Occasional X: How it works (DXXXIX)

“Private markets contain mechanisms to guide economic actors. Property rights over the means of production incentivize owners to use resources efficiently because they reap the rewards for doing so and bear the costs of failing to do so.” (Christopher Coyne & Abigail Hall) Actually, private markets contain mechanisms to systematically guide economic actors to corrupt/criminal behavior. The representative economist never understood cross-over exploitation. He never understood profit, and consequently, how the economic system works. Scientific incompetence and utter ignorance are the representative economist's normal mental states. Left/center/right does not matter. The proof is given in table AXEC221b ⇓. 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, 4, 7. Under the initial analytical 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. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector is zero. Then, the business sector is split. The axioms are differentiated in lines 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 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 Invisible Hand redistributes. 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 evade the wage cut and 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. Cross-over exploitation means that one firm gains at the cost of the others, and that one group of workers gains at the cost of the others. That means that there are no classes with a common interest. Politically, intra-sectoral competition incentivizes 'class treason'. Both the economic and the political sphere favor the corrupt persons in a State, if unchecked. As a rule of thumb, the evolutionary outlook of free-market economies is not socially progressive but inherently degenerative. If profit is positive in the initial state, firm 1 increases profit, and firm 2 decreases it. 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. Other incentives work in the same direction. A firm can increase its productivity and profits with the adoption of an invention. This is the first half of the chain of interrelations. The other firms then make a loss and are pushed to the brink of bankruptcy. The first firm has an incentive to keep the invention secret, because if the other firm can adapt, the profit lead vanishes again. The systemic incentive is to restrict the spread of innovation. The Schumpeter effect only appears if knowledge is public. On closer inspection, economics is revealed as 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 entrepreneur and decreases them for the honest.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 9, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXXVIII)

“Real GDP growth has been lower globally over the last forty years than it was before PCs. All this stuff that claimed to make us more productive just redistributed wealth rather than make us all more wealthy.” (Aswath Damodaran, quoted by Steve Hanke) Aswath Damodaran never understood profit, and consequently, the relationship between productivity, real and nominal GDP. The proof is given in table AXEC235c ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1-3. 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. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. Here, consumption good output is real GDP. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero in line 11. If the condition of budget balancing is lifted, the market clearing price is given by P=:ρEC*W/R. This formula replaces the silly Supply-Demand-Equilibrium cross. It is generalized in lines 15-21. In the most elementary case, the following relationships hold. If the productivity R increases, consumption good output O (undifferentiated real GDP) increases in line 2. Under the condition of market clearing, the price P falls in line 5. The nominal GDP, here Ec, stays the same under the condition of budget-balancing, i.e., Ec=Yw. Profit is still zero in line 11. In sum, in the elementary case, a productivity increase does not show up in an increase in nominal GDP and not in an increase in macroeconomic profit Qm. However, in real terms (i.e., real GDP=O) 'it makes us all more wealthy '. Aswath Damodaran got these interdependencies wrong. It's an entirely different thing, of course, if the starting condition L=constant is lifted.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXXVII)

“Remember that no matter who or what a worker may be, if he works for wages he is in precisely the same economic position that you are. He is in your class; he is your brother; he is your comrade.” (Eugene Debs) No, there are no classes. Eugene Debs never understood cross-over exploitation. He never understood profit, and consequently, how the economic system works. Utter ignorance is the representative economist's normal mental state. Left/center/right does not matter. The proof is given in table AXEC221b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 4, 7. Under the initial analytical 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 is 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. Then, the business sector is split. The axioms are differentiated in lines 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 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. Cross-over exploitation means that one firm gains at the cost of the others, and that one group of workers gains at the cost of the others. That means that there are no classes with a common interest. Eugene Debs got the fundamentals wrong. If profit is positive in the initial state, firm 1 increases profit, and firm 2 decreases it. 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. Whether OC takes over the State is an open question. On closer inspection, economics is revealed as 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 entrepreneur and decreases them for the honest.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 8, 2026

