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: 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: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCII)

“Economists will look you dead in the face and call this science.” (Jack Meyer) Yes, this is the sorry state of economics. It's scientifically worthless — only good for inconclusive political blather. But they award themselves the EconNobel for 'economic sciences' (AXEC136j ⇓). 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). Methodologically, economists are 2400 years behind the curve. The fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. When they've used all their arguments, the scientifically clueless hit the social media emergency brake and retreat to an etiquette class: “Personal insults are best left in the schoolyard. Nor do they contribute to the persuasiveness of your derivative arguments. You are Blocked.” (Roger Farmer, #EconBlocker) 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). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ 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 scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) 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 an approach 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. The current group of academic non-scientists will not survive this.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 2026

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

“There is no progress in knowledge, no right and wrong, it's all just political discussions, everything can somehow be right.” (Jan Schnellenbach, quoted by Lars Feld) Yes, this is the wishy-washy state of economics. It's scientifically worthless — only good for inconclusive political blahblah. But they award themselves the EconNobel for 'economic sciences'. “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 fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. 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). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ 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 scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) 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 an approach 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). Economics does not need another smoke-blower or clueless academic blatherer.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) 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

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

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCI)

“Do you find yourself wondering… ‘What is economics?’, ‘How did economics become language of power and its practitioners, the gatekeepers?’, ‘How do you do economics?’, ‘Can economics help serve people and planet?’” (Rethinking Economics) “Once we learn that different economic theories say different things partly because they are based on different ethical and political values, we will have the confidence to discuss economics for what it really is - a political argument – and not a 'science' in which there is clear right and wrong.” (Ha Joon Chang) Ha Joon Chang has no clue about what science is all about. He is the next political smoke-blower. “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 fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. 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). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ 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 scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) 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 an approach 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). Economics does not need another smoke-blower like Ha Joon Chang.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026

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

“The fatal challenge to heterodox economics is that there isn't actually orthodox economics.” (Jason Furman) Nice try at keeping all in the swamp of inconclusiveness where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes). 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. This holds for Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy; however it is delineated. 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. 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 economics these days is a sure sign of either stupidity or corruption or both. Currently, nonentity economics is rewarded with the EconNobel, and this is why we have a closed circle of idiocy. Jason Furman is living proof of an incompetent scientist.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 20, 2026

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

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

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 15, 2026

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

“That's where the jokes come from about how if you gather 5 economists, there are 6 opinions, and 2 of them are Keynes's. …The most important lesson from Keynes was to change one's mind when the times change. Being a free trader or protectionist, fiscally contractionary or expansionary, depends on the circumstances. Today we are overrun by dogmatists with universal and timeless truths.” (Matías Vernengo) 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 proto-scientific garbage. As a result, economics has never been more than silly blather for a low-IQ audience. After-Keynesians never realized the scientific blunder; their incompetence is represented by Matías Vernengo. However, criticism does not lead to progress but to the swamp where 'nothing is clear, and everything is possible.' (Keynes). Only the Paradigm Shift leads from the swamp of opinions (doxa) to scientific knowledge (episteme). The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Employment Law ⇓ tells one how ― in the elementary case ― the employment L depends ― under the condition of product market clearing ― on ρE and ρF. The factor cost ratio ρF is composed of the wage rate W, the inverse productivity R, and the price P. The ratio ρE depends on (public/private) deficit-spending/money-creation. The Law consists of measurable variables and is testable if generalized. The macroeconomic price mechanism is embodied in ρF. An increasing price P means falling employment L, and an increasing wage rate means increasing employment. A falling price increases employment. A rising price decreases employment. The closer ρF is to 1, the higher is employment. The Austrians claimed that the price mechanism (which is embodied in ρF) works automatically towards full employment, and ρE>1, i.e., deficit-spending/money-creation is ultimately toxic. Keynes claimed that the price mechanism fails because of stickiness and that therefore ρE>1 must do the heavy lifting. Say's Law formally means ρE=1; Effective Demand means ρE>1. The latter is necessary if the price system ρF does not automatically produce full employment. The 'universal and timeless truth' is that both Austrianism and Keynesianism are axiomatically false. It is high time that both go down the scientific drain. For more on the correct employment theory, see Cross-references: Employment https://t.co/RfA1hj72qQ

