This blog connects to the AXEC Project which applies a superior method of economic analysis. The following comments have been posted on selected blogs as catalysts for the ongoing Paradigm Shift. The comments are brought together here for information. The full debates are directly accessible via the Blog-References. Scrap the lot and start again―that is what a Paradigm Shift is all about. Time to make economics a science.
February 12, 2021
Do economists finally wake up from their methodological delirium?
September 17, 2016
Micro and macro inconsistency
Blog-Reference
“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, p. 31)
Economics is a failed science because Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are provably inconsistent. This includes Godley’s and Lavoie’s approach. More precisely, Godley’s and Lavoie’s program ― the integrated approach to credit, money, income, production, and wealth ― is basically correct, but at some point, an inconsistency slipped in, and that happened exactly in Section 8.2, p. 262 (Godley et al., 2007).
The inconsistency relates to the definitions of profit (monetary, nonmonetary), distributed profit, retained profit, total income, and the definition of total saving (monetary, nonmonetary). Roughly speaking, monetary profit results from objectively measurable market transactions, nonmonetary profit results from the highly subjective valuation of assets, and these are totally different things (2011b).
The problem of the accounting approach is twofold: (i) as a rule, economists do not understand the elementary mathematics that underlies accounting, which leads to an inconsistent definition of total income and GDP (2012), (ii) the approach is axiomatically incomplete because it defines only the relationships of nominal variables.
All purely nominal models, as well as all purely real models, are false because the economy constitutes itself through the interaction of real AND nominal variables. Therefore, the methodologically correct framework is given by — what Keynes called — the ‘monetary theory of production’.
The overall failure of economics lies in the fact that economists argue from false premises/axioms, that is, Walrasianism in all shapes and forms (DSGE, RBC, AD/AS, etc.) argues from forever unacceptable microfoundations, and Keynesianism in all shapes and forms argues from false macrofoundations. To get out of failed economics requires nothing less than a Paradigm Shift from inconsistent to consistent foundations/axioms.
The correct macrofoundations are shown under the label AXEC137b.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Godley, W., and Lavoie, M. (2007). Monetary Economics. An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income and Wealth. Houndmills, Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011a). The Emergence of Profit and Interest in the Monetary Circuit. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1973952: 1–22. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011b). Primary and Secondary Markets. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1917012: 1–26. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2124415: 1–23. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
December 16, 2015
It is shrinking debt which eventually explodes the market economy
Blog-Reference
You are right, of course, in summarizing that representative agent models are worse than dilettantish. How anybody at the IMF could ever have taken this stuff seriously is a mystery. What can be observed with the naked eye is what you call a ‘failure of the instincts of many economists and others’.
You are right, of course, to point out that Godley and Lavoie’s approach is the correct one and that every economic model has to satisfy stock-flow consistency. There can be absolutely no doubt and no discussion about this. The two well-known criteria of science are formal and material consistency.
The sad fact is that there is a logical flaw in how Godley and Lavoie define stock-flow consistency. To be precise, the fundamental error/mistake is to be found on page 8: “Over any accounting period expenditure has to be equal to income and, as a consequence in a simple model investment must be equal to savings.”
This blunder goes back to Keynes, and After-Keynesians have not realized until this very day that Keynes had messed up the formal foundations of the General Theory with this simple syllogism “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (1973, p. 63)
The fatal flaw of Keynes’s and Godley/Lavoie’s approach is that the underlying profit theory is false (2011). And it should be beyond doubt that if one gets the pivotal concept of economics wrong, all the rest of one’s theory is vacuous, to say the least. For the rectification of the accounting approach, see (2012).
From this follows that your treatment of the debt problem is not substantially better than what standard economics has delivered. The real crux of the debt problem lies in the stock-flow relationship between the change of debt (household sector and government sector) and overall profit/loss of the business sector, and that means that the market economy breaks down as soon as overall household and government sector’s debt is redeemed (2014; 2013).
The present state of economics is that neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy has an idea of how the market economy works.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2124415: 1–23. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Redemption and Depression. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2343561: 1–28. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2375578: 1–21. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes Vol. VII. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
For details of the big picture, see cross-references Refutation I=S.
Your profit equation (6) is false, and because profit is the pivotal concept in economics, it holds without exception: if profit is ill-defined, the whole theoretical superstructure falls apart.
For details, see the related comment on David R. Richardson’s RWER No 73 article ‘What does “too much government debt” mean in a stock-flow consistent model?’ here.
For the comprehensive critique of the ubiquitous profit blunder and its final rectification, see How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down.
You maintain: “You can’t say it’s false, because it’s no more than a definition.” This is what Humpty Dumpty always said — and it is pure methodological nonsense. See The Humpty Dumpty methodology and Humpty Dumpty is back again.
There is no such thing as freedom of definition. This freedom is restricted by the requirement of consistency. Logical consistency, though, has never been a strong point of economists. For more on scientific incompetence, see cross-references Scientific Incompetence.
So, indeed, I can say it is false because it is provably false. No room for the usual wish-wash.
The common usage, including SNA, is provably false as demonstrated in The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approach.
Your appeal to authority is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that ‘the EC, the IMF, the OECD, the UN, and the World Bank’ employ Humpty Dumpty economists who even messed up the elementary mathematics of accounting. Ever wondered why economics never got above the level of silly model bricolage?
