Comment on Diane Coyle’s ‘Once upon a time’
Blog-Reference
All appearances to the contrary, economics is NOT a science but political agenda pushing. The format of popular propaganda is, of course, NOT the abstract theory but a concrete narrative. For a narrative, there is NO need to satisfy the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency. Doing away with semantic smoke what remains is the plain fact that narrative is just another word for political fraud. The self-styled enlightened economist Diane Coyle herself is a talented producer of proto-scientific garbage.
► The economist as storyteller
► Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro
► Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
► If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people
► Economists simply don’t get it
► Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes
► Knowledge only — no opinion
► How to be a good scientist
► Lazy or stupid or both?
► Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom' and 'Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation'.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Diane Coyle. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Diane Coyle. Sort by date Show all posts
August 29, 2019
August 31, 2018
Economists simply don’t get it
Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘What’s behind the rising US profit share?’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Sep 3
Chris Dillow argues: “Diane Coyle says the fact that different countries have seen different changes in labour’s share of income in recent years ― with it falling in the US but not the UK ― shows that ‘institutions are playing a big part’ in driving factor shares. This is true. But it’s only part of the story. I say so for a simple reason. Imagine aggregate wages were to fall for some reason ― technical change, globalization, whatever. Would this raise the profit share? Not necessarily. If every £1 fall in wages causes workers to cut their spending by £1, profits would also fall.”
False, profit would stay the same. The obvious fact of the matter is that economists do not understand to this day what profit is: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Palgrave Dictionary, Desai, 2008) This is obviously disqualifying for economists in general and Chris Dillow, in particular. #1
Chris Dillow cites Kalecki and derives from “basic national accounts identities … an identity for profits: P=(C−W)+(I−D)+(G−T)+NX (i).”
This, of course, is proto-scientific garbage because economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies National Accounting. #2, #3, #4 Distribution theory has always been false because Profit Theory has always been false.
To make matters short, here is the axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law: Qm ≡Yd +(I−Sm) + (G−T)+NX (ii). Legend: Qm monetary profit/loss, Yd distributed profit, I investment expenditures, Sm monetary saving/dissaving, G government spending, T taxes, NX export minus import. Total profit Q is the sum of monetary profit Qm and nonmonetary profit Qn, i.e., Q≡Qm+Qn (iii). #5
Eq. (iii) determines the nominator of the so-called profit share and explains why it is rising. Roughly speaking, neither Diane Coyle’s institutions nor market power nor automation accounts for a rising profit share. The main drivers of increasing overall profit have been, in the past decades, the increasing deficit-spending of the government and household sector, which translates into ever-increasing public/private debt. #6
As Mirowski put it: “... one of the most convoluted and muddled areas in economic theory: the theory of profit.” No surprise then, that neither Diane Coyle nor Chris Dillow ever understood how the economy works, what profit is, and why the profit share rises. This is the essential prerequisite of trash-blogging.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith
#2 Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods
#3 Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years
#4 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#5 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Profit
#6 Profit and the decline of labor’s nominal share (I)
Related 'Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes' and 'Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics' and 'Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law' and 'MMT and the single most stupid physicist' and 'Kalecki and Keynes: The double macroeconomic false start' and 'Truth by definition? The Profit Theory is axiomatically false for 200+ years'.
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Sep 3
Chris Dillow argues: “Diane Coyle says the fact that different countries have seen different changes in labour’s share of income in recent years ― with it falling in the US but not the UK ― shows that ‘institutions are playing a big part’ in driving factor shares. This is true. But it’s only part of the story. I say so for a simple reason. Imagine aggregate wages were to fall for some reason ― technical change, globalization, whatever. Would this raise the profit share? Not necessarily. If every £1 fall in wages causes workers to cut their spending by £1, profits would also fall.”
False, profit would stay the same. The obvious fact of the matter is that economists do not understand to this day what profit is: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Palgrave Dictionary, Desai, 2008) This is obviously disqualifying for economists in general and Chris Dillow, in particular. #1
Chris Dillow cites Kalecki and derives from “basic national accounts identities … an identity for profits: P=(C−W)+(I−D)+(G−T)+NX (i).”
This, of course, is proto-scientific garbage because economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies National Accounting. #2, #3, #4 Distribution theory has always been false because Profit Theory has always been false.
To make matters short, here is the axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law: Qm ≡Yd +(I−Sm) + (G−T)+NX (ii). Legend: Qm monetary profit/loss, Yd distributed profit, I investment expenditures, Sm monetary saving/dissaving, G government spending, T taxes, NX export minus import. Total profit Q is the sum of monetary profit Qm and nonmonetary profit Qn, i.e., Q≡Qm+Qn (iii). #5
Eq. (iii) determines the nominator of the so-called profit share and explains why it is rising. Roughly speaking, neither Diane Coyle’s institutions nor market power nor automation accounts for a rising profit share. The main drivers of increasing overall profit have been, in the past decades, the increasing deficit-spending of the government and household sector, which translates into ever-increasing public/private debt. #6
As Mirowski put it: “... one of the most convoluted and muddled areas in economic theory: the theory of profit.” No surprise then, that neither Diane Coyle nor Chris Dillow ever understood how the economy works, what profit is, and why the profit share rises. This is the essential prerequisite of trash-blogging.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith
#2 Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods
#3 Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years
#4 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#5 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Profit
#6 Profit and the decline of labor’s nominal share (I)
Related 'Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes' and 'Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics' and 'Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law' and 'MMT and the single most stupid physicist' and 'Kalecki and Keynes: The double macroeconomic false start' and 'Truth by definition? The Profit Theory is axiomatically false for 200+ years'.