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 11, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCV)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

"If economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” (George Bernard Shaw)

It is widely known that economists are illiterate and innumerate. That's why economics is a failed/fake science. Economists live in the swamp between true… pic.twitter.com/dbz4PhfoHj

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 6, 2025

Occasional Tweets: Economists ― creatures of the swamp between true and false

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Science is about true/false. Economists, though, are NOT #Scientists. For 200+ yrs they occupy the swamp zone where “nothing is clear and everything is possible.” (Keynes). As political agenda pushers, their true vocation is #DisInfoTainment. pic.twitter.com/DzPE5Sy8MS

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) February 7, 2023

Related 'What makes economics a failed science?' → “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)

and '#DrainTheScientificSwamp'. 

Occasional Tweets: Why economists never got out of the swamp of inconclusiveness where 'nothing is clear and everything is possible'

 

#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Macro#Keynes got macroeconomic #Profit wrong bc he was too stupid for elementary #Algebra. As a consequence, the whole analytical superstructure of #Economics is scientifically worthless. #EconPolicyGuidance NEVER has had sound scientific foundations. pic.twitter.com/QpwvTXfWid

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 25, 2023

For more about inconclusiveness see AXECquery.

For more about 'nothing is clear and everything is possible' see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: Conversation is not the way forward in economics ― refutation, axiomatization, and proof lead out of the swamp

 

Good #MondayMorning, @EconTalker fans!

Join Russ and @moniguzman to discuss the role of great questions in sparking meaningful conversations, and how we can not only get along with, but even learn from, those with whom we ardently disagree.https://t.co/OOroaIwnoS

— Econlib (@Econlib) December 12, 2022

Related 'Getting out of the economics swamp' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?'

Occasional Tweets: Zombie shouts from the scientific swamp ― economics is a social science

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience.#DisInfoTainment#EconTwitter

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. #Economists are NOT #Scientists but #AgendaPushers / #UsefulIdiots / #Clowns in the political #CircusMaximus.#EndTheSVR pic.twitter.com/VRYUEP9UlC

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 9, 2022

For more about PsySoc see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: Economists are creatures out of the swamp of inconclusiveness

 

That economic debates come to no conclusion but are recycled forever is NOT a bug but a feature. #Economists are NOT #Scientists but political #AgendaPushers and their preferred habitat is “where nothing is clear and everything is possible”. (Keynes) ⇒https://t.co/HCo552X9nb pic.twitter.com/vw5WVTLe40

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) May 19, 2022

Occasional Tweets: For 200+ years, economics is basically intellectual garbage recycling

 

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. #Walrasianism, #Keynesianism, #Marxianism, #Austrianism, #MMT are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. Why are #Economists permanently recycling this garbage?

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 13, 2021

For more about the mental swamp of economics see AXECquery. 

What is economics? (II)

Comment on James Galbraith on ‘What is economics?’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

James Galbraith claims that

• economics is a policy discipline,
• economics co-evolves with circumstances, and is historically contingent,
• economic theories are a byproduct of the social order that spawns them,
• the economy is a complex system, appropriate generalizations, simplifications, heuristics, and principles are to be derived from a study of the actual world,
• mathematical systems are inadequate when they start from the dead dogmas of the neoclassical mainstream: ex nihilo nihil fit,
• the history of economic thought/hallucination crashed against the wall of reality with the Great Financial Crisis 2007-09 and the Pandemic of 2020.

Without going into details the sum is: economics as a policy discipline is scientifically worthless from the founding fathers onward to this day. The problem is this: “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 sound scientific foundations, economic policy guidance has never been more than personal opinion.#1

However, these things, “… even the dimmest observer of real-existing capitalism already knew.” The point is, again and again: “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)

Even the dimmest economist knows by now that it takes a Paradigm Shift to get out of the swamp of cargo cult science. However, this is beyond the means of the representative economist. To this day, neither orthodox nor heterodox economists got the foundational concept of economics ― profit ― right.