March 2, 2019
MMT-Refutation for Dummies
Blog-Reference
Albert Edwards sets the frame: “MMT’s adherents often sell MMT as a prescriptive school of thought rather than a descriptive one. They come out of the gate with all sorts of big spending policy proposals, they say are based on MMT. …
People need to understand how the economics fits together first. Then they can buy into the prescriptions. And even then, they may not buy the policy prescriptions MMT adherents hawk. For me, MMT is not about policy prescriptions, it’s about a description of how an advanced economy works for a fiat currency issuer.”
True. The problem is that MMTers do not know how the economy works. More precisely, they get the interaction of the macroeconomic balances wrong. The lethal blunder is in Wynne Godley’s contribution to MMT.
The FT’s Martin Wolf explained Godley’s insight this way…: “I look at this through the lens of ‘sectoral financial balances’, an analytical framework learned from the work of the late Wynne Godley. The essential idea is that since income has to equal expenditure for the economy, as a whole (which is the same thing as saying that savings equals investment) so the sums of the difference between income and expenditures of each of the sectors of the economy must also be zero. These differences can also be described as ‘financial balances’. Thus, if a sector is spending less than its income it must be accumulating (net) claims on other sectors.
The crucial point is that, since sectoral balances must sum to zero, a rise in the deficit of one sector must be matched by an offsetting change in the others. It follows that if the fiscal deficit is increasing, the sum of the surpluses of the other sectors of the economy must be increasing in a precisely offsetting manner.”
Here is the short proof that economists in general and MMTers, in particular, get the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics wrong.
(i) The elementary production-consumption economy is given by three macroeconomic axioms: (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.
(ii) The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e., X=O.
(iii) The monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw,
(iv) The monetary saving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C.
(v) Ergo Q≡−S.
The balances add up to zero. The counterpart of household sector saving S is business sector loss −Q. The counterpart of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Both Q and S are measurable with the precision of two decimal places.
For the elementary investment economy, it holds Q≡I−S.
For the elementary investment economy, plus government holds Q≡(I−S)+(G−T).
From this follows that (1) saving and investment are causally INDEPENDENT and NEVER equal, (2) all I=S/IS-LM models are false since Keynes/Hicks, (3) Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, New Keynesianism and all variants are scientifically worthless, (4) the foundational MMT sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 is false because it lacks the balance of the business sector Q, (5) because profit is false, the whole of MMT is false, (6) because the theory is false, MMT policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations. #1
This also holds for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and all their variants. Because of this, all economic policy debates are devoid of sense.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* Credit Writedowns
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT
Related 'Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk' and 'Schizonomics' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'The demise of phony experts: macroeconomics is provably false' and 'There is NO such thing as an economic expert' and 'Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show' and 'Down with idiocy!' and 'Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?'.
November 29, 2025
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (LXII)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 29, 2025
“Lemma 2 (Kalecki–Godley Equivalence under Endogenous Credit)” (James Young)
The Kalecki–Godley Equivalence is provably false. ⇓
For details, see the working paper
The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money {78a}https://t.co/x4NOcsCBMS
November 17, 2025
Occasional X: Time to get the axioms of economics right (VI)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 17, 2025
“Why DSGE and NK Models Cannot Recover the Kalecki–Godley Identity ... they cannot reproduce the equivalence Kalecki (profits)=Godley (financing).” (James Young)
Almost true. But from the fact that DSGE/NK is proto-scientific garbage does not follow…
April 20, 2021
MMT has been conclusively refuted and MMTers can do NOTHING about it
- ad Keynes: Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing? Section Provably false/Keynes
- ad Kelton: The page where Stephanie Kelton gets macroeconomics wrong
- ad Mitchell: Proving Bill Mitchell wrong ― burying MMT for good
- ad Mitchell: MMT is dead: An unfriendly critique of Bill Mitchell
- ad Mosler: MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
- ad Keen: MMT: fraudsters united
- ad Wray: MMT: Agenda-pushing and money-making for the Oligarchy
- ad Godley: Do economists finally wake up from their methodological delirium?
- ad Kalecki: MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud
- ad Minsky: Profit is the key
- ad Textbook: Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook
- Where MMT got macro wrong
- MMT-Refutation for Dummies
- Quick MMT 101 refutation
- MMT refuted in three easy steps
- Refutation of MMT: All proofs and arguments you ever need
- For details of the big picture, see cross-references MMT
- MMT is refuted ― end of story.
December 31, 2025
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCXXV)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) December 31, 2025
1 Godley's equations
The representative economist NEVER understood profit/income and, by consequence, how the economic system works. Godley's system of equations is provably false.
For details, see the paper ⇒
The common error of common sense: an… pic.twitter.com/RUkixOdWeJ
December 29, 2025
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Godley (I)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) December 29, 2025
“Godley showed that capitalism has a syntax; balance-sheet — and once you see it, equilibrium cannot even be conjugated.” (Beyan.D)
The representative economist NEVER understood profit/income and, by consequence, how the economic system works.…
December 10, 2018
MMT: Time to say goodbye
Blog-Reference
The case against MMT is settled. MMT does NOT satisfy the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency. It is faulty macroeconomics and, as a consequence, bad politics.
The macroeconomic Profit Law reads Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) and has been derived from consistent macrofoundations a.k.a. axioms. The Law is testable with the precision of two decimal places. With regard to the government’s budget, the Profit Law boils down to Public Deficit = Private Profit. This piece of pure economic analysis translates into the scientific insight that the MMT sectoral balances equation is false and into the political insight that MMT’s policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is nothing but a free lunch for the Oligarchy. In other words, that “progressive” MMT policy is a political fraud.