***
Graphic AXEC109i
September 30, 2024
Occasional X: What economists really do (CCCLIX)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 30, 2024
Could it be that the representative #Economist is NOT ― and NEVER has been ― a competent #Scientist but a #SalesRep for all sorts of mental and material #Trash? ⇒
Links on Diane Coylehttps://t.co/eiCNQEZ2Uh
April 8, 2015
Lazy or stupid or both?
Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Modern macroeconomics — an intellectually lazy ideology’
Blog-Reference
Diane Coyle writes: “I think an honest conventionally-trained economist has to at least acknowledge that we grew intellectually lazy about this [the assumption of rational choice].” (See intro)
This statement implies that the representative economist is capable of thinking but only too lazy to apply his full capacities. An alternative explanation for the manifest scientific failure of economists could be that they are substandard thinkers.
Students in any scientific discipline are expected to find out whether their teacher's theory is true or false or incomplete. The growth of knowledge is what science is all about. Hence, the acceptance of basic tenets of conventional economics is strongly indicative of a lack of scientific acumen. From a student who has accepted utility maximization, rational choice, or supply-demand equilibrium as an explanation no contribution to real scientific progress is to be expected.
At the moment economics is the mindless perpetuation of proto-scientific stuff. An honest conventionally-trained economist has to at least ask himself how it could happen that he and other seemingly intelligent persons could ever accept the green cheese assumptionism and the logical defects of Econ 101.
The wonder of economics is a large number of generations of well-trained students that have faithfully recycled intellectual garbage.
In the final analysis, it is not a question of honesty but of scientific intuition to realize that the present state of economics calls for a Paradigm Shift#1 and not for another ridiculous discussion about efficient markets.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.
Blog-Reference
Diane Coyle writes: “I think an honest conventionally-trained economist has to at least acknowledge that we grew intellectually lazy about this [the assumption of rational choice].” (See intro)
This statement implies that the representative economist is capable of thinking but only too lazy to apply his full capacities. An alternative explanation for the manifest scientific failure of economists could be that they are substandard thinkers.
Students in any scientific discipline are expected to find out whether their teacher's theory is true or false or incomplete. The growth of knowledge is what science is all about. Hence, the acceptance of basic tenets of conventional economics is strongly indicative of a lack of scientific acumen. From a student who has accepted utility maximization, rational choice, or supply-demand equilibrium as an explanation no contribution to real scientific progress is to be expected.
At the moment economics is the mindless perpetuation of proto-scientific stuff. An honest conventionally-trained economist has to at least ask himself how it could happen that he and other seemingly intelligent persons could ever accept the green cheese assumptionism and the logical defects of Econ 101.
The wonder of economics is a large number of generations of well-trained students that have faithfully recycled intellectual garbage.
In the final analysis, it is not a question of honesty but of scientific intuition to realize that the present state of economics calls for a Paradigm Shift#1 and not for another ridiculous discussion about efficient markets.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.
November 30, 2015
Pluralism: cross-references
Posts
- The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession here
- Economists: at the end of the wrong track here
- Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing? here
- Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing here
- Profit here
- Master of MMT ― Master of proto-scientific garbage here
- Mindfuck or the Eternal Return of dead economic theories here
- There are NO crank scientists in economics because economics is NOT a science here
- Economics: Not a pretty story here
- Economics, MMT, and the corruption of science here
- Bill Mitchell, MMT, Progressives: economists as Oligarchy hacks here
- The problem with economics as a discipline here
- Lars Syll, MMT, and the other failures of New Economic Thinking here
- “Inhumane stupidity” ― bad economic policy as inevitable consequence of false economic theory here
- The objective reality of economics here
- Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump here
- Microfoundations have been dead for 150+ years: high time to move on here
- Trust in science? Yes, but economics is NOT a science here
- Economics ― the science that never was here
- New Economic Thinking ― the definitive results here
- Links on the Economics Nobel here
- Links on Diane Coyle here
- Links on Asad Zaman’s ‘Defining Islamic Economics’ here
- What it takes to become a great economist here
- Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses here
- Links on Lars P. Syll’s ‘Wren-Lewis insults medical science’ here
- Both Mainstreamer and MMTer are either stupid or corrupt or both here
- #DeleteKeynes #ExpelAllKeynesians here
- Economics: Math is NOT the problem, scientific incompetence is here
- Real-World Economics: The sanctuary of stupidity and corruption here
- What’s the use of economists? here
- There is no soft science only soft brains here
- Is Lars Syll’s stupidity really infinite? here
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder here
- Again and again: economists are incompetent scientists here
- Freedom for fake scientists? here
- Heterodoxy and Pluralism, too, are proto-scientific garbage here
- This is New Economic Thinking? Give me a break! here
- Economists: only good at excuses here
- Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific rubbish here
- Does Asad Zaman fly with POL or SCI Airlines? here
- True macrofoundations: the reset of economics here
- How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum here
- The Law of Economists’ Increasing Stupidity here
- From the pluralism of false models to the true economic theory here
- Review of the economics troops here
- Economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations here
- The non-existence of economics here
- Why not simply throw all economists under the bus? here
- Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses here
- Economics: The pluralism of false theories is over here
- A rough business plan for science here
- The futile synthesis of neoclassical rubbish and Keynesian garbage here
- Economics ― a Zombie wrestling show here
- It is better to be precisely right than roughly wrong here
- Go, Heterodoxy, move on! here
- Prediction/Forecasting here
- Heterodoxy’s scientific self-deception here
- All models are false because all economists are stupid here
- From subjective weighing of motives to objective systemic properties here
- Nothing to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy here
- Eclecticism, anything goes, and the pluralism of false theories here
- Economics: The Battle of Frogs and Mice is over here
- Enough! Economists, retire now! here
- The economist as second-guesser, mind reader, and folk psychologist here
- Ending the economic Froschmäusekrieg a.k.a. Batrachomyomachia here
- The scientific self-elimination of Heterodoxy here
- History delivers the questions but not the answers here
- From proto-science to science here
- Yes, orthodox economics is poor science, but can Heterodoxy raise hope? here
- The pluralism of nonsense is still nonsense here
- Pluralism and the thickness of confusion here
- Pluralism and truth here
- Pluralism and the long shadow of Bentham here
- EconoPhysics and pluralism here
- Reforming economics: Pluralism is not enough here
Related
October 8, 2016
Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics
Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Crash and learn?’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 9 adapted to context
Economists have asserted since Adam Smith/Karl Marx that economics is a science. If this is the case, then Pontus Rendahl is right: “... it would be wrong to teach heterodox theories as though they had equal validity. ‘In the same way, I don’t think heterodox engineering or alternative medicine should be taught’.”
