June 6, 2019

Links on ‘Keynes: socialist, liberal, or conservative?’

Blog-Reference*

Scientifically, Keynes is long dead ― more precisely, since the General Theory p. 63. Keynes got the Profit Theory wrong. This means that the whole analytical superstructure of the GT is scientifically worthless and that Keynes’ policy proposals NEVER have had sound scientific foundations. After-Keynesians failed to spot Keynes’ foundational blunder to this day. For details see:

► Forget Keynes
► Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes
► How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
► Keynes’ intellectual nonexistence
► Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
► Marshall and the Cambridge school of plain economic gibberish
► Post-Keynesianism vs MMT: a Zombie debate
► Keynesians ― terminally stupid or worse?
► From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


For the failure of the methodologists Sheila Dow and Victoria Chick to spot plain proto-scientific garbage see 'Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show' and 'Ending the economic Froschmäusekrieg a.k.a. Batrachomyomachia' and 'What Keynesian revolution?.

Related 'Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science' and 'Keynes’s Missing Axioms' and 'Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It'. For the full-spectrum refutation of Keynesianism/Post-Keynesianism see cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption.

*Michael Roberts Blog

***
REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 6

You say: “The tweaking is politics and many of us prefer sicialism.”

“Tweaking” is a euphemism for scientific fraud. Keynes was a political agenda pusher, NOT a scientist. Same holds for socialists. See Socialism and scientific incompetence.

***
REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 7

General Theory p. 63: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.”

“His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.”

Let this sink in: Keynes had NO idea of profit, i.e., of the fundamental concept of economics.

Keynes’ I=S is false, and AXEC’s Q≡I−S is true. See Do first your macroeconomic homework.

***
REPLY to Kaivey on Jun 8

“Keynes: socialist, liberal or conservative?” Wrong question!

The right question: “Keynes: scientist or useful political idiot?”

Right answer: Keynes messed up macroeconomics, and because of this, he is buried at the darkest corner of the Flat-Earth Cemetery. See also cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***
Graphic AXEC143d

June 5, 2019

Controlled demolition of MMT ― an exercise in elementary logic

Comment on Randall Wray on ‘JAPAN DOES MMT?’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference (Link)

Randall Wray analyses the current situation in Japan: “From the MMT perspective, what Japan needs is a good fiscal stimulus, albeit one that is targeted. Japan has three ‘injections’ into the economy: the fiscal deficit (which has fallen from 7% of GDP to about 5% over the past few years ― still a substantial injection), the current account surplus, and private investment. But what it needs is stronger growth of domestic consumer demand ― which would also stimulate investment directed to home consumption.”

This recommendation is based on the “sectoral balance perspective”. This perspective is clearly defined by the sectoral balances equation, which is given by (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0. The very characteristic of the MMT balances equation is that it does not contain the balance of the business sector, i.e., profit/loss. Accordingly, the word profit does not appear once in Randall Wray’s post. An economic model without profit, though, is like Hamlet without the prince or physics without the concept of energy.

The question is, why does macroeconomic profit not appear in the sectoral balances equation? The short answer is that economists in general, and MMTers, in particular, are scientifically incompetent.

What MMT policy guidance lacks is the underlying true macroeconomic theory. Here it is. #1, #2

The elementary production-consumption economy is defined with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The economy consists of the household and the business sector, which, in turn, consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Yw in each period, the price as the dependent variable is given by P=W/R. The elementary production-consumption economy is shown under the label of Graphic. #3
Elementary production-consumption economy

The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e., it holds X=O. The condition of budget balancing, i.e., C=Yw, is now skipped. The monetary saving/dissaving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C. The monetary profit/loss of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw. Ergo Q≡−S.

The balances add up to zero. The mirror image of household sector saving S is business sector loss −Q. The mirror image of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Q≡−S is the elementary version of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

It is the definition of macroeconomic profit, i.e., Q≡C−Yw, where the logical blunder of MMT sneaks in. A definition ≡ is a one-way operator: a new variable (= definiendum) is introduced as a relationship of variables that are given by the axioms (= definiens). #4 While in an equation y=x−z it is possible to bring z to the left side, i.e., y+z=x, this is NOT admitted in a definition. The case is analogous to the prohibition of division by 0.