Conclusion: Because MMT is provably false and its proponents are either stupid or corrupt or both, MMT has to be expelled from science/academia. Its proper habitat is the political swamp.
More is not to say about MMT, but Clint Ballinger cannot understand or accept this unassailable conclusion. So, he goes off-topic.
(i) “Egmont’s entire tower of babble (his own) is built around his ‘pure consumption economy’. This model is (extremely) simplified …”
In fact, the elementary production-consumption economy is the simplest possible macroeconomic configuration. ALL economic analysis has to start from the absolute analytical minimum and then proceed with ever-increasing complexity. This methodological procedure is standard for more than 2300 years: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle)
The elementary production-consumption economy is SUFFICIENT to prove that the MMT sectoral balances equation is false. #1, #2 This means that MMT is scientifically dead already at the most elementary level.
From methodology, everyone could know: “In fact, the history of every science, including that of economics, teaches us that the elementary is the hotbed of the errors that count most.” (Georgescu-Roegen)
Because MMT is axiomatically false, the whole analytical superstructure is false. So, there is NO NEED to refute every MMT argument individually. If the premises are false, the whole theory is dead. Simple.
(ii) “Egmont states (regarding banking) that “These practical details are not forgotten but can be reintroduced at any time”. And yet he of course never does this.”
This is provably false. Money and banking have been treated extensively in working papers and blog posts, e.g., #3, #4 Any kindergartner can google this.
(iii) “Good economics has gone about as far as is possible in that direction, E.g., (Monetary Economics An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth. Godley W., Lavoie, M. ) By far the most sophisticated and realistic effort in that direction is the ongoing Minsky Project by Steve Keen.”
Godley/Lavoie and Keen have been treated elsewhere and refuted. #5, #6 Any kindergartner can google this.
(iv) “He is better than the neoclassicals here, but only succeeds in creating a simplistic view of the monetary system that does not begin to approach the accuracy of MMT and circuit theory in this regard. He doesn’t seem to fully understand the role and importance of credit-money in the economy, and also believes there is a ‘fractional reserve system’ (there is not), which further implies a belief in loanable funds (another fallacy).
This is provably false. I “believe” neither in the fractional reserve system nor the loanable funds theory. #7, #8 Any kindergartner can google this.
In this style, it goes on. In the main, Clint Ballinger plays the silly rhetorical game of abstraction vs realism. This does not work. #9, #10 With their description of operational details, which MMT’s chief realist Warren Mosler trumpets as MMT’s chief merit, MMTers never got above the level of an information brochure of the FED’s PR department. Monetary Theory, though, deals with the function and effects of money in the economy as a whole. Monetary theory presupposes macroeconomics. And the fact of the matter is that MMT gets the foundational macroeconomic relations wrong. The lengthy description of the organizational details of Treasury/Central Bank operations cannot make up for the theoretical blunders. MMT blindly repeats the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction. #11
When Clint Ballinger’s smokescreen of irrelevant arguments is taken away, the whole issue reduces to the all-decisive question of which of the two macroeconomic relations, a.k.a. sectoral balances equations, is true/false:
(i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 (MMT)
(ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0 (AXEC).
This question can be empirically decided. So, why does the MMT community, which certainly does not lack academics with free access to macroeconomic data and generous support/funding from the ultimate beneficiaries of MMT policy, not carry out this econometric study?
The obvious answer is that the MMT community’s real business is NOT science but quite ordinary political agenda-pushing. THIS is the point at issue, but Clint Ballinger tries to filibuster away the fact that the “End Game Of Modern Monetary Theory” has already been lost.
So, there is nothing left for MMTers in general, and Clint Ballinger, in particular, other than to say goodbye.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Macro for dummies
#2 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism
#3 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Money, Credit, Interest
#4 Reconstructing the Quantity Theory
#5 The Emergence of Profit and Interest in the Monetary Circuit
#6 Where advanced Heterodoxy — represented by Steve Keen — took the wrong turn
#7 Basics of monetary theory: the two monies
#8 Fixing the loanable funds blunder
#9 Richard Murphy: the MMT fraudster dressed up as realist
#10 Bagehot’s wisdom and the silliness of modern economists
#11 Economics and the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction
Immediately preceding Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show
October 3, 2018
MMT: Agenda-pushing and money-making for the Oligarchy
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Randall Wray reports: “Godley taught us about stock-flow consistency and he insisted that all mainstream macroeconomics is incoherent.”
This, of course, is true. MMT’s critique and refutation of mainstream macro and monetary theory are justified in all dimensions. Mainstream economics is dead; however, this does not imply that MMT macro is coherent. Just the opposite: MMT macroeconomics is provably false.
The theory of money has to be embedded in a consistent macroeconomic framework or in what Keynes called the ‘monetary theory of production’. MMT gives a historical account of how money came into existence as a creation of the state. This historical account is not false, but methodologically it is NO substitute for the theory of money, just as the history of the burning of Rome, London, and San Francisco is no substitute for the theory of thermodynamics. #1
Randall Wray claims: “What we do is Macroeconomics. There is no coherent alternative to MMT.” He summarizes under the 9th bullet point: “The government’s debt is our financial asset. This follows from the sectoral balances approach of Wynne Godley. We have to get our macro accounting correct. Minsky always used to tell students: Go home and do the balance sheets because what you are saying is nonsense.”