Indeed, science is well-defined: “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, 1994). Heterodoxy does not satisfy the criteria of material/formal consistency. In its current state, it cannot be admitted to science. #1
Pontus Rendahl’s conclusion is right, except for the fact that his tacit premise is false. His tacit premise is that orthodox economics is science. This is NOT the case. Orthodoxy does not satisfy scientific criteria either, but the representative economist simply has not realized it. It is a remarkable fact that each student generation has swallowed the utterly silly supply-demand-equilibrium core model without turning an eyelid for 150+ years.
So, while Heterodoxy cannot be admitted to science, Orthodoxy has to be thrown out of it. This is the situation: there is NO such thing as an economic curriculum that satisfies scientific standards. Economics is still at the proto-scientific level.
When confronted with critique, orthodox economists readily admit some undeniable peripheral weakness with the assertion that the core of economics is sound: “... Diane Coyle also defends the basic methodology of economics. She says there is confusion among critics between microeconomics, the study of the behaviour of individuals and firms, and macroeconomics, the study of whole economies. Macroeconomics, she admits, ‘is broken.’" (See intro)
This is a manifest self-delusion. #2 Microeconomics is built upon this hardcore set of axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub, 1985)
Methodologically, these premises are forever unacceptable. The microeconomic axiom set contains three indefensible NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization HC2, (ii) rational expectations HC4, (iii) equilibrium HC5. Every model that contains only one NONENTITY is a priori false. The discussion of models that contain NONENTITIES is not different from a medieval angels-on-a-pinpoint discussion. And this scientific garbage is the content of peer-reviewed quality journals, textbooks, and, of course, the economics curriculum.
Economics is a failed science, and economists are incompetent scientists. There is NOTHING to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy. Rethinking economics means rising above the proto-scientific level and fully replacing Walrasian microfoundations and Keynes’s flawed macrofoundations with true macrofoundations. #3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific and more details
#2 Just for the record: economics is dead
#3 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Paradigm Shift and cross-references New Curriculum
Related 'Modern macro moronism' and 'Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp' and 'Funny folks in the big omnibus' and 'Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought' and 'From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations (II)' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model' and 'The Cambridge crap curriculum'.
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 9 adapted to context
Economists have asserted since Adam Smith/Karl Marx that economics is a science. If this is the case, then Pontus Rendahl is right: “... it would be wrong to teach heterodox theories as though they had equal validity. ‘In the same way, I don’t think heterodox engineering or alternative medicine should be taught’.”
Indeed, science is well-defined: “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, 1994). Heterodoxy does not satisfy the criteria of material/formal consistency. In its current state, it cannot be admitted to science. #1
Pontus Rendahl’s conclusion is right, except for the fact that his tacit premise is false. His tacit premise is that orthodox economics is science. This is NOT the case. Orthodoxy does not satisfy scientific criteria either, but the representative economist simply has not realized it. It is a remarkable fact that each student generation has swallowed the utterly silly supply-demand-equilibrium core model without turning an eyelid for 150+ years.
So, while Heterodoxy cannot be admitted to science, Orthodoxy has to be thrown out of it. This is the situation: there is NO such thing as an economic curriculum that satisfies scientific standards. Economics is still at the proto-scientific level.
When confronted with critique, orthodox economists readily admit some undeniable peripheral weakness with the assertion that the core of economics is sound: “... Diane Coyle also defends the basic methodology of economics. She says there is confusion among critics between microeconomics, the study of the behaviour of individuals and firms, and macroeconomics, the study of whole economies. Macroeconomics, she admits, ‘is broken.’" (See intro)
This is a manifest self-delusion. #2 Microeconomics is built upon this hardcore set of axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub, 1985)
Methodologically, these premises are forever unacceptable. The microeconomic axiom set contains three indefensible NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization HC2, (ii) rational expectations HC4, (iii) equilibrium HC5. Every model that contains only one NONENTITY is a priori false. The discussion of models that contain NONENTITIES is not different from a medieval angels-on-a-pinpoint discussion. And this scientific garbage is the content of peer-reviewed quality journals, textbooks, and, of course, the economics curriculum.
