Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXXV)

“That money is a store of value is absolutely wrong. Money is a receipt issued at purchase and extinguished when buyer turn seller.” (Scott Cahill) Scott Cahill has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics about the two with the summary in table AXEC237e ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. Methodologically, the formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. Line 9 delivers the generalization with ρE≠1. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. Price increases can come only from wage rate increases or from productivity decreases. The quantity of money is not a determinant. The methodologically right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. How money developed historically is not an issue. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. It's a medium. The quantity of the medium is determined by the autonomous transactions between the business and the household sector. (i) If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this correlation between P and M seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. (ii) If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. Now, there is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. The Quantity Theory fails. Reality is a mix of (i) and (ii). That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. In period 0, the transactions between the business sector and the household sector are symmetrical. At the beginning, transaction money is zero. Monthly, the households receive wage income and spend it successively on consumption. This increases and reduces their deposits at the Central Bank. The business sector mirrors the transaction. Thus, deposits and overdrafts are always equal. At the end of the initial period, transaction money is again zero. The average stock of transaction money is calculated in lines 16, 17. If the household sector saves in period 1, its deposits increase. This gives rise to losses Qm in line 11. Accordingly, the business sector's overdrafts increase. The average quantity of money M in lines 16, 17 increases because of the household sector's saving. Here, money as a store of value emerges. In period 2, one has both: money as a transaction medium and money as a store of value. In period 3, the households dissave, and the business sector makes a profit, according to line 11. Over all periods, the sum of profit/loss is zero. Things are rather simple as long as ρE=1. As soon as balances appear, i.e., ρE≠1, complexity increases and money as a store of value logically emerges from transaction money. The store-of-value money can also be used to buy financial assets. It then vanishes again. But that's a different story.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 11, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXXIV)

“It is an indisputable fact that quantity theory is nothing but a tautology. There is another point too. Cochrane has also pointed this out. Correlation does not imply causation. The direction of the relationship between inflation and the money supply is not from the money supply to inflation, as foolish monetarists claim, but more strongly from inflation to the money supply.” (Baki Demirel) No, money is not among the determinants of the price. That's false macroeconomics. The microbrained representative economist has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics about transaction money with the summary in table AXEC237d ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. Methodologically, the formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. Price increases can come only from wage rate increases or from productivity decreases. The quantity of money is not a determinant. The methodologically right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. It's a medium. The quantity of the medium is determined by the autonomous transactions between the business and the household sector. (i) If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this correlation between P and M seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. (ii) If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. Now, there is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. The Quantity Theory fails. Reality is a mix of (i) and (ii). That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. This gives rise to profit Qm in line 11 and the average quantity of money M in lines 16, 18, because of ρE>1. Here, money as a store of value emerges. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates fiat money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the most economical solution. The problems arise with sectoral balances, i.e., ρE≠1, and with licit/illicit money creation. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 11, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXXIII)

“Essential reminder. Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon.” (Daniel Lacalle) No, money is not among the determinants of the price. That's false macroeconomics. The microbrained representative economist has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics about transaction money with the summary in table AXEC237d ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. Methodologically, the formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. Price increases can come only from wage rate increases or from productivity decreases. The quantity of money is not a determinant. The methodologically right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. It's a medium. (i) If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this correlation between P and M seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. (ii) If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. Now, there is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. The Quantity Theory fails. Reality is a mix of (i) and (ii). That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. This gives rise to profit Qm in line 11 and the average quantity of money M in lines 16, 18, because of ρE>1. Here, money as a store of value emerges. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates fiat money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the most economical solution. The problems arise with sectoral balances, i.e., ρE≠1, and with licit/illicit money creation. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 11, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXXII)

“M= PY/V or PY = MV? You'd think after decades of extremely sophisticated causal econometrics, the most basic correlation isn't causation of all would not keep resurfacing. Money tracks nominal income in every theory, including FTPL, because central banks supply money passively, and demand is proportional to nominal income.” (John Cochrane) The microbrained representative economist has been weak on macroeconomics in general and the Theory of Money in particular. He has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics with the summary in table AXEC237d ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. Methodologically, the formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. The methodological right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this correlation seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. Now, there is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. The Quantity Theory fails. That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the most economical solution. The problems arise (i) with sectoral balances, and (ii) with illicit money creation. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 10, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXXI)