Unfortunately, MMT’s macroeconomic accounting is provably false. #2, #3, #4 and this makes nonsense of all the rest of what they are saying. #5 In particular, it is just a public/private debt that drives money. #6, #7
In his 10-bullet-point summary of what MMT is all about, Randall Wray forgets completely to mention that because of the macroeconomic Profit Law Public Deficit = Private Profit, which follows from the axiomatically correct sectoral balances equation (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)−(Q−Yd)=0#8, MMT policy boils down to agenda-pushing and money-making for the Oligarchy.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 A historical misunderstanding
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#3 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#4 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT
#5 MMT is dead
#6 The ultimate ― analytical ― origin of money
#7 Money and time
#8 MMT and the single most stupid physicist
Related 'Mission impossible: economists join WeThePeople'.
November 9, 2019
A beginner’s guide to MMT
Own post, no external Blog-Reference
MMT is political agenda-pushing for the benefit of the Oligarchy. Of course, it cannot be sold as such to the general public. Because of this, MMTers apply a double strategy, i.e. they claim (i) that MMT is a better policy for WeThePeople, and (ii), that Modern Monetary Theory is better science compared to mainstream economics.
Both claims are false. MMT theory is proto-scientific garbage just like mainstream economics, and the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation ultimately serves the interests of the Oligarchy. #1
That the Bloomberg article is a propaganda piece that aims at the basket of deplorables is immediately clear from the title “Warren Buffett Hates It. AOC Is for It.” Love and hate are the fundamental categories of politics. The fundamental categories of science are true/false. #2 Science, though, is by definition beyond the deplorables of all walks of life.
With this in mind, the MMT propaganda has to be put straight.
(1) “A good place to start is with a simple description that you can carry in your pocket: MMT proposes that a country with its own currency, such as the U.S., doesn’t have to worry about accumulating too much debt because it can always print more money to pay interest. So the only constraint on spending is inflation, which can break out if the public and private sectors spend too much at the same time. As long as there are enough workers and equipment to meet growing demand without igniting inflation, the government can spend what it needs to maintain employment and achieve goals such as halting climate change.”
What MMT does here is mix two different issues (i) unemployment and (ii) budget allocation. What MMT says is: We can do all the good things, i.e., reduce unemployment, provide healthcare, improve education, save humanity from global warming with deficit-spending/money-creation without inflation and any bad economic consequences for future generations. So, if you agree to the goals, and any good person does, you can also agree to the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation. #3
This argument is incorrect insofar as the lethal effect of MMT policy is NOT on inflation but on distribution today and for future generations. #4, #5 In principle, all the good things people want can be achieved with a balanced government budget. For example, redirect military spending to environmental protection with a given budget and given taxes. Such things, of course, are anathema to MMTers. The devil in the MMT parallel universe is the Swabian Housewife with her Black Zero Budget. #6
(2) “If you’ve absorbed that much, you’re already ahead of a lot of the critics. Because MMT is associated with the Left, some people assume it favors soaking the rich to pay for social programs. In fact, MMT breaks with liberal orthodoxy by saying that while taxes on the wealthy are good for lessening inequality, they aren’t essential to pay for government spending.”
Because MMTers pursue the Oligarchy’s agenda, they are not at all enthusiastic about taxing the rich. #7 They prefer taxing WeThePeople in the indirect form of deficit-spending/ money-creation. #8, #9
(3) “Another misconception is that MMT says deficits never matter.”
Of course, MMTers do not make such silly claims. But strawmen like these are good for endless filibustering and social media trolling
(4) “MMT claims to be the legitimate heir to the theories of Britain’s John Maynard Keynes, who created the field of macroeconomics during the Great Depression.”
True, but Keynes, unfortunately, got macroeconomics badly wrong. MMTers have not realized Keynes’ blunders to this day. #10
(5) “Keynes coined the term ‘paradox of thrift.’ His insight was that while any single household can dig itself out of a hole by cutting spending when its income falls, the economy as a whole cannot. One household’s spending is another’s income, so if everybody cuts back, no one gets paid.”
Half-true. The correct relationship reads Q≡−S, i.e., the household sector’s saving S is equal to the business sector’s loss −Q. Keynes was too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics. His successors are no better.
(6) “In MMT’s reckoning, Keynesianism was gutted in the following decades by successors such as Paul Samuelson, who unrealistically tried to make economics like physics, playing down the role of fundamental uncertainty.”
True. After-Keynesian macro is proto-scientific garbage. #11
(7) “MMT also draws on the ‘functional finance’ work of the Russian-born British economist Abba Lerner, who wrote in the 1940s that government should spend what’s required to achieve its goals, deficits be damned.”
True, except for the fact that Lerner, too, got macro wrong. #12
(8) “Godley developed the concept of sectoral balances, which focuses on the accounting truth that when the government runs a deficit, the nongovernment sector must run a surplus, and vice versa.”
True, except for the fact that Godley got the sectoral balances wrong. #13
(9) “MMT rejects the modern consensus that economies should be steered primarily by the raising and lowering of interest rates. MMTers believe that the natural rate of interest in a world of fiat money is zero and that pegging it higher is a giveaway to the investor class.” and “MMTers argue that economies should be guided by fiscal policy ― government spending and taxation.”
True.
(10) “MMT says that, contrary to appearances, banks don’t make loans out of deposits. Rather, they make loans based on the demand for borrowing, then the borrowers stash the proceeds in the bank. Anyone they write a check to simply makes a deposit in another bank. The bottom line is that loans create deposits rather than deposits creating loans.”
True.
(11) “MMT challenges a core principle of conventional economics, which is that an increase in budget deficits will tend to raise interest rates, all else equal. Just the opposite, it says, sounding a bit like the White Queen from Alice in Wonderland.”