Economics is a failed science, and economists are incompetent scientists. There is NOTHING to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy. Rethinking economics means rising above the proto-scientific level and fully replacing Walrasian microfoundations and Keynes’s flawed macrofoundations with true macrofoundations. #3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific and more details
#2 Just for the record: economics is dead
#3 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Paradigm Shift and cross-references New Curriculum
Related 'Modern macro moronism' and 'Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp' and 'Funny folks in the big omnibus' and 'Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought' and 'From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations (II)' and 'The canonical macroeconomic model' and 'The Cambridge crap curriculum'.
***
Graphic AXEC121g
November 5, 2023
Occasional Xs: What economists really do (LXX)
#Econ#FailedFakeScience#Spam#Economics is NOT #Science but #DisInfoTainment. The representative #Economist is NOT a #Scientist but a #MediaClown.
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 5, 2023
Links on Diane Coylehttps://t.co/eiCNQEZ2Uh pic.twitter.com/ZOBhp9yuhG
October 10, 2021
Occasional Tweets: Econogenics (II)
What is economics? (II)https://t.co/vKwexD6Npq
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 10, 2021
The GDP-death-blow for the economics professionhttps://t.co/QJycQUh0Uj#FailedScience#FakeScience#CargoCultScience pic.twitter.com/5IA4ZuURRd
For more about econogenics see AXECquery.
For more about Paradigm Shift see AXECquery.
For more about Diane Coyle see AXECquery.
December 23, 2021
Occasional Tweets: Paradigm Shift ― advancing economics from political blather to science
#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth#Reset
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 23, 2021
From false micro to true macro: the new economic Paradigmhttps://t.co/Kquzb9AvrF pic.twitter.com/Hn0D7kxFSD
For details of the big picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.
For more about Diane Coyle see AXECquery.
October 12, 2015
Knowledge only — no opinion
Comment on Diane Coyle on ‘How to be a good economist’
Blog-Reference
Your answer in the post of 12 October: “Well that’s all a matter of opinion.” It is pretty obvious that you never got the salient point of science, which is to get out of the anything-goes-opinion-wish-wash.
“There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter... This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994, pp. 39-40)
For more than 2700 years it is known that science is about knowledge and that politics is about opinion/belief/second-guessing/filibustering. In sum: the bad economist cranks out opinions, and the good economist contributes to knowledge.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Popper, K. R. (1994). The Myth of the Framework. In Defence of Science and Rationality. London, New York: Routledge.
Preceding How to be a good scientist and Time to make economics a science.
Blog-Reference
Your answer in the post of 12 October: “Well that’s all a matter of opinion.” It is pretty obvious that you never got the salient point of science, which is to get out of the anything-goes-opinion-wish-wash.
“There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter... This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994, pp. 39-40)
For more than 2700 years it is known that science is about knowledge and that politics is about opinion/belief/second-guessing/filibustering. In sum: the bad economist cranks out opinions, and the good economist contributes to knowledge.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Popper, K. R. (1994). The Myth of the Framework. In Defence of Science and Rationality. London, New York: Routledge.
Preceding How to be a good scientist and Time to make economics a science.
December 17, 2016
Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes
Comment on Diane Coyle on ‘Rescuing macroeconomics?’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Dec 18 and Blog-Reference on Dec 18
Macroeconomics cannot be rescued ― and certainly not by Roger Farmer’s silly belief function ― because it has already been defunct for 80 years. Farmer writes: “Macroeconomics has taken the wrong path. The error has nothing to do with classical versus New Keynesian approaches. It is a more fundamental error that pervades both.” This is probably the most enlightened sentence in Farmer’s new book.
The fact of the matter is, though, that Roger Farmer does not spot the fundamental error in macroeconomics that pervades all of economics. To see this, one has to go back to Keynes.
Keynes realized that the classical microfoundations approach had led to a cul-de-sac and therefore switched to macrofoundations. This was ― in principle ― the right first step towards a Paradigm Shift, except for the fact that Keynes messed up his macrofoundations. This is why Keynesianism, too, is a failure. #1
The lesson from the history of economic thought is that theoretical economics has to proceed top-down, i.e. from macrofoundations down through intermediate levels (sectors, branches, firms, households) to the individual. What has to be recognized is the methodological insight that NO way leads from the understanding of microeconomic behavior to the understanding of how the monetary economy works. And this explains why the microfoundations approach has been doomed to failure from the very beginning.
What neither Orthodoxy nor Keynes ever understood was profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end, he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al., 2010)
It is pretty obvious that an economist who cannot tell the difference between the fundamental economic magnitudes of profit and income is a laughing stock. This applies to Walrasians and Keynesians of all colors. The Profit Theory is the “more fundamental error” that pervades both microeconomics and macroeconomics.
Rescuing macroeconomics in the correct understanding means a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. This, of course, is entirely beyond the horizon of Roger Farmer.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The unfinished Keynes (I) and How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 Macro for dummies and How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down’
Related 'Keynesianism is broken: Get over it!' and 'Rethinking macro' and 'Macroeconomics: self-delusion and empty promises' and 'The other half plus the hitherto missing true foundations of macroeconomics' and 'The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Profit.
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Dec 18 and Blog-Reference on Dec 18
Macroeconomics cannot be rescued ― and certainly not by Roger Farmer’s silly belief function ― because it has already been defunct for 80 years. Farmer writes: “Macroeconomics has taken the wrong path. The error has nothing to do with classical versus New Keynesian approaches. It is a more fundamental error that pervades both.” This is probably the most enlightened sentence in Farmer’s new book.