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

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

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 7, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / 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: How it works (DXXXVI)

“Prices should be understood first and foremost as a mechanism through which monetary incomes, including profits, are generated and realized. After all, firms set prices not simply to cover their costs, but also to make profits.” (Khazbi Budunov) Time to get Price and Profit Theory right. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Economics needs a Paradigm Shift. The representative economist will not survive it intellectually. That's a bad outlook for Khazbi Budunov. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC244a ⇓. 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 or ρEC=1, this yields the price P in line 5 and 8 as equal to unit wage costs W/R. Without budget-balancing, it is ρEC*W/R, in the general case with ρEC≠1. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition. In the most elementary case, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. In the general case, the macroeconomic price depends on demand, expressed by ρEC≠1, and unit wage costs W/R. If the condition of budget balancing is lifted, then nominal demand is not equal to wage income. The market-clearing price P is now co-determined 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 12 and accordingly has demand deposits at the Central Bank. If the household sector saves, the business sector makes a loss. As a result, the expenditure ratio ρE determines both price P (line 8) and profit/loss Qm (line 12) simultaneously. Without ρE>1, the price cannot rise above unit wage costs W/R, and there is no profit Qm. Profit is not a monetary income; distributed profit is. Profit is a balance, i.e., the difference of flows. Economists have not understood this since the time of the Founding Fathers. If the firm simply increases the price, the market-clearing condition no longer holds and the inventory increases, i.e., O−X>0. Whether the firm wants to make a profit is irrelevant. Profit appears only if ρE>1. Profit does not appear either if the firm simply increases the price. Profit is not psychic or behavioral but depends on the objective/systemic precondition ρE>1. To expect profit from the entrepreneur's wishes or expectations or price increases is as good as expecting rain from the chief's rain dance.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 6, 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: The futile attempt to recycle Austrianism (CXXXVII)

“Rothbard put it in italics, so Alex Pollock read it twice at the Summit: 'The natural tendency of the state is inflation.' Money is normally got by producing something. There is another way—create it, and produce nothing.” (Mises Media) The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. In Austrianism, it's the Praxeology Axiom. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a systems science, and NOT a social science. 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. Consequently, economic policy guidance has never had valid scientific foundations. To this day, it has no scientific truth-value but only political use-value. Austrianism is a case in point. Ludwig von Mises never understood profit, and by logical consequence, how the economic system works. That's self-defeating. The free-market economy runs on profit. Macroeconomic profit is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm≔(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The Law implies PublicDeficit-Is-PrivateProfit Qm≔(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm≔(G−T)>0 is a critical element of the economy's survival. The minimum requirement of a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. This is the main economic principle; all other explanations of how the economy works are secondary at best. Utility/profit maximization or free people on free markets or competition or hard work or innovation or the entrepreneur or optimal allocation do not keep the economy above the zero-profit cutoff. Scientifically, it's rather simple: no macroeconomic profit, no economy. But economists are only look-alike scientists. They have never had enough brains to understand the objective, systemic facts, i.e., the existential preconditions. Free-market economies are temporarily saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/Central Bank, i.e., the State. This means that the Austrian premise that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system is axiomatically false. Austrianism is failed/fake science. Neither von Mises nor the sorry bunch of followers ever understood what keeps the economy going. On the contrary, Austrianism claims that the State is the root of all evil. That's moral blaming, not science. Rothbard was a silly agenda pusher, not a competent scientist. Because Austrianism is axiomatically false, its Theory of Money is false. For the axiomatically correct approach, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFstKv

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 5, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXXV)