The operator ≡ defines a one-way relationship; the operator = defines a two-way relationship. The methodological failure of economists consists of not keeping these logical relationships properly apart.

Macroeconomic profit has been defined above as a relationship of axiomatic variables, i.e., Q≡C−Yw. Now, the representative economist comes along and performs the inadmissible operation Q+Yw≡C and introduces one more definition, i.e., Q+Yw≡national income≡NI. This reduces to NI≡C, which is an improper definition because it applies TWO terms for the same thing, i.e., the terms “national income NI” and “consumption expenditures C” are interchangeable. This is like saying the words “apple” and “orange” apply to the same thing. So, the definition of “national income NI” is redundant, leads to economic gobbledygook, and therefore has to be cut off with Occam’s Razor.

The same holds for the investment economy. Profits for the two sub-sectors are given by Qc≡C−Ywc and Qi≡I−Ywi. Total profit Q is defined as the sum of sub-sectoral profits, i.e., Q≡Qc+Qi≡C+I−Yw. GDP is defined as GDP≡C+I, so Q≡GDP−Yw. The definition of GDP is admissible, but the definition of national income NI≡Q+Yw, is inadmissible. Therefore, NI≡GDP, or Keynes’ Income = value of output (GT p. 63), is economic gobbledygook. It leads to I=S and IS-LM and all the other falsehoods of After-Keynesian macroeconomics.

The axiomatically correct sectoral balances equation reads (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0. #5, #6

Ramifications: The Wray Curve, the Kelton See-Saw #7, the Krugman Cross #8, and the rest of MMT is proto-scientific garbage.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* New Economic Perspectives
#1 True macrofoundations: the reset of economics
#2 The canonical macroeconomic model
#3 Graphic AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy
#4 Wikipedia Definition
#5 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (I)
#6 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#7 Stephanie Kelton What Happens When the Government Tightens its Belt?
#8 Scott Fullwiler The Sector Financial Balances Model of Aggregate Demand

Related 'Accounting for dummies' and 'The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach' and 'How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down' and 'Humpty Dumpty is back again' and 'The Humpty Dumpty methodology' and 'Is Nick Rowe stupid or corrupt or both?' and 'Profit, income, and the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Keynesians ― terminally stupid or worse?'. For details, see also cross-references Accounting and cross-references MMT.

***
#PointOfProof
Jun 6

June 4, 2019

Links on MMTers push Wall Street’s agenda

Comment on James Meadway/TRIBUNE on ‘Against MMT’

Blog-Reference

James Meadway maintains “Modern Monetary Theory disorients the Left by peddling simplistic monetary solutions to complex problems of political power.” and “There is the prospect of electing, within the next few years, a government of the Left in Britain that is committed, in the words of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, to making an economy that is ‘radically fairer, radically more democratic, and radically more sustainable.’ These are fine words, but it leaves open the question ― how? One answer, promoted by a band of enthusiasts on and offline, is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which claims to provide a new way of looking at the economy ― and the policy prescriptions to match.”

This is an assessment of MMT that is based on the self-description of MMTers as Progressives and not on what the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation actually brings about for WeThePeople. According to the macroeconomic Profit Law, a government deficit produces a profit for the business sector of equal magnitude, i.e. Public Deficit = Private Profit. Clearly, MMT policy benefits the Oligarchy and NOT WeThePeople.

MMT-Progressives are NOT Friends-of-the-People ― just the opposite.

► MMTers are NOT Friends-of-the-People
► MMT: So-called Progressives as trailblazers for Trumponomics
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
► Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents
► MMT: agenda-pushing and money-making for the Oligarchy
► MMT = proto-scientific garbage + deception of the 99-percenters
► Why the British Labour Party should NOT adopt MMT
► How Bill Mitchell stalks Jeremy Corbyn
► MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople
► MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy
► MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
► Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
► MMT and grassroots movements
► MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?
► MMT’s two shots in the head
► MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia
► Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom
► Stephanie Kelton sells children into debt slavery
Progressive shell games


Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***
Twitter Jan 7, 2020

Stephanie Kelton sells children into debt slavery

Comment on Stephanie Kelton/Handelszeitung on ‘Die USA können gar nicht pleitegehen; The USA cannot go broke’*

Own post, no external Blog-Reference

MMT is correct on two points: (i) the money-creating State cannot go broke, just like any ordinary counterfeiter cannot go broke, and (ii) a government deficit does NOT cause inflation but merely a one-off price hike.