The fact of the matter is, though, that Roger Farmer does not spot the fundamental error in macroeconomics that pervades all of economics. To see this, one has to go back to Keynes.
Keynes realized that the classical microfoundations approach had led to a cul-de-sac and therefore switched to macrofoundations. This was ― in principle ― the right first step towards a Paradigm Shift, except for the fact that Keynes messed up his macrofoundations. This is why Keynesianism, too, is a failure. #1
The lesson from the history of economic thought is that theoretical economics has to proceed top-down, i.e. from macrofoundations down through intermediate levels (sectors, branches, firms, households) to the individual. What has to be recognized is the methodological insight that NO way leads from the understanding of microeconomic behavior to the understanding of how the monetary economy works. And this explains why the microfoundations approach has been doomed to failure from the very beginning.
What neither Orthodoxy nor Keynes ever understood was profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end, he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al., 2010)
It is pretty obvious that an economist who cannot tell the difference between the fundamental economic magnitudes of profit and income is a laughing stock. This applies to Walrasians and Keynesians of all colors. The Profit Theory is the “more fundamental error” that pervades both microeconomics and macroeconomics.
Rescuing macroeconomics in the correct understanding means a Paradigm Shift from false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations. This, of course, is entirely beyond the horizon of Roger Farmer.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The unfinished Keynes (I) and How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 Macro for dummies and How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down’
Related 'Keynesianism is broken: Get over it!' and 'Rethinking macro' and 'Macroeconomics: self-delusion and empty promises' and 'The other half plus the hitherto missing true foundations of macroeconomics' and 'The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false' and 'Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is' and 'Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Keynesianism and cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Profit.
***
AXEC121g
January 10, 2017
Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom
Comment on Tim Taylor on ‘Narrative Economics and the Laffer Curve’
Blog-Reference
Tim Taylor summarizes, “Shiller’s broad point was that the key distinguishing trait of human beings may be that we organize what we know in the form of stories.”
This is slightly incorrect. It is morons who can only grasp stories; human beings in the full sense organize knowledge in the form of scientific theories. This is known since the ancient Greeks introduced the distinction between opinion (= doxa) and knowledge (= episteme). The fact of the matter is that ― as a rule of thumb ― one per cent of a population fits the description of a scientist = human being.
Obviously, Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor are 2700+ years behind the curve: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994)
Plausible myth, narrative, hearsay, story, and common sense are simply euphemisms for proto-scientific garbage.
The average person dislikes an objective explanation (e.g. the thunderbolt is an electromagnetic phenomenon subject to physical laws) and likes a subjective explanation (e.g. Zeus threw the thunderbolt because he was angry/vengeful/authoritarian). The scientific explanation takes the form of a theory, and the non-scientific explanation takes the form of an emotionally reinforced narrative. Almost all societal communication consists of storytelling/blather/wish-wash/truisms/BS, and only a tiny part has scientific content.
Economics claims to be a science, yet it has never risen above the level of storytelling. What we have is the narrative of how the Invisible Hand of supply-demand-equilibrium (S-D-E) turns all to the best ― in the long run. Note well that in 200+ years, NO proof of this claim has been presented. General equilibrium theory is one of the worst failures in the history of scientific thought.
Within the tiny box of folk psychology, folk sociology, folk history, and folk politics, economic storytelling has taken place since Adam Smith: “Smith ... disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter)
Storytelling is the natural form of communication of confused confusers, and the sitcom is the format the general public wants economics to be presented in. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism survive only as social narratives and not as scientifically valid representations of reality.
Storytelling is not prohibited, of course, but there is no place for storytellers in the sciences. So, both orthodox and heterodox economic storytellers have to leave economics now for good because of proven scientific incompetence. This includes Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor.
It is the task of the economist as a scientist to figure out how the economy works and NOT to appear in sitcoms and spoon-feed morons with silly narratives.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Economics for philosophers' and 'The market economy is inherently unstable and economists never grasped it' and 'The economist as storyteller' and 'If You Meet the Storyteller on the Road, Kill Him' and 'The monstrous utility-supply-demand-equilibrium failure' and 'Economics and the weapons of mass distraction' and 'How to creatively destruct Orthodoxy' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig' and 'Economics: communication without content' and 'Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'Links on Diane Coyle' and 'What’s the trouble with some Canadian economists?' and 'Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump'.
Blog-Reference
Tim Taylor summarizes, “Shiller’s broad point was that the key distinguishing trait of human beings may be that we organize what we know in the form of stories.”
This is slightly incorrect. It is morons who can only grasp stories; human beings in the full sense organize knowledge in the form of scientific theories. This is known since the ancient Greeks introduced the distinction between opinion (= doxa) and knowledge (= episteme). The fact of the matter is that ― as a rule of thumb ― one per cent of a population fits the description of a scientist = human being.
Obviously, Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor are 2700+ years behind the curve: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994)
Plausible myth, narrative, hearsay, story, and common sense are simply euphemisms for proto-scientific garbage.
The average person dislikes an objective explanation (e.g. the thunderbolt is an electromagnetic phenomenon subject to physical laws) and likes a subjective explanation (e.g. Zeus threw the thunderbolt because he was angry/vengeful/authoritarian). The scientific explanation takes the form of a theory, and the non-scientific explanation takes the form of an emotionally reinforced narrative. Almost all societal communication consists of storytelling/blather/wish-wash/truisms/BS, and only a tiny part has scientific content.