“Mises in Human Action is very clear in the passage below: money prices of factor inputs do not directly determine the output prices: factor input prices are determined 'EXCLUSIVELY by the anticipation of future prices of the products'.” (Lord Keynes) Time to get Price Theory right. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Economics needs a Paradigm Shift. The representative economist will not survive it intellectually. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC247 ⇓. 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 or ρEC=1, this yields the price P in line 6 as equal to unit wage costs W/R. Without budget-balancing it is ρEC*W/R. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition. In the most elementary case, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. In the general case, the macroeconomic price depends on demand and unit wage costs. If 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 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 9 and accordingly has demand deposits at the Central Bank. If the household sector saves, the business sector makes a loss. If the condition of zero distributed profit is lifted in line 13, the resulting market-clearing price in line 14 is dependent on the differentiated expenditure ratios of wage income and distributed profit income, the relative weight of distributed profit ρD, and unit wage costs W/R. This relationship consists of measurable variables and is testable in principle. The axiomatically based price formula in line 14 fully replaces Demand-Supply-Equilibrium for the elementary production-consumption economy. It replaces also the silly Demand-Supply-Equilibrium storytellers.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 4, 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: The futile attempt to recycle Austrianism (CXXXVI)

“Before Carl Menger published his Principles of Economics in 1871, mainstream economic thought was a muddle of half-truths, moral philosophy dressed as science, and a value theory so broken it could not explain why water costs less than diamonds. The classical school, anchored by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, gave the world the labor theory of value. Price, they believed, derived from the labor embedded in production.” (Handre) Adam Smith/David Ricardo were scientifically incompetent, and Menger was no better. The most obvious mistakes with his value theory are: (i) First of all, water and diamonds are different kinds of goods. Water is produced and consumed in one period; diamonds are forever. Menger confounded perishable consumption goods with non-financial assets, i.e., a physical store of value; i.e., he confounded non-durables and durables. Methodologically, this means getting the relationship between flows and stocks wrong. (ii) The marginal utility of one person does not matter much, because the market transforms a great number of diverse subjective valuations into one objective price for all. Menger fails to show how this transformation works. For the correct answer, see The Logical Interface Between Objective Macrofoundations and Subjective Valuations https://t.co/8NXaiPVsHv (iii) The question of value does not arise outside the economic system, where labor gets a wage, and the output is sold on the market. The Value Theory presupposes a monetary economy. The marginal utility of water for some freak guy in the desert is irrelevant to the market price of water. (iv) The subjective value has ultimately to be backed up by an objective amount of money. The subjective value of water may be high, but if the agent can maximally spend his income and if his income is very small, the thirsty person cannot buy enough water and leaves the market to die in some dark corner. The survivors understand that the market is not primarily an efficient information mechanism but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that makes sure, with some unintelligible Invisible-Hand trick, that the rich person survives the poor person if scarcity becomes extreme. These four methodological mistakes are sufficient to make Menger's approach scientifically worthless and all Austrian propagandists unemployed. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC233b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. The business sector is later differentiated in lines 15, 16, 17. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing, i.e., X=O, and budget-balancing, i.e., Ec=Yw, this yields the price P in line 5. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition that is lifted later. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R in line 5. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the condition of budget balancing is lifted, i.e., nominal demand is not determined by income. Accordingly, the two market-clearing prices depend on the respective expenditure ratios ρE1, ρE2 and unit wage costs W1/R1, W2/R2 in lines 18, 19. The measurable expenditure ratio is a proxy for the consolidated multitude of unmeasurable individual subjective values. As a result, relative prices are given in line 20. For the special case of budget balancing, i.e., ρE1=1, ρE2=1, and equal wages W1, W2, in both production lines, the relative price is equal to the inverse productivities. It is not proportional to labor time input. This result can be projected back to the original Labour Theory of Value and amounts to a refutation. It reveals the scientific incompetence of Austrian economists from Menger onward.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 3, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXXIV)