“A famous quote by Milton Friedman says that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” A natural question, then, is whether money supply growth is a reliable predictor of inflation. A new analysis covers this topic.” (Michael McCracken & Lillian Fu, St. Louis Fed) Milton Friedman has been weak on macroeconomics in general and the Theory of Money in particular. He has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics with the help of table AXEC237d ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. Methodologically, the formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. The methodological right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. There is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. The Quantity Theory fails. That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the ideal solution. The problems arise with sectoral balances. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFstKv

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 9, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXX)

“By the late 1960s, France noticed the gap between printed dollars and actual gold and started converting. Nixon stopped this by closing the gold window on August 15, 1971. Pure fiat with no anchor whatsoever.” (Handre) The storyteller Handre is weak on macroeconomics in general and the Theory of Money in particular. He has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. Let's clarify some basics with the help of table AXEC237c ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false. First, a Paradigm Shift is required. Therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 5. The price is the dependent variable here. That's a starting condition. The formula in line 5 replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. The methodological right approach to start with in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is pure fiat money at the Central Bank. Symmetric fiat money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16. It is periodically created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, this yields a proportionality between price P and the average quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common cause is the doubling of the wage rate W. However, empirically this seems to be a strong indication that the Quantity Theory holds. If the real variable employment L is doubled, output O in line 2 and wage income Yw in line 1 double. The market-clearing/budget-balancing price P remains unchanged in line 5. The average quantity of transaction money M doubles in line 16. There is no relationship between the price and the average quantity of transaction money. It is now assumed that transaction money is backed by gold and the stock of gold is limited. As a consequence, the doubling of employment L cannot happen if M cannot increase proportionally, because the ratio of M to gold is fixed. The gold anchor becomes a brake that hinders the economy's real growth and the proper functioning of the fiat system. The obvious solution is to cut the anchor. This happened in 1971. It has no inflationary consequences. The real growth goes on smoothly. That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the ideal solution. The problems arise with sectoral balances. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 9, 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: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXIX)

“If you double everyones money (cash/debt), prices will increase roughly 2x.” (Tony Watson) That's the sloppy Quantity Theory. It is plausible, but failed/fake science. Tony Watson has never had any idea of the difference between transaction money and money as a store of value. He has no idea of economics in general, and the Theory of Money, in particular. The first thing in Monetary Theory is that transaction money is zero at the beginning and the end of a given period; see line 16 in AXEC237c ⇓. It is periodically created out of nothing and goes back to nothing. There's no problem here; money is endogenous. If the wage rate W doubles in line 5, the price doubles, and the quantity of transaction money doubles in line 16. It is still zero at the period's beginning and end. If tested, it yields a proportionality between price P and the quantity of transaction money M. However, this is NOT causality. The common causality is the doubling of the wage rate. 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, 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 result, economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. The Quantity Theory is a good example of this. That money is created out of nothing and backed by nothing is NOT the critical point of a fiat money system. The point is whether money is injected (i) on the left side of the business sector's national account in the form of wages, or (ii) on the right side in the form of additional nominal demand, i.e., in the form of deficit spending. The case of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., increasing consumptive public debt, is equivalent to bringing counterfeit money into circulation, which in real terms amounts to stealing stuff from WeThePeople. National debt is roughly equal to the financial wealth of WeTheOligarchy. Ultimately, most of WeTheOligarchy's financial wealth is printed by the Central Bank. This is not a 'problem', but the defining characteristic of Capitalism. The problem with the Central Bank is NOT that it creates money out of nothing, but that it creates profit out of nothing. If the Central Bank is only allowed to create transaction money to meet the needs of businesses and households, then fiat money is the ideal solution. The problems arise with sectoral balances. For the axiomatically correct Monetary Theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— 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: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCIII)