Economics claims to be a science, yet it has never risen above the level of storytelling. What we have is the narrative of how the Invisible Hand of supply-demand-equilibrium (S-D-E) turns all to the best ― in the long run. Note well that in 200+ years, NO proof of this claim has been presented. General equilibrium theory is one of the worst failures in the history of scientific thought.
Within the tiny box of folk psychology, folk sociology, folk history, and folk politics, economic storytelling has taken place since Adam Smith: “Smith ... disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter)
Storytelling is the natural form of communication of confused confusers, and the sitcom is the format the general public wants economics to be presented in. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism survive only as social narratives and not as scientifically valid representations of reality.
Storytelling is not prohibited, of course, but there is no place for storytellers in the sciences. So, both orthodox and heterodox economic storytellers have to leave economics now for good because of proven scientific incompetence. This includes Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor.
It is the task of the economist as a scientist to figure out how the economy works and NOT to appear in sitcoms and spoon-feed morons with silly narratives.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Economics for philosophers' and 'The market economy is inherently unstable and economists never grasped it' and 'The economist as storyteller' and 'If You Meet the Storyteller on the Road, Kill Him' and 'The monstrous utility-supply-demand-equilibrium failure' and 'Economics and the weapons of mass distraction' and 'How to creatively destruct Orthodoxy' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig' and 'Economics: communication without content' and 'Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'Links on Diane Coyle' and 'What’s the trouble with some Canadian economists?' and 'Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump'.
***
World Economic Forum, Dec 5, 2021, Bruce Wydick, How narratives influence human behaviour
***
Graphic AXEC108l
March 3, 2023
Occasional Tweets: The use of pets and other emotional triggers in Political Economics
#Economics#FailedFakeScience#DisInfoTainment
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 3, 2023
Reminder: #Economists who parade their cats, dogs, & other pets on #EconTwitter have NO idea what #Science is all about but are #AgendaPushers / #Clowns in the political #CircusMaximus. pic.twitter.com/8GnHiHIlVh
For more about disinfotainment see AXECquery.
For more about Diane Coyle see AXECquery.
October 4, 2015
How to be a good scientist
Comment on Diane Coyle on ‘How to be a good economist’
Blog-Reference
Towards the end of his book, Rodrik gives a summary for non-economists: “maths is useful; economists are not all alike; economists typically do understand how markets work.” (See intro)
While the triviality of the first two items is unsurpassable, the third assertion is simply false. Economics is a failed science and the representative economist can until this very day not tell the difference between profit and income. Because they do not understand what profit is, economists do not understand how the market system works (2015). Most of them have not yet realized that supply-demand-equilibrium is a ridiculous construct.
It is of utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics.
(i) The goal of political economics is to push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to explain how the actual economy works and nothing else.
(ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, scientific standards are observed.
Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false. The history of political economics, on the other hand, can be summarized as good/bad-moralizing and the perpetual violation of well-defined scientific standards.
The fact of the matter is that theoretical economics has since Adam Smith been dominated by the agenda pushers of political economics which can be characterized by three common traits.
(i) They are mainly occupied with sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, history, etcetera. By dabbling in the so-called social sciences they miss the core of the subject matter, that is, the objective properties of the economic system.
(ii) They use theoretical economics as a means/support for their agenda. By this, they abuse science.
(iii) As far as they have tried to underpin their agenda theoretically it can be rigorously demonstrated in each case that their approaches lack formal and material consistency.
Political economists are incompetent scientists and, by the same token, bad economists.
“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion. (Stigum, 1991, p. 30)
Economists lack the true theory. Eclecticism is not a merit in science. Just the contrary: a heap of loosely connected and contradicting models is the very proof of failure. Rodrik defends the indefensible. A good scientist would not do this.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Related 'Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics' and 'Knowledge only — no opinion'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Methodology.
Blog-Reference
Towards the end of his book, Rodrik gives a summary for non-economists: “maths is useful; economists are not all alike; economists typically do understand how markets work.” (See intro)
While the triviality of the first two items is unsurpassable, the third assertion is simply false. Economics is a failed science and the representative economist can until this very day not tell the difference between profit and income. Because they do not understand what profit is, economists do not understand how the market system works (2015). Most of them have not yet realized that supply-demand-equilibrium is a ridiculous construct.
It is of utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics.
(i) The goal of political economics is to push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to explain how the actual economy works and nothing else.
(ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, scientific standards are observed.
Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false. The history of political economics, on the other hand, can be summarized as good/bad-moralizing and the perpetual violation of well-defined scientific standards.
The fact of the matter is that theoretical economics has since Adam Smith been dominated by the agenda pushers of political economics which can be characterized by three common traits.
(i) They are mainly occupied with sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, history, etcetera. By dabbling in the so-called social sciences they miss the core of the subject matter, that is, the objective properties of the economic system.
(ii) They use theoretical economics as a means/support for their agenda. By this, they abuse science.
(iii) As far as they have tried to underpin their agenda theoretically it can be rigorously demonstrated in each case that their approaches lack formal and material consistency.
Political economists are incompetent scientists and, by the same token, bad economists.
“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion. (Stigum, 1991, p. 30)
Economists lack the true theory. Eclecticism is not a merit in science. Just the contrary: a heap of loosely connected and contradicting models is the very proof of failure. Rodrik defends the indefensible. A good scientist would not do this.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Related 'Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: The perennial misery of economics' and 'Knowledge only — no opinion'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Methodology.