True.
(12) “The reason the government doesn’t need to sell treasury securities, or levy taxes, to spend money is that the central bank, under the control of the treasury, can pay for everything by conjuring up electronic money.”
True, except that this is the wrong way to bring money into the economy. #14
(13) “It’s tempting to view MMT’s conception of fiscal policy as essentially similar to that of the mainstream ‘Hey, they believe in taxes, too!’ ― but that’s not quite right. MMTers hold that inflation isn’t primarily the result of excessively strong growth. They blame much of it on businesses’ excessive pricing power. So before trying to choke off growth to kill inflation, they would try to break up monopolies and stop banks from making too many loans.”
True.
(14) “Summers has been making the case that wealthy nations are suffering from ‘secular stagnation’ and require permanently high levels of stimulative deficit spending by governments to keep them out of recession, which is similar to what MMT argues. Yet in a recent Washington Post op-ed, Summers called MMT ‘fallacious at multiple levels.’”
True, except that nobody can take Larry Summers seriously. #15
(15) “As long as they’re out there claiming that standard macroeconomics is all wrong, I guess we need to respond,” Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate who is a professor at City University of New York Graduate Center, wrote on his New York Times blog.”
True, except that nobody can take Paul Krugman seriously. #16
(16) “MMT’s detractors are skeptical of the idea that the treasury and central bank should work in concert.”
So what? This does not prove that MMT is a false theory or a bad policy.
(17) “Mainstream economists argue that the correct parts of MMT aren’t new and the new parts aren’t correct.”
True, except that mainstream economists are brain-dead blatherers.
(18) “In any case, the new textbook gives MMT a good slingshot. Samuelson, in the preface to the 1990 edition of his best-selling principles book, wrote, “I don’t care who writes a nation’s laws ― or crafts its advanced treaties ― if I can write its economics textbooks.”
True, except that all economics textbooks from Samuelson to MMT are scientifically worthless. #17, #18
(19) “Stephanie Kelton, an MMTer who was the economic adviser on Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign in 2016 and is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, sees the tide turning. In presentations, the Stony Brook University economist likes to flash up a quote that says, essentially: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win.”
Except that Stephanie Kelton is a scientific failure and a political fraudster like the rest of her MMT colleagues. #19
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* Bloomberg Business
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
#2 Love and hate in economics: the PsySoc shell game
#3 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help
#4 Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation
#5 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#6 Swabian housewife vs Wall Street loan shark
#7 MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation
#8 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#9 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
#10 Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind
#11 Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought
#12 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
#13 The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption?
#14 Criminals and the monetary order
#15 Tribalism is NOT the problem of economics
#16 Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk
#17 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#18 Refuting MMT’s Macroeconomics Textbook
#19 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
Related 'Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?' and 'The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy' and 'The decisive reason to worry about government debt' and 'On economists’ stupidity' and 'The state of MMT? Stone-dead!' and 'Q: How are you going to pay for it? MMT: By stealth taxation!'
May 19, 2013
Key Issues: Economic textbooks ― learning without understanding
I often wonder whether other subjects suffer as much from textbook writers. (Hahn, 1980, p. 127)
We all teach our students about optimization, equilibrium, and market efficiency. (Mankiw, 2006, p. 35)
That is, economists have persisted with a model that is theoretically flawed and systematically contradicted by the empirical evidence. (Kirman, 2010, p. 512)It may be distasteful for recently trained economists to admit that there is a lot of silly philosophy underlying ordinary neoclassical economics, but I think such is the case. (Boland, 1992, p. 203)
This is the type of economist that 150 years ago Carlyle caricatured as parrots that only knew the words demand and supply. (Beker, 2012, p. 115)
The existing profit literature is riddled with problems and inconsistencies that have troubled every recent observer; one need only consult any standard text to find the self-contradictory smorgasbord that is served up to students of economics to understand the dimensions of the problem. (Obrinsky, 1981, pp. 491-492), for details see Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist URL
To be quite blunt, all existing ‘lessons’ taught in standard economics texts should be either abandoned or tested empirically, but should never be accepted as a basis for modeling. (McCauley, 2006, pp. 6-7)
If we honestly told students that these are the underlying stories behind the analysis, most of them would ask, "Why are you teaching us this? This is not the way the economy works." (Colander, 1995, p. 178), for the correct account see How to get rid of Supply-Demand-Equilibrium URL or The Structural Price Mechanism URL
A story about Adam Smith, the invisible hand, and the merits of markets pervades introductory textbooks, classroom teaching, and contemporary political discourse. The intellectual foundation of this story rests on general equilibrium, not on the latest mathematical excursions. (Ackerman, 2004, p. 21)
The fact that it has not been possible to build a process for the formation of equilibrium prices is disastrous when it is recalled that the fundamental task of theory is precisely to make coordination in the market intelligible. (Benetti and Cartelier, 1997, p. 213), for error correction see The Ideal Economy URL
At long last, it can be said that the history of general equilibrium theory from Walras to Arrow-Debreu has been a journey down a blind alley, and it is historians of economic thought who seem to have finally hammered down the nails in this coffin. (Blaug, 2001, p. 160)
The standard textbook introduces macroeconomic concepts via the national income identity. Thus total production, or gross domestic product (GDP), is defined as the sum of all expenditures on goods and services or, alternatively, as the sum of all incomes paid for the production of goods and services. (Godley and Lavoie, 2007, p. 4), for the correction see The Common Error of Common Sense URL