Here is the unassailable proof: in his General Theory, Keynes asserted: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit. “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end, he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)#2, #3

So, Keynes never got macroeconomic profit right and neither did pro- or anti-Keynesians to this day. Folks who cannot do the elementary algebra of macrofoundations cannot do the Paradigm Shift. Their contribution to human welfare/progress consists of burying themselves in a dark corner of the Flat-Earth-Cemetery.

James Galbraith maintains: “The purpose of economic reasoning is to inform and buttress political and social choices.” That sounds plausible but is false. It is the credo of the agenda pusher.#4 The credo of the scientist is: “The purpose of economic reasoning is to figure out how the economy works.”

The criterion for the scientist is truth, i.e. material/formal consistency, and NOT usefulness. The scientist produces new knowledge and nobody can know in advance whether and for whom it is “useful”.

Economists never understood this, but genuine scientists did: “At one point in that 100 years, Lord Ernest Rutherford was visited by a minister of the Queen. He proudly and busily demonstrated what he had learned about radio. The minister said that’s all very good, but what is it good for. Lord Rutherford replied that he did not know, but he guaranteed that at some point the government would tax it.”#5

To this day, economists are not scientists but useful idiots for the Oligarchy. This is what “economics is a policy discipline” means. All these fake scientists have to be expelled from the sciences.#6

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

* RWER blog

#1 Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems

#2 Finalizing the Keynesian Revolution

#3 Profit: The most powerful formula of economics

#4 Economics ― the science that never was

#5 The scientist and the minister

#6 A rough business plan for science

Related 'What is economics? (I)'

For more about science, see AXECquery.

For more about Paradigm Shift, see AXECquery.

***

AXE136f

Occasional Tweets: It is no accident that economics has come down to disinfotainment

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth#DisInfoTainment

If you think this handball chit-chat is a harmless distraction, you are mistaken. Economists are always on duty as agenda pushers for the #Oligarchy. pic.twitter.com/JmZZm0yG2L

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 26, 2021

For more about communication see AXECquery.

For more about the swamp between true and false see AXECquery.

Economics • Communication • Disinfotainment

Comment on Matt Franko on ‘AOC weighs in on “inflation!”’

Blog-Reference

Economists from Adam Smith/Karl Marx onward claimed to do science. They never did. For 200+ years, economics has been failed/fake science.#1, #2

“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) Economists do NOT have the true theory: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially / formally inconsistent, and all got macroeconomic profit wrong.

So, economists have NO scientific knowledge but only their worthless personal opinions. As a matter of principle, everybody has the right to his own opinion no matter how stupid, crazy, wrong, or absurd, the only exception is scientists. The ancient Greeks started science by distinguishing between doxa (= opinion) and episteme (= knowledge). Scientific knowledge is well-defined by material and formal consistency. Knowledge is established by proof — belief or opinion counts for NOTHING. Economics is provably false.#3

As a matter of principle, scientists do NOT discuss the statements of politicians on scientific matters because politicians have by definition only opinions but no knowledge. Politics and science are mutually exclusive. Only economists who are themselves political agenda pushers discuss the silly pronouncements of politicians on economic matters.

Inflation is a case in point. Of course, what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says about inflation is garbage. Nobody expects anything else from a politician. However, one expects more from an economist because economists are ― according to their self-presentation since Adam Smith/Karl Marx ― scientists.

The fact of the matter is, though, that what MMTers say about inflation is worth as much as what the member of the United States Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, says: nothing.#4

Economists in general, and MMTers in particular, are NOT scientists but an integral part of a political disinformation exercise.#5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Delusions of useful idiots

#2 Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?

#3 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?

#4 Clueless economists / Inflation

#5 AXEC176b

Related 'How to get out of the swamp of ignorance' and 'Economic recommendations out of the swamp between true and false' and 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'NAIRU and economists’ lethal swampiness' and 'Getting out of the economics swamp' and 'Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp' and 'Dialectic: the swampies’ methodology of choice' and '#DrainTheScientificSwamp' and 'Economists and philosophers ― creatures from the scientific swamp.

For more about disinfotainment, see AXECquery.

***

Twitter Oct 14, 2022

Twitter/X Jan 13, 2024 In the meantime, misinformation/disinformation/disinfotainment has become the #1 global risk

Twitter/X, Feb 16, 2025