“Robbins was deeply alarmed by the rising tide of government interventionism, and seeking an intellectual heavyweight to challenge Keynes’s dominance, he invited the young Austrian economist to deliver a series of lectures on business cycle theory. Hayek’s presentations were a sensation, leading to his immediate appointment as the Tooke Professor of Economic Science and Statistics at the LSE.” (Creative Deduction) The discussion between Keynes and Hayek is just another episode in the endless inconclusive blather between incompetent scientists. Keynes failed to understand the concept of profit because he was too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Therefore, he didn't understand how the economic system works. Keynesian policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. 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. Keynes has been provably false from the start. However, this never meant that Austrianism was any better. Everybody understands that macroeconomic profit must be greater than zero. Otherwise, firms go bankrupt, and the breakdown starts. Therefore, profit has existential primacy in the free-market economy. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In the free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for 200+ years. So, Qm:=(G−T)>0 has been a crucial ingredient of Capitalism's life elixir. The free-market economy is temporarily saved from implosion by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury / Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the premise of Austrian economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. And this means that Austrianism has always been proto-scientific garbage, just like Keynesianism. It's just the usual discussion between two blind men about color. To this day, neither Keynesians nor Austrians understand how profit and the price system work. In economics, the Paradigm Shift is long overdue. Neither Keynesians nor Austrians will survive it intellectually.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 5, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Interest (II)

“So you literally have no economic explanation of how interest emerges :-D. Wtf is homo economicus? :-D” (Inclamiente) 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 methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC240a ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. 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. The market-clearing price P is now co-determined in line 9 by the expenditure ratio ρE, i.e., ρE1<1 means saving of the household sector as a whole. Dissaving, i.e., ρE1>1, means that the household sector takes a credit from the Central Bank. The Central Bank stands here for the banking system. Dissaving also means that the business sector makes a profit in line 11 and accordingly has demand deposits at the Central Bank. From the difference between the interest on credit and the interest on deposits, the banking system pays its wages. The difference in the interest rates must be sufficient for the banking system to make at least zero profit. Not “the” interest rate, but the difference between the two interest rates is the key variable of the Theory of Money. If the household sector saves, the business sector makes a loss in line 11. Accordingly, the household sector gets interest on demand deposits and the business sector pays interest on overdrafts. This has been inter-sectoral macroeconomic saving, but there is also intra-sectoral individualistic saving/lending. In lines 15 and 16, there are two households. Household 2 dissaves, i.e., it increases its consumption expenditures Ec1 in the current period and wants to reduce its consumption expenditures in the next period and intends to pay the loan back in the next period. Obviously, it needs a household with complementary preferences. Household 1 saves in the current period (line 15) and intends to dissave in the next period, i.e., to increase its consumption expenditures with the loan payback. In both periods, total sectoral saving/dissaving is zero. In effect, it is a complementary intertemporal consumption transfer. Household 2 consumes more than its period income in the first period and less in the second period; household 1 consumes less than its period income in the first period and more in the second period. Saving and dissaving cancel out in both periods. In the accustomed language, household 2 has a high time preference and household 1 has a low time preference. It is usually assumed that household 2 pays interest to household 1. This is not necessarily the case. If only physical time transfer is possible, household 2 pays interest in the form of storage costs to get consumption goods from one period to the next. Analogously, it is logically possible that the saver pays interest to the lender depending on the relative urgency of the complementary time preferences. For this reason, interest cannot be justified in principle with individualistic high time preference. This is only half of the story. In the limiting case, with perfectly complementary time preferences (and no risks), the individualistic interest rate is zero. In real terms, household 1 gives stuff to household 2 in period 1 and gets it back in period 2 when he needs it. The temporal exchange is beneficial for both parties. Ultimately, interest is not justified individually, but because the banking system has to pay its wages and loan defaults from the difference between interest on loans and interest on deposits.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 4, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Employment (XD)