November 30, 2015
Failed/Fake Scientists: cross-references
Posts
- The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession
- The tragedy of economics: stupid/corrupt economists
- No False-Hero-Memorials (II)
- MMT: fraudsters united
- All behavior-based economic textbooks are false
- Disgrace again ― is economics really that bad?
- Economists can hardly wait for their burial at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery
- Economics is a disgrace ― now more than ever
- Economics is a disgrace
- The question economists could not answer for 200+ years
- #HallOfScientificShame
- Economists: at the end of the wrong track
- Failed economics and the losers’ closed circle of mutual promotion
- Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?
- Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing
- MMTers: too stupid for simple math
- Mindfuck or the Eternal Return of dead economic theories
- There are NO crank scientists in economics because economics is NOT a science
- Economics: Not a pretty story
- Economics, MMT, and the corruption of science
- Mainstream vs MMT ― another clown show
- Mission accomplished: Economists as useful idiots of the Oligarchy
- Economics ― the science that never was
- Get it econ suckers: behavioral microfoundations ⇒ false, systemic macrofoundations ⇒ true
- Economics, philosophy, and the crapification of science
- Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens
- Scrap the EconNobel
- Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind
- Links on Karl Marx
- No False-Hero-Memorials (I)
- Bill Mitchell’s dishonorable discharge from the sciences
- Links on Diane Coyle
- Links on Alfred Marshall
- Stephanie Kelton: MMT’s public farce
- The apocalypse of stupidity
- Bill Mitchell ― Wall Street’s hitman keeps an eye on MMT defeatists
- The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy
- Profit analysis ― another exercise in economic deception
- Lars Syll ― a particularly stupid/corrupt fake scientist
- Asad Zaman marches with the Zeitgeist down a blind alley
- How to spot economics trolls
- How incompetent are economic methodologists? Very!
- MMT and the woes of useful political idiots
- Econ 101: Economists flunk the intelligence test at the first hurdle
- Macro ignorance: Why Simon Wren-Lewis does not come to grips with the plain MMT-fraud
- Are economics professors really that incompetent? Yes!
- G. L. S. Shackle: Not such a #GreatThinker
- Thomas Sargent, fake scientist
- Links on Michael Roberts’ ‘Keynes: socialist, liberal, or conservative?’
- Stephanie Kelton sells children into debt slavery
- Finally, the embarrassment of economics is over
- Links on McKinsey’s ‘A new look at the declining labor share of income in the United States’
- You know you are in the political Circus Maximus when economists talk about Democracy or Liberty
- Economists’ silly kindergarten games
- Economics debate ― just another variant of hardcore wrestling
- Economics a science? Surely you are joking, Mr. Cochrane
- Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage
- Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times
- Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is
- Links on ‘Who are You Calling Chumps?’
- Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
- Heterodox economics ― stupidity, masochism, or disinformation?
- The CCC ― a monument of economists’ utter scientific incompetence
- Yes, economists are really that stupid
- How a Swedish professor cares about the Oligarchy’s financial well-being
- From Keynes’ fatal blunder to the true economic model
- Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers
- Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT fund private savings
- Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”
- The public-debt and private-profit pushers
- To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards
- Economics: The proto-scientific mob embroiled in just another gang war
- The retirement of a fake scientist and real agenda pusher
- Links on capital-T Truth, stupidity, corruption
- Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook
- The clock runs down on economics
- Austrians, too, are either stupid or corrupt or both
- Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk
- Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both
- Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (II)
- Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard
- Economics as a cover for agenda pushing
- What it takes to become a great economist
- Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong
- Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science
- Who is really a scientist?
- Economists/MMTers: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors
- Fraud comes always in the cloak of charity, salvation, or threat of doom
- What and where is profit?
- A clueless MMTer explains macroeconomics to clueless beginners
- Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
- Here is the long overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists
- There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”
- Profit and macrofoundations
- What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong?
- MMT: From science to agenda-pushing to story-telling to fraud
- Warren Mosler: scientific dilettante and political fraudster
- False economic theory makes bad economic policy
- Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
- Econogenics in action
- Economics: A failed/fake science for 200+ years
- The end of political economics (II)
- Trust in economics as a science?
- #DrainTheScientificSwamp
- The failure of Post-Keynesianism
- MMT sucks
- MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople
- Economists: Time to say goodbye
- Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show
- Fake religion, fake science, fake news, and false complaints
- Macroeconomics: Drain the scientific swamp
- MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy
- Kalecki and Keynes: The double macroeconomic false start
- Keynes, Kalecki, MMT, and the accidental invention of the perpetual profit machine
- Economics should never be a substitute for thinking
- More on economists’ sticky brains
- Oxford economics — still at the proto-scientific level
- MMT and the overall political corruption of economics
- Where economics went wrong (II)
- If we only had classes
- Legitimacy lost
- Heterodox economics: When stupidity becomes a public danger
- Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit
- Both Mainstreamer and MMTer are either stupid or corrupt or both
- MMT and the single most stupid physicist
- Economists simply don’t get it
- Lock them up
- The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists
- The economist as useful political idiot
- MMT, Bill Mitchell, and the lack of basic scientific integrity
- Economics, too, is pre-truth
- Economics: Math is NOT the problem, scientific incompetence is
- The Magic Money Tree is real ― too bad that the magic is fraud
- The present non-existence of economics
- What’s the use of economists?
- The inexorable paradigm shift in economics
- There is no soft science only soft brains
- Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
- And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization
- MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud
- The Kelton-Fraud
- Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled
- Wrapping up the MMT narrative
- Nick Rowe’s soapbubbling about money
- Richard Murphy: the MMT fraudster dressed up as realist
- Is Lars Syll’s stupidity really infinite?
