XnUKlBwpQY

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) July 12, 2026

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

“Rothbard didn't just publish another economics textbook in 1962. He torched the entire discipline and rebuilt it from first principles, using only logic and human action as his foundation. … he constructed economic theory the way Euclid built geometry: starting with…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) June 8, 2026

“Profits arise from entrepreneurs satisfying consumers in voluntary markets.” (MacroMadeSimple)

If the entrepreneurs as a whole satisfy consumers in voluntary markets in the elementary production-consumption economy, but the household sector does not spend the whole period's… pic.twitter.com/S9tCtEPojR

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) June 10, 2026

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

“Did you not just recreate MMT’s 'public dept is private net savings' from first principles?” (Doxasryx)

No.

For MMT's full-spectrum refutation, see
Cross-references: MMThttps://t.co/eXlgPKrinA

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 7, 2026

Related 'Grok: the final implosion of MMT'

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCXCXX)

 

“By definition, science is never settled.” (Possum Reviews)

Science is never settled, but many scientific questions have been settled according to the principles of material/formal consistency. Moreover, economics is not yet a science.

The major approaches (Walrasianism,… pic.twitter.com/52vuPnZGd9

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 15, 2026