“According to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) it is possible to use expansive monetary policy - money creation by the central bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve) - to finance large fiscal deficits that will ensure full employment and good jobs for everyone, …” (Sebastian Edwards, Hoover Institution) Employment theory has been wrong since the Founding Fathers. MMT is no exception. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Employment Law (⇓ AXEC62d) tells one how ― in the elementary case ― the employment L depends ― under the analytical 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 inverse 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 employment is. This is contrary to the microeconomic microbrain logic. So, what happens politically? Deficit-spending/ money-creation, i.e., ρE>1, increases employment L, but only if ρF remains constant. If the price P increases simultaneously, ρF decreases, and employment goes down. As a limiting case, both effects cancel each other out. Employment stays the same; only macroeconomic profit increases. The State's deficit spending appears to be ineffective. The government sector is not alone; the business sector as a whole can make employment what it wants if it can somehow be made to act coordinated. The weakening of the government sector and the strengthening of the business sector is the aim of Neoliberalism. The Employment Law says that Neoliberalism makes ρE=1 and ρF smaller, and as a result, employment L will shrink. “The four experiments studied in this paper ended up badly, with runaway inflation, huge currency devaluations, and precipitous real wage declines.” (Hoover Institution) Inflation is a coordinated policy of the business sector; it does not happen spontaneously. All negative effects on employment and the real wage are the result of business sector policy. For more on the axiomatically correct employment theory, see Cross-references: Employment https://t.co/RfA1hj72qQ

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 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: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXVIII)

“Why do we use money? This should be the fundamental question of a monetary economics course. Although it seems like a somewhat obvious question, the use of money is anything but trivial when we look at it analytically through the prism of economic theory; particularly the ideal models described by Walrasian general equilibrium.” (Königs) Walrasian general equilibrium is known to be proto-scientific garbage. It's the worst possible starting point for Monetary Theory. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic approach is summarized in the table below AXEC237c ⇓ . Microfoundations are methodologically false; the economic system is based on three macroeconomic axioms (lines 1-3). As a result, the market-clearing price P is analytically determined by the relationship between the quantity produced/supplied/bought O=X and the nominal demand Ec. Budget-balancing means that nominal demand is equal to income, here Ec=Yw. The labor time L washes out and plays no role in the price determination. In the monetary economy, the resulting market-clearing and budget-balancing price for a one-good economy is P=:W/R, i.e., the price is equal to unit labor costs (line 5). Profit is zero (line 11). The workers get the entire product O. In the general case of non-budget-balancing, the market-clearing price is shown in line 9. In general, nominal demand depends on income and the expenditure ratio. The expression ρE*Yw implies an income-dependent demand curve. The household sector provides the labor input L and gets the wage income Yw. There is no other income in the elementary case. At this logical point, money enters the picture in line 16. It is of no interest here how money evolved historically. Here, money is not needed for facilitating the exchange of goods, but for paying the wage bill. The households, in turn, spend their wage income on buying the consumption goods output O. Thus, money returns to the business sector. Transaction money is here provided (at zero cost, i.e., no fee, no interest) by the Central Bank in the form of fiat money. By sequencing the initially given period length of one year into months, the idealized transaction pattern is displayed in line 16 in the table below. It is assumed that the monthly income Y/12 is paid out at mid-month. In the first half of the month, the daily spending of Y/360 increases the current overdrafts of the households. At mid-month, the households change to the positive side and have current deposits of Y/24 at their disposal. This amount reduces continuously towards the end of the month. This pattern is exactly repeated over the rest of the year. So, transaction money comes from the Central Bank; it is zero at the beginning and at the end of a given period. The average quantity of transaction money depends on the transaction pattern κ, total employment L, and the wage rate W. Money is created out of nothing and returns to nothing. There is no such thing as a fixed quantity of money. Money is present and absent depending on the time frame of observation. So, the Central Bank creates the needed fiat money out of nothing according to the changing demands due to the transactions between the household and the business sector. Transaction money is determined endogenously — “that is, as a result of the interactions of other economic variables…” (Wikipedia). There is no such thing as a 'supply of money'. The wage rate W and employment L are determined in the interaction of the household and the business sector. The Central Bank simply provides the wage bill, whatever it is. The graphic reduces formally to the money axiom in line 16. In the symmetric case Ec=Yw, the average quantity of money depends on the transaction pattern κ, the wage rate W, and employment L. If employment increases, the average stock of transaction money increases. Because W and P are formally related in line 9, there also appears a statistical correlation between price and average stock of transaction money. Both depend on the expenditure ratio ρE (lines 9 and 18). The point to start with is that both the market-clearing price and the average quantity of money depend on the expenditure ratio. This indirect relationship makes it appear that there is a correlation between the quantity of money and price. However, there is no causality from M to P. Money becomes a store of value if the expenditure ratio is ρE>1. In the most elementary case, the household sector dissaves, i.e., Ec>Yw, and the business sector makes a profit Qm as shown in line 11. At the end of the period, the business sector has a stock of money at the Central Bank equal to profit Qm. And this is the point. The concept of macroeconomic profit does not appear in legacy economics. The representative economist obviously does not know that the creation of money is intimately connected with the creation of profit. In other words, they do not understand how the economic system works. For details about the axiomatically correct approach, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 1, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Price Mechanism (XX)