- The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false
- Austerity and the political games Progressives play
- Both orthodox and heterodox economists are cargo cult scientists
- How MMT enlightens Washington
- Marx’s bicentennial ― nothing to discuss, nothing to celebrate
- 200 years in the dark ― how Marx got it wrong
- Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it!
- Why is economics a total scientific failure?
- Profit and the Private-Property-Irrelevance Theorem
- Profit: after 200+ years still elusive
- Neoclassical growth theory: modeling gone nuts
- Economics between misguided and lethal critique
- Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics
- Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics
- Economics is NOT about what Happiness is but about what Profit is
- Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole
- MMT is dead: An unfriendly critique of Bill Mitchell
- Bill Mitchell, MMT’s fake scientist
- Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading
- Forget Keynes
- Ricardo and the invention of class war
- Ricardo, too, got profit theory wrong
- Economics: a comedy of errors full of intrigue and aberration
- Econblogosphere: The flawed Top 101
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Lars Syll’s spam folder
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Bill Mitchell’s spam folder
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder
- Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder
- Time to retire political economists
- Lars Syll, fake scientist
- MMT = proto-scientific garbage + deception of the 99-percenters
- Keynes’ intellectual nonexistence
- Dani Rodrik, fake scientist
- The economist as amateur journalist
- Rethinking the Phillips curve (II)
- Lethal criticism of economics? Here it is!
- Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation
- Everything you know about MMT is wrong
- Economists understand neither Capitalism nor Socialism
- Why does Heterodoxy not abolish the fake Nobel?
- The economics Cargo Cult Prize
- Saving NEVER equals investment
- Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation
- John Hicks, fake scientist
- Forget Friedman, forget the Quantity Theory
- The Death of Keynesianism
- Robert Solow and Lars Syll, fake scientists
- Karl Marx, fake scientist
- Barkley Rosser, fake scientist
- Sending Solow’s growth model to the dump of proto-scientific history
- The five pathetic blunders of Roger Farmer
- Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent
- Milton Friedman, fake scientist
- Refutation of Asad Zaman’s heterodox methodology
- Forget Friedman, forget Keynes
- Forget Hayek
- You are fired!
- Don Lars and the axiomatic windmill
- Marginal madness
- Marx, the moron
- Note on Marshall's Magic Wand
- Macro imbeciles
- Hayek and other informationally retarded proto-economists
- The Krugman curse
- How Arrow pushed economics over the cliff
- Leaving Lucas behind for good
- Walras, Keynes, Samuelson, DSGE, IS-LM ― R.I.P.
- The key to macro and Keen's debt-employment model
- Paul the Menace
- Macroeconomics without Keynes
- Friedman and the cluelessness of fake scientists
- Delusions of useful idiots
- Say hello to Lars Syll, Keynes’s last parrot
- Will economics ever become a science?
- Let Keynes rest in peace
- Why Hayek was not a scientist
- The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa
- Macroeconomics ― dead since Keynes
- Ground Control to David Glasner
- Nick Rowe: Bury me at the end of coal pit
- Who or what exactly did Keynes save?
- Economists: The Trumps of science
- The economist as standup comedian
- There is NO such thing as an economic expert
- The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
- Tobin, the tragedy of After-Keynesians, and the indelible mark of incompetence
- How economists murdered the economy and got away with it
- Economics: a science without scientists
- Hobson got full employment policy almost right
- Wicksell’s misplaced critique of mathematics
- New Economic Thinking ― false promises and hopes
- The bigots of common sense
- A basket of scientific deplorables
- The choice between Friedmanian pest and Keynesian cholera
- How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
- Solow and the ludicrousness of economics
- Out of science
- Scientists and science actors
- Soapbox economics
- Marshall and the Cambridge school of plain economic gibberish
- The end of traditional Heterodoxy in the Malmö coal pit
- Economists: No legitimacy whatever
- Krugman is not an economist
- Sumner’s proto-scientific garbage
- Samuelson or Who is the smartest smartie?
- Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy
- The unfinished Keynes (III)
- Economics: The chief demerit is inconsistency
- Enough! Economists, retire now!
- What’s wrong with Econ 101? Economists, of course!
- Economics is locked in idiocy: How could this happen?
- Forget Chicago, and also Cambridge
- Keynes, the methodologist
- The scientific self-elimination of Heterodoxy
- False theory makes wrong policy: economics as loose cannon
- The mad flip-floppers
- Cranks? What cranks? That’s economics!
- What Keynes really meant but could not really prove
- Hayek, or, How economists miss their subject matter for 200+ years
- Keynes, too, got the general theory of employment wrong
- A science without scientists
- Mathiness is NOT the problem — scientific incompetence is
- Indeed, Keynesianism and Monetarism are basically the same proto-scientific garbage
- Austrian blather
- Stanley Fischer: Rewarding scientific incompetence
- Hayek was not an economist
- Lucas: Confession of a scientific write-off
- Finalizing the Keynesian Revolution
- Lawson’s fundamental methodological error and the failure of Heterodoxy
- Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics
- Wren-Lewis’s methodological double whammy
- Incompetence — the original sin in economics
- End of a storyteller
- Lousy scientists
- Is Paul Krugman necessary?
- Economics as a fool’s paradise
- Fundamentally flawed
- Heterodoxy, too, is proto-scientific garbage
Related Cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption and cross-references Paradigm Shift.
***
AXEC123d
***
Twitter Dec 10, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)