“Here is one of the clearest proofs of how prices have become *relatively* inflexible since the 1930s. In the 1700s and 1800s, many prices really were quite flexible, but not so today. Once you take out 1970s Stagflation (an anomaly), the data is as clear as day: …” (Lord Keynes) Price Theory has been proto-scientific garbage since the Founding Fathers. Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. 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. Price Theory has to be based on systemic axioms instead of behavioral axioms. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC246 ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; this requires a Paradigm Shift. 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 4. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition that is lifted later. In the initial state, i.e., ρEC=1, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R in line 6. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the tacit assumption that macroeconomic accounting covers all transactions is dropped. In the best case, it registers all licit transactions. Therefore, the axioms have to include illicit transactions. This is done in lines 13 and 14. Illicit transactions consist of illicit income in line 13 and normal consumption expenditures in line 14. As an example, illicit income consists of the off-balance payments of three-letter agencies to their unofficial employees. This income is paid with central-bank-produced counterfeit money. This money is practically indistinguishable from 'original' money. The dark income does not appear in the official statistics. As a result, the market-clearing price in line 15 increases. For the special case of budget-balancing and market -clearing, macroeconomic profit is equal to the illicit income in line 17. Lord Keynes's graph can be reinterpreted as follows: The long-run inflation that started around 1950 coincides with the founding of the CIA in 1948. Since this time, their inofficial employees are paid with counterfeit money. Illicit income fuels normal consumption expenditures and increases the market price and the profit of the business sector. The inflation since the 1950s is attributable to the steady growth of all kinds of three-letter agencies. Whether this hypothesis is true or not can not be empirically established because of Dark Money. Monetary Theory has no empirical leg to stand on. Testing the Quantity Theory is impossible for all practical purposes because National Accounting is incomplete. There is no such thing as the 'clearest proof'.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 3, 2026

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

“Are you retarded, illiterate or what is your problem? Marx was literally one of the first to talk about interest as a cost of production of financial capital, and to treat differently returns from financial products vs profits of finance firms.” (Moulaga expropriator) Marx's economic theory belongs to the scientific sphere and has to be refuted according to scientific methodology. Because Marx got the foundational concept of economics —profit— wrong, his remaining communicative contributions reduce to psycho-social-political-philosophical blather. Unfortunately, this part has dominated public opinion to this day. Ultimately, the idiocy of the discussion consists of the intentional/unintentional muddling of economics, sociology, psychology, history, politics, philosophy, gossip, and shithrowing. Marx/Engels called their common project Scientific Socialism‡, but its scientific content has been zero from the beginning. Marx/Engels and their followers never understood science. For proof, see the working paper ⇒ Profit for Marxists https://t.co/P1NOW4FyXK Also Here is the long-overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists. https://t.co/9SwjuSW8Ca Marxianism still has no scientific truth-value, only political use-value. It is still good for playing low-IQ communicative games, but for nothing else. In the scientific sphere, Marx is still a zero. In the political/philosophical sphere, confused blather is the norm; here Marxianism has its ecological niche as a Weltanschauung together with all other occult/esoteric/voodoo/religious/etc. aberrations of the human mind. The proof for utter scientific incompetence is in followers like Moulaga expropriator ‡ “Scientific socialism, primarily associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a materialist, historical approach to understanding society, viewing history as a progression driven by economic conditions and class struggle, …” (Google AI, Scientific Socialism)