The lethal effect of the MMT policy of public deficit-spending/money creation is on distribution. This distributional effect ― whether intentionally or unintentionally, does not matter ― is obfuscated with the slogan “All deficits create net financial wealth for the private sector”, which leads people to falsely associate private sector = WeThePeople. The correct reading is private sector = Oligarchy. #1, #2, #3, #4

The macroeconomic Profit Law entails Public Deficit = Private Profit, which means that the Oligarchy’s financial wealth and public debt (currently $22 trillion) grow in lockstep. Hence, the MMTers’ arguments for permanent deficit-spending/money-creation have a tangible use-value for the Oligarchy. MMT policy guidance is, contrary to the social/environmental optic, ultimately to the detriment of WeThePeople.#5

Here is schematically how it works. #6

1. The government runs a deficit, and according to the macroeconomic Profit Law, the business sector makes a profit Q of equal magnitude, i.e., Q=(G−T).

2. The profit is fully distributed to the owners of the business sector = the Oligarchy, i.e., Yd=Q.

3. The Oligarchy buys interest-bearing government bonds with its distributed profit.

4. The government taxes the wage income Yw and hands the money over to the Oligarchy in the form of interest payments Yi.

5. The consumption expenditures of the wage income receivers are reduced to Cw=Yw−Ti, and the consumption expenditures of the interest income receivers are increased by Ci=Yi such that the budget is balanced, i.e., Yi=Ti, and total consumption expenditures C=Cw+Ci remain unchanged. In other words, period output O is redistributed from WeThePeople to the Oligarchy.

6. This goes on as long as the public debt is rolled over. Taxation Ti depends on public debt D and the interest rate i, and disposable wage income falls with growing public debt at any given interest rate, i.e., Yw−Ti becomes smaller and smaller. Accordingly, the real income/real consumption of the children and grandchildren and grand-grandchildren of WeThePeople is successively reduced, and that of the Oligarchy is increased.

7. This redistribution of real output O becomes gradually more extreme as the public debt increases, which happened over the last 200+ years. Obviously, if Yi=Ti grows in comparison to Yw, the disposable income Yw−Ti eventually approaches zero, and the real consumption of the wage income receivers, too, approaches zero. In this limiting case, the grandchildren of WeThePeople work full-time for the grandchildren of the Oligarchy. The limiting case amounts in real terms to slavery. There is NO way to pay back the public debt if the disposable income is zero.

Needless to emphasize that there are ways to push this dire outcome beyond the time horizon of WeThePeople. One possibility is to reduce the interest rate on government debt to zero. The other is to pay interest on government debt by increasing deficit spending. This ― simple math tells one ― increases public debt exponentially but has no immediate real effect.

Note well that the public debt has to be repaid eventually, which leads to the breakdown of the economy. #7

Solving economic problems by the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation means trading a small problem of the present generation for a big and ultimately insoluble problem of future generations, and lowering WeThePeople’s real income/consumption in the meantime. MMT policy is, in any case, a bad deal for WeThePeople.

MMTers in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, are either stupid because they do not understand the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics or they are corrupt agenda pushers for the Oligarchy.#8

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Handelszeitung
#1 Quick MMT 101 refutation
#2 The fundamental MMT sectoral balances equation is provably false, i.e.
MMT=False → (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0,
AXEC=True → (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0.
#3 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#4 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT
#5 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#6 The economy is an elementary production-consumption economy with employment L, productivity R, and output O constant throughout. The market is cleared, i.e., X=O.
#7 Some nasty MMT surprises behind the time horizon
#8 The promotion of Stephanie Kelton’s new book The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and Creating an Economy for the People says on Amazon: “The leading thinker and most visible public advocate of modern monetary theory ― the freshest and most important idea about economics in decades ― delivers a radically different, bold, new understanding for how to build a just and prosperous society.”