To this day, the IS-LM model remains the interpretation of Keynes offered in the most widely used intermediate-level macroeconomics textbooks. (Mankiw, 2006, p. 31), for error correction see Why Post-Keynesianism is not Yet a Science URL and Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It URL
This dynamic adjustment story may or may not be true; in its simple form, it is believed by only a few economists. We taught it nonetheless because, given the assumptions, it is a logically consistent story, and for most students, it meets the "Yeah, it makes sense" criterion. (Colander, 1995, pp. 169-170)
Even "dirty pedagogy" should be internally consistent. It can be exceedingly vague, but it should not be logically wrong as the standard AS/AD model is. Teaching the standard inconsistent model discourages students from questioning the workings of the model. That may not bother those students who are interested in getting their grade and getting out of the course. But it decidedly turns off the good students, the ones we all want to encourage. (Colander, 1995, p. 179)
What is sadly lacking from all these articles ... is theory. Indeed, most of the analyses would presumably flunk any macroeconomics principles class. In any case, they would flunk mine. Given that most of the articles were written by notable economists, one wonders what on earth is being taught by the less notable in macro courses. (Wray, 1991, p. 952)
So the textbooks are wrong. (Keen, 2011, p. 19)
What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse. (McCauley, 2006, p. 17)
..., before accepting the conclusions of any economist’s model as applicable to the real world, the careful student should always examine and be prepared to criticize the applicability of the fundamental postulates of the model; for, in the absence of any mistake in logic, the axioms of the model determine its conclusions. (Davidson, 2002, p. 41)
Rather surprisingly, therefore, the nature of profits remains something of a mystery in contemporary economics; indeed, in the realm of "advanced" theory — namely, the perfectly competitive general equilibrium models — profits have disappeared altogether. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation. (Obrinsky 1981, p. 491)
The canonical textbook is still to be written (see Coming soon: the canonical economics textbook). New as of June 2020, Sovereign Economics.
References
Ackerman, F. (2004). Still Dead After All These Years: Interpreting the Failure of General Equilibrium Theory. In F. Ackerman and A. Nadal (Eds.), The Flawed Foundations of General Equilibrium, pages 14–32. London, New York: Routledge.
Beker, V. A. (2012). Rethinking Macroeconomics in the Light of the U.S. Financial Crisis. real-world economics review, 60: 120–138. URL
Benetti, C., and Cartelier, J. (1997). Economics as an Exact Science: the Persistence of a Badly Shared Conviction. In A. d’Autume and J. Cartelier (Eds.), Is Economics Becoming a Hard Science?, 204–219. Cheltenham, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
Blaug, M. (2001). No History of Ideas, Please, We’re Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(1): 145–164.
Boland, L. A. (1992). The Principles of Economics. Some Lies My Teacher Told Me. London, New York: Routledge.
Colander, D. (1995). The Stories We Tell: A Reconstruction of AS/AD Analysis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(3): 169–188. URL
Davidson, P. (2002). Financial Markets, Money, and the Real World. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Godley, W., and Lavoie, M. (2007). Monetary Economics. An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, and Wealth. Houndmills, Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hahn, F. H. (1980). General Equilibrium Theory. Public Interest. Special Issue: The Crisis in Economic Theory, 123–138.
Keen, S. (2011). Debunking Economics. London, New York: Zed Books, rev. edition.
Kirman, A. (2010). The Economic Crisis is a Crisis for Economic Theory. CESifo Economic Studies, 56(4): 498–535. DOI
Mankiw, N. G. (2006). The Macroeconomist as Scientist and Engineer. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4): 29–46. URL
McCauley, J. L. (2006). Response to "Worrying Trends in Econophysics". EconoPhysics Forum, 0601001: 1–26. URL
Obrinsky, M. (1981). The Profit Prophets. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 3(4): 491–502. URL
Wray, L. R. (1991). Saving, Profits, and Speculation in Capitalist Economies. Journal of Economic Issues, 25(4): 951–975. URL
Related Political Economics and Objective Principles of Economics URL. What, first of all, has to be rewritten is the pivotal chapter of any economic textbook — the chapter that deals with the elementary price mechanism; see The Law of Supply and Demand: Here It Is Finally URL.
© 2013_11 EKH, except original quotes
June 4, 2018
Neoclassics and MMT ― much like pest and cholera
Blog-Reference and Blog-References and Blog-Reference on Jun 5
Compared to neoclassical economics, MMT looks like an improvement. But this is a rather small feat because, compared to the proto-scientific garbage of mainstream economics, almost everything is an improvement. #1
However, after 150+ years of repetition, the critique of neoclassical economics has turned out to be pointless: “… it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory.” (Blaug)
Does MMT beat the old theory? No! MMT is macrofounded, this is the improvement compared to microfounded Neoclassics, but the macrofoundations are inconsistent. #2 Methodology tells us that if the foundations are false, the whole analytical superstructure is false.
MMT’s strong points are advertised as follows: “… a strong focus on balance sheets as opposed to theoretical models based on assumptions that are necessary for the mathematics to work. There is also a strong consensus that monetary theory is positive, not normative. Further relevant areas of agreement are found with respect to the idea of Chartalism when it comes to the origin and value of money; the endogeneity of money regarding bank creation of deposits; the role of the money market in the economy and the missing link to inflation; the monetary circuit and the link from debt to income; and the effects of deficit spending.” (Ehnts, Barberoux) and “… MMT [is] also updated macroeconomics based on not only the existing monetary systems but also by bringing together previous contributions, notably Wynne Godley’s stock-flow consistent modeling, Abba Lerner’s functional finance, and Hyman Minsky’s financial instability theory and job guarantee proposal.” (Hickey)
The problem is that all these elements do not fit consistently together because the underlying macroeconomic balance sheet mathematics, i.e., the sectoral balances equation, is provably false. #3, #4 From the scientific standpoint, MMT is as inconsistent and worthless as neoclassical economics. The policy guidance of both schools has NO sound scientific foundations.