“Liberty is competition and incessant conflict, the mother of all progress, in which only the most capable can triumph, and the weakest, as in nature, are condemned to annihilation.” (Gustave Le Bon) Not true. Instead, profit may provide a strong incentive to corruption/organized crime. In the free-market economy, not the most 'capable' but the most corrupt survives. The proof is given in table AXEC221b ⇓. The elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 4, 7. The business sector is split into two identical firms in lines 1-2, 4-5, 7-8. Under the initial conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 16. The price is the dependent variable here. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R, and equal for both firms. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for both firms and the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the wage rate W in firm 1 is lowered arbitrarily; otherwise, both firms are identical in every respect. As a result, the market price P decreases in line 12. The profit of firm 1 increases in line 19; firm 2 makes a loss in line 20. Total profit remains zero. The household sector as a whole still gets the whole product O, but the workers of firm 1 can buy less with their lower wage income; the workers of firm 2 can buy more with their unchanged wage rate W and a lower price P. The firm that somehow manages to pay less for the same labor input increases profit Qm. Firm 2 makes a loss and will go bankrupt if it does not also make a wage cut. As a result, firm 1 wins the race to the bottom. The workers of firm 1 cannot move to firm 2 because it no longer hires or doesn't exist any longer. This process of cross-over exploitation is inherent to capitalism and inevitably leads to higher concentration. If a firm can undercut minimum wage regulations, it can be said that the criminal firm wins and the honest firm loses. What remains in the long run is a degenerated/corrupted free-market economy. On closer inspection, economics is revealed as the story of intra-sectoral cross-over exploitation among firms and among households. Ultimately, the market is not primarily an allocation mechanism but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that increases the survival chances of the corrupt and decreases them for the honest.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 31, 2026

For more about the quasi-Darwinian process, see AXECquery. 

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Price Mechanism (XIX)

“The market is a democracy. Capitalism is the consummation of the self-determination of consumers.” (Ludwig von Mises) That's one of the biggest underhanded Austrian deceptions ever. There are two markets: the goods market and the labor market. The labor market is no democracy. Here, the workers/employees have not much to say. But the real wage is determined in the interaction of the goods and labor market. Austrians ignore the latter when praising Capitalism. According to the axiomatically correct macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand, the real wage W/P in the elementary production-consumption economy (⇓ AXEC 28a) rises with the productivity R and declines with deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., ρE>1. The formula gets a bit more complex for the open investment economy, but basically, it is ρE that separates real wage and productivity. Put simply, the macroeconomic wedge between real wages and productivity is due to private/public deficit-spending/money-creation. It holds that the profit of the business sector is equal to the deficit spending of the household and the government sector. In the most elementary case, i.e., ρE=1 and ρD=0, the real wage is equal to productivity R. The workers get the whole product; profit is zero. Note that (i) productivity is different from (ii) the 'marginal product of labor'. Note that (i) is objective/systemic, and (ii) is subjective/behavioral; it depends on the assumption of constrained optimization. Note that (i) is methodologically right and (ii) is wrong. Ultimately, the market is not a democratic allocation system but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that increases the survival chances of the rich and decreases them for the poor. ρE>1 and ρD>0 favors the rich. That's how the Invisible Hand works. Democracy gets lost in the process. For more details, see Clueless economists / Price Mechanism (XI) https://t.co/iVKYSeXSU3