Related 'MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia' and 'How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it' and 'Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation' and 'The MMT-Yawner: Government is not a household' and 'On the saying “We owe the debt to ourselves”' and 'MMT: doom or survival?' and 'Links on Austerity' and 'Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich' and 'Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism' and 'No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople' and 'The day when WeThePeople sends debt-deranged economists to hell'. For the historical forms of debt slavery, see David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years.

***
REPLY to Calgacus on Sep 5, 2020

You say: “Remember him [David Graeber] writing that he sent the drafts of Debt to the MMTers but they neglected to reply and they apologized for not doing so later.”

To recall, Debt: The First 5000 Years is about all forms of debt slavery. For the deficit cheerleaders of MMT, this is not exactly an issue to popularize.

June 3, 2019

Quick MMT 101 refutation

Comment on Scott Fullwiler on ‘Quick(?) MMT 101 lesson’

Blog-Reference

From the 25 items of Scott Fullwiler’s lesson, 23 relate to semantics (e.g. “Anyone saying MMT = ‘print money,’ … is getting MMT dead wrong.”) and technicalities of monetary policy (“So, choice to issue bonds or not is not about ‘quantity’ impact of a deficit, but about ‘how’ CB chooses to achieve its target rate.”)

The blunder/fraud of MMT is to be found in Tweets 5 and 14:
“5. What matters for macro impact is the deficit itself, and how it is created (spending/taxing priorities), since the deficit is creating net financial wealth in the pvt sector (note I did NOT say ‘real’ wealth (!)).”
14. Putting this all together . . . MMT has NEVER argued that ‘printing money’ as conventionally interpreted is necessary to carry out MMT policy proposals. All deficits create net financial wealth for pvt sector, regardless of ‘finance’ method.”

The point is that there is NO such thing as a “pvt/private sector”, to begin with, but there is the business sector (balance → profit/loss) and the household sector (balance → saving/dissaving). More precisely: the fundamental MMT sectoral balances equation is provably false, i.e.
MMT=False → (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0,
AXEC=True → (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0.

The true balances equation entails Public Deficit (G−T) = Private Profit Q which means that the Oligarchy’s financial wealth and public debt (currently $22 trillion) grow in lockstep. Hence the MMTers’ arguments for permanent deficit-spending/money-creation have a tangible use-value for the Oligarchy. MMT policy guidance is, contrary to the social/ environmental optic, ultimately to the detriment of WeThePeople.#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

The distributional effect of MMT policy is obfuscated with the formulation “All deficits create net financial wealth for pvt sector” which leads people to falsely associate pvt sector = WeThePeople. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, MMTers in general and Scott Fullwiler, in particular, are either stupid because they do not understand the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics or they are corrupt agenda pushers for the Oligarchy.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#2 The Kelton-Fraud
#3 Down with idiocy!
#4 MMT: fundamentally false
#5 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

Related 'Controlled demolition of MMT ― an exercise in elementary logic' and 'Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)'

***
#PointOfProof

Scott Fullwiler is an MMT #EconBlocker which tells one all about his abysmal scientific standards.

Source: Twitter

June 2, 2019

Links on History and Economics

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘History matters!’

Blog Reference

There are a lot of slogans in circulation about why history matters:
  • “to understand the present, we need to know where we came from
  • history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes!
  • ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’
  • it broadens your horizon, allows you to ‘zoom out’, ‘see the bigger picture’ and draw parallels to what came before.” (Syll)

For the relation between scientific theory and history, it is important to understand that science is NOT concerned with individual historical events except as a singular manifestation of a general law. A concrete historical event can either corroborate or refute a law. Science is concerned with the underlying invariances (Nozick) a.k.a. general laws.

For example, a History of Fire tells one which cities burned down at which point on the timeline and what the casualties were, and perhaps who set the fire. From these events, we can derive some truisms about fire but no matter how many fires the historian studies, he will never arrive at the Theory of Fire or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Theory transcends a collection of historical facts.

Worse, the well-known problem with History is that it is for the greater part literary fiction. History deals in most cases not with incontrovertible facts but is storytelling, speculation, interpretation, second-guessing, fact selection/omission, outright fake, and propaganda, in other words, “What’s history, but a fable agreed upon?” (Napoleon)

Economists, for example, do not understand to this day the Great Depression because there is no such thing as the true economic theory: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/ formally inconsistent. The fake scientist Milton Friedman simply put the historical blame for the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve.