The two main blunders of MMT are value and distribution theory
- “In modern times legal currencies are totally based on fiat. Currencies no longer have intrinsic value (as gold and silver). What gives them value is basically the simple fact that you have to pay your taxes with them.” (Syll) This is simply false, the value of money is independent of taxation. #5
- Because Public Deficit = Private Profit, the money creation/deficit spending in all economic situations, as proposed by MMTers, has detrimental consequences for distribution. MMT policy proposals ultimately amount to agenda pushing for the one-percenters. #6
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Stop beating mainstream economics ― it is long dead
#2 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT
#3 Keynesians ― terminally stupid or worse?
#4 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#5 The objective value of money
#6 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
Related 'Poor Wicksell — abused as a testimonial for MMT' and 'Macro imbeciles'.
Immediately following The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax economy.
You say: “E.K-H keeps claiming that a public sector deficit benefits the 1% not the 99%. Complete nonsense: if a deficit is targeted on the 99%, then the deficit would benefit the 99%, amazing as that might seem.”
As Marx already told all Flat-earthers and Flat-thinkers: “But all science would be superfluous, if the appearance, the form, and the nature of things were wholly identical.”
The point of science is to figure out what appearance is and what reality is.
So let us assume the government creates money and distributes it to the households according to a social criterion. Let the total amount be A, the number of beneficiary households be n, and the amount per household a, then A=na.
In this case, two things happen:
(i) If all beneficiary households spend this money, the price goes up a little (NO inflation) and the household sector as a whole gets the SAME total real output under the conditions of market clearing.
(ii) The profit of the business sector increases because of Qm1=C1−Yw in comparison to Qm0=C0−Yw=0, with C1 greater C0. The difference between C1 and C0 is the amount A, i.e., the deficit-spending/money-creation of the government sector.
The real situation of the household sector remains unchanged because the price hike counteracts the nominal demand increase. The situation of the business sector as a whole improves, i.e., monetary profit Qm rises from Qm0=0 to Qm1=A. In other words, Public Deficit = Private Profit.
So, the social measure of the government only redistributes the output O between the ninety-nine-percenters. The real situation of the household sector as a whole does NOT change at all. The whole act is called stealth taxation #1 because the price hike reduces the real quantity, the wage income receivers can buy with their wage income Yw.
So, yes, E.K-H keeps claiming (i) that a public sector deficit benefits the 1% not the 99%, (ii) MMT is a political fraud, and (iii) Ralph Musgrave is a clueless blatherer who does not know how the monetary economy works.
#1 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
You cite from my answer to Ralph Musgrave: “If all beneficiary households spend this money, the price goes up a little (NO inflation) and the household sector as a whole gets the SAME total real output under the conditions of market clearing.” and then go on to claim: “That isn’t always true; the deeper a depression is ― and that will make such a distribution more likely ― the less true it is.”
Note that there are TWO issues here: (i) real and nominal distribution and (ii) employment. My answer to Ralph Musgrave addressed the issue of distribution under the condition of given employment.
This, of course, does not mean that it escaped my attention that there is also a relationship between money-creation/deficit-spending and employment. In fact, I addressed it on multiple occasions. #1, #2
The point is that you are too stupid/lazy to look up with the omnipresent Search Function what I have written about employment/NAIRU/wage-led growth and the whole Neoclassical/Keynesian/MMT garbage that fills the textbooks and blogs. #3
The axiomatically correct employment theory says (i) yes, of course, it is possible to increase employment through money-creation/deficit spending, (ii) it is better economic policy to apply the price-mechanism for this purpose #3 because (iii) deficit-spending causes unintentionally/intentionally the distributional effects that are before everybody’s eyes #4 and produce a lot of hypocritical surprises and communicative hyperventilation.
All these relationships between deficit-spending, employment, and distribution are well-understood, albeit NOT by MMT academics who are either scientifically incompetent or politically corrupt or both.
#1 Full employment through the price mechanism
#2 Full employment, the Phillips Curve, and the end of Gaganomics
#3 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Employment
#4 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
January 28, 2025
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle MMT (CXXXI)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 27, 2025
Wynne Godley messed up the accounting approach. For details see
The Common Error of Common Sense: An Essential Rectification of the Accounting Approachhttps://t.co/p7UbnIne3O
August 12, 2012
The common error of common sense: an essential rectification of the accounting approach {33}
Abstract The present paper takes the explanatory superiority of the integrated monetary approach for granted. It will be demonstrated that the accounting approach could do even better provided it frees itself from theoretically ill-founded notions like GDP and other artifacts of the equilibrium approach. National accounting as such does not provide a model of the economy but is the numerical reflex of the underlying theory. It is this theory that will be scrutinized, rectified, and ultimately replaced in the following. The formal point of reference is ‘the integrated approach to credit, money, income, production, and wealth’ of Godley and Lavoie.