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 3, 2026

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

“For decades, classical economists like Adam Smith struggled to explain why water was cheap, while diamonds, largely useless luxuries, commanded a fortune. Austrian economist Carl Menger solved the diamond-water paradox by pioneering the concept of subjective marginal utility, pointing out that economists had mistakenly concluded that 'value in use' and 'value in exchange' were entirely separate concepts driven by production costs.” (Creative Deduction) Adam Smith was scientifically incompetent, and Menger was no better. The most obvious mistakes with his value theory are: (i) First of all, water and diamonds are different kinds of goods. Water is produced and consumed in one period; diamonds are forever. Menger confounded perishable consumption goods with non-financial assets, i.e., a physical store of value; i.e., he confounded non-durables and durables. Methodologically, this means getting the relationship between flows and stocks wrong. (ii) The marginal utility of one person does not matter much, because the market transforms a great number of diverse subjective valuations into one objective price for all. Menger fails to show how this transformation works. For the correct answer, see The Logical Interface Between Objective Macrofoundations and Subjective Valuations https://t.co/8NXaiPW0x3 (iii) The question of value does not arise outside the economic system, where labor gets a wage, and the output is sold on the market. The Value Theory presupposes a monetary economy. The marginal utility of water for some freak guy in the desert is irrelevant to the market price of water. (iv) The subjective value has ultimately to be backed up by an objective amount of money. The subjective value of water may be high, but if the agent can maximally spend his income and if his income is very small, the thirsty person cannot buy enough water and leaves the market to die in some dark corner. The survivors understand that the market is not primarily an efficient information mechanism but a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism that makes sure, with some unintelligible Invisible-Hand trick, that the rich person survives the poor person if scarcity becomes extreme. These four methodological mistakes are sufficient to make Menger's approach scientifically worthless and all Austrian propagandists unemployed. The methodologically correct approach is summarized in table AXEC233b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, the elementary production-consumption economy is given with three macroeconomic axioms in lines 1, 2, 3. The business sector is later differentiated in lines 15, 16, 17. Under the initial analytical conditions of market-clearing, i.e., X=O, and budget-balancing, i.e., Ec=Yw, this yields the price P in line 5. For a start, the price is the dependent variable here. This is a starting condition that is lifted later. In the initial state, the price is equal to unit wage costs W/R in line 5. The workers get the whole product O. The profit Qm for the business sector as a whole is zero. Now, the condition of budget balancing is lifted, i.e., nominal demand is not determined by income. Accordingly, the two market-clearing prices depend on the respective expenditure ratios ρE1, ρE2 and unit wage costs W1/R1, W2/R2 in lines 18, 19. The measurable expenditure ratio is a proxy for the consolidated multitude of unmeasurable individual subjective values. As a result, relative prices are given in line 20. For the special case of budget balancing, i.e., ρE1=1, ρE2=1, and equal wages W1, W2, in both production lines, the relative price is equal to the inverse productivities. It is not proportional to labor time input. This result can be projected back to the original Labour Theory of Value and amounts to a refutation. It reveals the scientific incompetence of Austrian economists from Menger onward.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 2026

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

“Hayek has taught us this lesson about pricing, over and over again. Free-market prices have an important role to play in our society, in our economy. They convey precious information.” (Walter Block) Hayek never understood profit and, by logical consequence, how the markets function. His efficiency story is a benign interpretation of what the price mechanism, i.e., the Invisible Hand of the Oligarchy, really does. The free-market system is, in the last instance, a quasi-Darwinian selection mechanism, i.e., the economic analog to triage in medicine. For example, during a famine, only the rich person can pay the high price of bread and survive. In contrast, the poor person leaves the market empty-handed to die of starvation. The market's primary function is NOT efficient information-processing/resource-allocation (Hayek's hallucination) but the redistribution of the Quality-of-Life. In economically extreme situations, the Invisible Hand kills anonymously. Because the price mechanism is a powerful tool, the most important task of an economist ― who is smart enough to know on which side his bread is buttered ― is to praise its informational magic, its efficiency, or its welfare effects. This distracts from the fact of selection. The optical illusion is this: the price is co-determined by nominal demand, and demand depends on different earnings, profit distribution, and different accumulated wealth. The price structure distributes, in any period, real output/wealth to already existing financial wealth. It distributes the Quality-of-Life. The problem is that richness often does not come from merit but from fraud, exploitation, organized crime, primitive accumulation, stealing innovative ideas, or from big-style printing counterfeit money. The quasi-Darwinian free-market selection mechanism increases the survival chances of the corrupt and decreases it for the honest. For details, see How it works https://t.co/lqv0W118dK The price mechanism has not much to do with abstract optimal allocation of resources but makes sure that the Quality-of-Life is ultimately allocated to the Oligarchy. 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, not utility/profit-maximizing free people on free-markets or optimal allocation. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic profit formula reads: Qm:=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). It holds for every monetary economy, independently of political ideology. Macroeconomic profit is equal in Capitalism and Socialism according to the Profit Law. The Profit Law implies Public-Deficit-is-Private-Profit Qm:=(G−T)>0, i.e., macroeconomic profit is (co-)produced by deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., the growth of public debt. In free-market economies, public debt has increased with minor interruptions for over 200 years. Therefore, Qm:=(G−T)>0 must be considered a critical factor for Capitalism's survival. Capitalism is temporarily saved from breakdown by the deficit-spending/money-creating duo of Treasury/Central Bank, i.e., the State. The State has existential primacy, not the free-market or the price system. Capitalists and Socialists have never really understood what profit was. Friedrich Hayek never came intellectually above the microeconomic level and fell foul of the Fallacy of Composition. He was not a competent scientist but a political agenda pusher. More precisely, Hayek was a political agenda pusher for the Oligarchy in the guise of science. He added intellectual corruption to the system of financial corruption.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXXII)