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 29, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Employment (XXXIX)

“No. Keynes noted that downward wage rigidity was not the problem of unemployment. Income effect:lower wage lowers consumption and so profit. MPL is not the marginal revenue, marginal sale is and that falls with lower w. In a wage-led economy Un may rise with lower wages.” (Eric Tymoigne) Employment theory has been wrong since the Founding Fathers. Keynes was no exception. For details, see Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster https://t.co/GQLh697Omw The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Employment Law (⇓ AXEC62d) 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 wage rate W, the inverse productivity R, and price P. The ratio ρE depends on (public/private) deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., deficit-spending ρE>1 is Keynes's pseudo-revolutionary idea; ρE=1 means budget-balancing. 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. This is contrary to the microeconomic microbrain logic. For more on the axiomatically correct employment theory, see Cross-references: Employment https://t.co/RfA1hj72qQ

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 28, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Profit (CLXVIII)

“Murray Rothbard took Mises's price theory and drove it to a destination Mises never reached.” (Handre) von Mises never understood profit. Murray Rothbard never understood profit. Handre never understood profit. Consequently, they never understood how the economic system works. The same holds for the rest of Austrians. In Chapter 8.1 of Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard writes: “In the evenly rotating economy, there are only two ultimate categories of producers’ prices and incomes: interest (uniform throughout the economy), and 'wages'—the prices of the services of various labor factors. In a changing economy, however, wage rates and the interest rate are not the only elements that can change. Another category of both positive and negative income appears: entrepreneurial profit and loss.” (Rothbard, p. 509, Kindle Version) The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Profit Law implies that profit appears if Qm:=(I−Sm)>0, if there is a public deficit Qm:=(G−T)>0, and if there is profit distribution Yd and an expenditure ratio of ρE=1. Needless to emphasize, that neither Murray Rothbard nor Handre have ever heard of the Profit Law. The Law refutes Austrianism. Part of the formula has already been explained; see Clueless economists / Profit (CLXVI) https://t.co/9m7wYiHvr4 In the following, it is explained how the free-market economy creates free lunches for WeTheOligarchy with profit distribution Yd. The derivation is summarized in the table below ( ⇓ AXEC245). The elementary production-consumption economy is given with the axiomatically correct macroeconomic axioms in lines 1-3. They are systemic, not behavioral. The price follows in lines 5 and 8. In the elementary production-consumption economy, i.e., in the evenly rotating simple economy, the market-clearing and budget-balancing price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the entire product O. The business sector's profit Qm is zero. Profit of the business sector (line 12) and the differentiated income/consumption of the household sector (lines 13, 14) define the interrelationship of balances. One limit case is ρECW=1 and ρECD=1, with the result Qm=Yd. In the evenly rotating economy, profit is equal to distributed profit. That means that WeTheOligarchy can make profit and full consumption of distributed profit to repeat themselves in all eternity. Profit distribution (co-)produces the free lunches of the free-market economy. Profit is recreated by profit distribution, i.e., there is no productive contribution of WeTheOligarchy to the real product O that justifies distributed profit income. The price adapts analogous to line 5. The price mechanism redistributes the real product O between the receivers/consumers of wage income and the receivers/consumers of distributed profit. In essence, Austrians are the promoters of the free-market economy as a free-lunch system for the Oligarchy. The free-market economy has not so much to do with the efficient use of resources but with the distribution of the real product O between WeThePeople and WeTheOligarchy. The distributional trick is done by the Invisible Hand of the price system. Austrians are either stupid or corrupt or both.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 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: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCIX)

Link to Article; scroll  for the comments
Comment on Ovelund 1

Comment on Ovelund 2