The methodological priorities are: in order to understand the decline of ancient Rome or the Great Depression one needs scientific theories, among others, the true economic theory because no way leads from ill-documented and ill-understood historical events to the true theory about how the economy works.

History matters but theory matters much, much more. For details see:
► A historical misunderstanding
► The universal Profit Law and the multitude of unique historical circumstances
► History and future of the monetary economy
► Historians don’t get it
► When substandard thinkers dabble in science it is called economics
► History delivers the questions but not the answers
► The Law of Economists’ Increasing Stupidity
► History and the identity problem of economics
► Causality in economics
► History and methodology: no trouble of any sort
► Setting the history of economic non-thought right
► A brief history of soapbox economics
► No future for Socialism and Capitalism
► The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***

The UNZ Review Sep 20 An overview of the problems with chronology and historical forgery


June 1, 2019

Dialectic: the swampies’ methodology of choice

Comment on Matt Franko on ‘Dialectic Method’

Blog-Reference

Matt Franko observes: “Probably 99.99% of the Economics discipline is operating under the Dialectic Method and accordingly the material result is the manifest shit-show we are watching every day … a moron-fest goat rodeo … Its NOT the discipline of Economics that is the problem, we often can see the discipline taking a lot of heat … imo its unfair criticism of a discipline … its rather the dominant dialectic methodology commonly used within that discipline that is fucking everything all up.”

Matt Franko is not the first to realize that economics has a methodology problem. What he does not realize, though, is that this is not a bug but a feature. Economics has firmly established itself in the dialectical impasse of political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda; the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics, anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed. The fact is that theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

The dialectical impasse consists of the manifest contradiction between the claim that economics is a science and the fact that it is a political agenda pushing.

Science is digital=binary=true/false and NOTHING in between. There is NO such thing in science as roughly right or roughly wrong; it is only materially/formally true/false. The swamp between true/false, where “nothing is clear and everything is possible” (Keynes), is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, blatherers, fraudsters, trolls, and incompetent scientists. #1, #2, #3, #4

Swampies euphemize their inability/unwillingness to resolve inconsistencies as dialectic method: “According to Kant … the ancient Greeks used the word ‘dialectic’ to signify the logic of false appearance or semblance. To the Ancients, ‘it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks, the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak for every empty assertion.'” #5

The philosophical father of modern dialectics is Hegel. Schopenhauer had not much good to say about him: “If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.” #6

In marked contrast to swampies, scientists drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true and false: “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)

Formal consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.

The profession of useful political idiots has no genuine interest in a clear-cut true/false outcome of research and debate but seeks to keep everything and everybody in the status quo swamp. Swampies subscribe to dialectical inconclusiveness, i.e., anything goes, truth is subjective and relative, reality is a social construct, nobody has the truth with a big T, everybody has some truth with a small t, and to the pluralism and peaceful coexistence of provably false theories.

As Popper summarized it: “Hegel’s intention is to operate freely with all contradictions. ‘All things are contradictory in themselves’, he insists, in order to defend a position which means the end not only of all science, but of all rational argument. And the reason why he wishes to admit contradictions is that he wants to stop rational argument, and with it scientific and intellectual progress.” #7

Political economists prevent scientific progress to this day. Economics is still at the proto-scientific stage, which is characterized by material/formal inconsistency.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 It is better to be precisely right than roughly wrong
#2 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#3 Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist
#4 Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over
#5 Wikipedia
#6 Goodreads
#7 A Free Left Blog

Related 'Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods' and 'A new curriculum for swampies?' and 'Getting out of the economics swamp' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems' and 'Economics, too, is pre-truth' and 'Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption' and 'Economics is locked in idiocy: How could this happen?' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses' and 'And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization'.

***

Graphic AXEC176b  Economics, Communication, Disinfotainment



Twitter/X May 12, 2026 Adrián Ramírez, LIBERALISM AND THE RISE OF ERISTICISM or the application of Schopenhauer's Die Kunst Recht zu behalten