Why the Worst Get on Top is the title of Ch. 10 in Friedrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom. In the free-market economy, profit may provide a strong incentive to corruption/organized crime. According to quasi-Darwinian logic, the most corrupt survives. The proof is given in table AXEC221b ⇓. Microfoundations are methodologically false; therefore, 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 analytical conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 16. For a start, 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 the firms of the business sector and among the households of the household sector. Sociologically, this means there are no classes with a common interest. 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. This is why guilds have emerged historically. Basically, they are self-organized associations of the honest against the corrupt, with honor as the guiding behavioral principle. Honor was replaced with the freedom of licit/illicit profit maximisation, which favors the corrupt.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 1, 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: The futile attempt to recycle Kalecki (XVII)

“Kalecki's Theory of Economic Dynamics explains more about how firms actually set prices in a few chapters than the entire theory of subjective value and marginal utility.” (Mr.Keynes) Neither Mr.Keynes nor Michał Kalecki ever understood profit. That's the worst thing for an economist. For details, see Kalecki: the man who missed it by a hair's breadth https://t.co/JOlDMelY4C and Cross-references: Kalecki https://t.co/FemYl1aA8M The monetary economy in general, and the US economy, in particular, thrives on growing private/ public debt. If this growth stops, the economy implodes. Macroeconomic profit Qm is given by the axiomatically correct Profit Law Qm:=(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M)+Yd. The minimum requirement for a free-market economy is that macroeconomic profit is greater than zero, i.e., Qm≥0. If Qm<0, recession/depression/breakdown results. Qm≥0 is the systemic existential precondition. This is easy to understand, but economists still don't get it. They can only think behaviorally, not systemically. PsySoc economics is proto-scientific garbage. The premise of mainstream economics, i.e., that the unfettered free-market economy is a self-adjusting, self-stabilizing, and self-optimizing system, is axiomatically false. This means that economics is a failed/fake science. Ultimately, this means that the representative economist is scientifically incompetent. Michał Kalecki took the first step, i.e., a valid critique. He never managed to advance to the Paradigm Shift. As Feynman put it: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” To sell his outdated book on social media is a losing proposition.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 30, 2026

Occasional X: How it works (DXXVIII)

“Taught this way, economics is revealed as the story of human cooperation, with division of labour, profit and loss guiding us toward more productive activity.” (Mani Basharzad) Not true. Economics is taught the false Austrian way. Instead, profit may provide a strong incentive to corruption/ organized crime. 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 conditions of market-clearing and budget-balancing, this yields the price P in line 16. The price is here the dependent variable. 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 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. 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. Taught this way, economics is revealed as the story of intra-sectoral cross-over exploitation between firms and between households.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 29, 2026