September 3, 2020
Bye, bye economic philosophers
April 28, 2018
Poor Wicksell — abused as a testimonial for MMT
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Lars Syll summarizes, “In modern times legal currencies are totally based on fiat. Currencies no longer have intrinsic value (as gold and silver). What gives them value is basically the simple fact that you have to pay your taxes with them. That also enables governments to run a kind of monopoly business where it never can run out of money. A fortiori, spending becomes the prime mover and taxing and borrowing is degraded to following acts. If we have a depression, the solution, then, is not austerity. It is spending. Budget deficits are not the major problem since fiat money means that governments can always make more of them.”
That much is, of course, true: Wicksell envisaged a pure fiat money system run by the central bank (= giro system). This does not mean, though, that he was in any way a promoter of MMT’s claims or policies. #1
Wicksell certainly did not subscribe to patently false MMT propositions as
- the value of money depends on taxation, #2
- the Central Bank is the State’s department for arbitrary money creation,
- deficit-spending/money-creation is the cure for all economic and social problems, #3
- public debt does not matter. #4
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Going beyond Wicksell, Keynes, and MMT
#2 The creation and value of money and near-monies
#3 Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople
#4 Deficits matter for distribution
#5 Reconstructing the Quantity Theory
Related 'How Wicksell and the rest got inflation/deflation wrong' and 'Wicksell’s misplaced critique of mathematics' and 'Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick' and 'The clock runs down on economics' and 'The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption?' and 'The Emergence of Profit and Interest in the Monetary Circuit' and 'The Axiomatic Unity of Circuit, Money, Price and Distribution' and 'Criminals and the monetary order' and 'The state of MMT? Stone-dead!'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT.
December 31, 2025
Occasional X: Economists’ eternal problem with methodology (XII)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) December 31, 2025
“AXEC does not show that Godley's stock-flow consistent (SFC) identities are internally inconsistent.” (James Young)
James Young cannot read, see the paper ⇒
The common error of common sense: an essential rectification of the accounting approach…
January 22, 2019
Profit and macrofoundations
Blog-Reference
James Galbraith observes with regard to the JEL classification codes: “Under Macroeconomics there is nothing, unless you count E25 ‘Aggregate Factor Income Distribution,’ which surely means the analysis of factor shares ― Wages, Profits, Rent ― also known as the functional distribution.” and “From a theoretical standpoint distribution is the essence of micro, of market relations and of supply-and-demand. The discipline exists, largely, to explain factor returns. If it doesn’t explain ― I don’t say ‘justify’ ― the pay of the worker and the return to capital, then the rest of what it does would not sustain it.”
What is even more remarkable: the keyword Profit neither appears under Microeconomics nor Macroeconomics. The first problem of Distribution Theory is that economists obviously do not know what profit is.
Fact is: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive” (Desai, Palgrave Dictionary) and this is the most damning verdict about economics. After 200+ years, economists cannot tell the difference between profit and income. This is the present state of economics: the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. #1, #2, #3
Because Profit Theory is false, Distribution Theory is false by logical implication.
James Galbraith identifies the point where things went wrong: “Lucas made the wrong choice. He decreed that micro takes precedence ― that the house is built on microfoundations. Godley did not have patience for this. Surely the house is better built on solid steel-and-concrete pilings, on macrofoundations, with micro-shingles on the roof?”
Indeed, that’s it. Economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false microfoundations to true macrofoundations. At this point, though, James Galbraith stops and turns to the prospects and problems of empirical research. He does not specify what the true macrofoundations are.#4, #5
From the true macrofoundations follows the macroeconomic Profit Law as Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). Legend: Qm monetary profit, Yd distributed profit, Sm monetary saving, G government expenditures, T taxes, X exports, M imports. This reduces to the core Qm≡−Sm, i.e., the business sector’s profit is equal to the household sector’s dissaving, and vice versa, the business sector’s loss is equal to the household sector’s saving.
Macroeconomic profit has nothing to do with greed/exploitation/productivity but with growing/shrinking debt. Lo and behold, this is one of James Galbraith’s key findings: “1. There are global turning points in the path of pay inequality. They occur around 1971, around 1980, and around 2000. These correspond in each case to major shifts in the worldwide financial regime: to the breakdown of Bretton Woods, to the outbreak of the global debt crisis, and to return to low interest rates and rising commodity prices that followed the NASDAQ slump and the 9/11 attacks, along with the rise of China in world trade.”
Macroeconomic profit is an objectively given and well-defined magnitude. The first thing to notice is that profit is qualitatively different from income.#6 Loss or profit is NOT income. Distributed profit is income. Because of this, it is inadmissible to speak of ‘profit income’ because profit is the difference of flows and not a flow like wage income. Wage income and profit cannot be added together to total income, and profit is not a share of total income. In their utter scientific incompetence, economists get the basics of distribution theory wrong from Adam Smith and David Ricardo onward to this day. #7, #8, #9
James Galbraith is right: “A global macroeconomics ― yes, macroeconomics, dammit” is the key to Profit Theory and Distribution Theory. Microfoundations are proto-scientific garbage since Jevons/Walras/Menger. Economics has to be based on macrofoundations. Get it: If it isn’t macroaxiomatized, it isn’t economics.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* Review of Keynesian Economics
#1 Profit and distribution: a primer
#2 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Profit
#3 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory?
#4 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
#5 From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations (II)
#6 Macro for dummies (II)
#7 Profit and distribution: a primer
#8 There is NO such thing as a “labor share of income”
#9 Ricardo, too, got profit theory wrong
Related 'The actual distribution is unacceptable? Do NOT seek economic advice!' and 'Income distribution: No market failure but theory failure' and 'The Levy/Kalecki Profit Equation is false'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Profit/Distribution.





