You are fired!

Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘Those Of You Who Are Old Enough Will Really Get This’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

(i) Barkley Rosser reports: “I am adding yet more to my most recent two posts where I am complaining about this essentially side remark that Larry Summers made in his commemoration of his late uncle, Kenneth Arrow, in which he reports that at the party celebrating Arrow’s Nobel Prize in 1972, Summers’s other uncle, the late Paul Samuelson was supposedly ‘discussing how stupid Joan Robinson was’.”

The geniality of Joan Robinson is engraved in everlasting granite with this verdict about economics: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

To her fellow economists, she referred as ‘throng of superfluous economists’. Indeed, this is their track record: provably false
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S, IS-LM), for 80+ years.

ALL theories/models that contain profit, maximization-and-equilibrium, or I=S/IS-LM are a priori false and this is more than 90 percent of the content of peer-reviewed economic quality journals and 100 percent of textbooks of renowned authors since 1948.

The throng of superfluous economists has not realized that the core of economics ― profit theory ― is false since Adam Smith.

(ii) The most famous example is Keynes. This is the piece of evidence from the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)

This syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes did not come to grips with 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.)

Because profit is ill-defined the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesianism is false. This holds also for Walrasianism, Marxianism, Austrianism.

(iii) All errors and misinterpretations are eliminated by turning to mathematical formalism and graphical representation.

(a) National accounts, elementary production-consumption economy, two sectors, initial period C=Y_w, consumption expenditures = wage income, Wikimedia AXEC94a

(b) National accounts, dissaving C > Y_w, consumption expenditures greater than wage income, profit Q_m = dissaving (−S_m) (with Q_m≡C−Y_w, S_m≡Y_w−C, Q_m≡−S_m), Wikimedia AXEC95

(c) National accounts, saving C < Y_w, consumption expenditures less than wage income, loss (−Q_m ) = saving S_m, Wikimedia AXEC96

The national accounts tell one important thing: profit is NOT the income of capital but the mirror image of dissaving, i.e. the household sector’s increase of debt.

(iv) From the accounting graphics, it is immediately obvious that Keynes’s foundational identity “Income = value of output” is false. This seemingly commonsensical identity is the biggest methodological blunder in all of economics because it led ― among other errors/ mistakes ― to the treatment of profit as income of capital.

Because the profit theory has been false since Adam Smith ― “... one of the most convoluted and muddled areas in economic theory: the theory of profit” (Mirowski) ― economics became the failed science that it is today.

(v) The scientific incompetence of the representative economist is documented by the fact that he cannot tell the difference between profit and income to this very day. The ‘throng of superfluous economists’ has NO idea of the foundational concepts of their subject matter. From the freshman to the Nobel Laureate it is just proto-scientific blather.

Joan Robinson realized this and told the world. Now it is time to get rid of these folks.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'How economists habitually mess it up' and 'Macro for dummies' and 'The real problem with the economics Nobel' and 'We are not yet out of the wood; in fact, we are not yet in it' and 'Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific garbage' and 'How Arrow pushed economics over the cliff' and 'New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points'

***

REPLY to anne on Jul 17

For more on Joan Robinson see
► Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’
► Let’s do it
► Habermas, Albert, Robinson, Syll are right — now scrap the crap
► The overdue public clarification of economics’ actual scientific state
► Will economics ever become a science?

***

REPLY to ProGrowthLiberal on Jul 17

See The futile attempt to recycle Sraffa.

***

REPLY to ProGrowthLiberal on Jul 17

The Economics God Equation, Wikimedia AXEC25, fully replaces Sraffa’s awkward “real” construct. Note that there is NO profit in a “real” economy. Seems to have escaped you since Econ 101.

The Economics God Equation

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Jul 18

The consistency with which you grab into the toilet is remarkable. Joan Robinson said TWO correct things, which is TWO MORE than Arrow, Samuelson, Summers e tutti quanti ever said:

• “Scrap the lot and start again.”
• “An excess of saving over the value of investment is, therefore, a loss to firms … and an excess of investment over saving is an undistributed profit to the firms …”#1

So, Joan Robinson got macro accounting almost right (see also case (iii) c above) but did not see the significance of profit/capital theory and fell back to vacuous microeconomic argumentation.#2

Stupid as ever, you cited the 'wrong' Joan Robinson.

#1 For details see Keynes’s Missing Axioms p. 21, references
#2 For the correct capital theory see Squaring the Investment Cycle.

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Jul 18

You say: “If she said the second, you will need to show where, troll, although she probably would say that it is often the case, as it is, but not one that necessarily holds in general.”

Learn reading. I gave you the source already above with the baby spoon: #1 For details see Keynes’s Missing Axioms p. 21, references

There you will find the original source: Robinson, J. (1956). The Accumulation of Capital. London: Macmillan, p. 402.

Perhaps there is a brilliant mind in your circle of blather buddies who can read it aloud for you.

***

Wikimedia AXEC144e

Let’s do it

Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘The Legacy of Joan Robinson’

Blog-Reference

Joan Robinson clearly recognized that economics is a failed science. Her legacy consists in one sentence: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

Economists did no heed Joan Robinson’s call for a paradigm shift, that is, for the complete scrapping of Orthodoxy. This is why something like ‘economic science’ does not exist until this day. For this reason, the title “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” has to be brought in line with reality by scrapping the word sciences.

The idea that Joan Robinson would have accepted, say, DSGE as science or, say, Barkley Rosser as a scientist is beyond ridiculous. To honor Joan Robinson means literally: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Immediately following post 'Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’'.

Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’

Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘The Legacy of Joan Robinson’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

For Keynes, it was obvious that economists had messed up economics “The classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world ...” (1973, p. 16). And he knew that the fault was in what today is called microfoundations: “For if orthodox economics is at fault, the error is to be found not in the superstructure, ...but ... in the premises." (1973, p. xxi)

Consequently, Keynes started the macrofoundations research program in the General Theory formally as follows “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (1973, p. 63)

These formal foundations are conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit and therefore “discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al., 2010, p. 12).

Keynes’ original blunder kicked off a chain reaction of errors/mistakes
• All I=S/IS-LM models are false since Keynes and Hicks.
• Keynes’ profit conundrum has not been solved by After-Keynesians.
• Keynes got the Employment Law/Phillips Curve wrong.

Joan Robinson shared Keynes’ assessment of Orthodoxy but did not spot the fatal mistake/error in Keynes’ approach, just like the rest of the After-Keynesians,. She was well aware that there was something wrong with profit but missed the solution by a hair’s breadth (Robinson 1956, p. 402, for details, see 2011, eq. (32)). At this analytical peak, things went inexorably into reverse.

After-Keynesians can to this day not tell the difference between income and profit. For want of the pivotal concept of their subject matter, economists fail to capture the essence of the market economy. The actual situation is this: the familiar profit theories are provably false (2014). Therefore, ALL models that have been built and are still being built on either the Walrasian or the Keynesian axioms are false.

This is why ‘economic sciences’ do not exist to this day. The gigantic heap of peer-reviewed incoherent and inconsistent models is what Feynman called cargo cult science. Scientific ethics demands that this is clearly communicated to the general public. Therefore, as an all-important first step, the word ‘sciences’ has to be deleted from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. It is essential to clearly understand that ALL economic policy guidance lacks sound scientific foundations. This is not at all a matter of political left or right.

Joan Robinson opened the Ely-Lecture in 1972: “When I see this throng of superfluous economists ... I am reminded how much the profession has grown since the thirties and how many more there are now to suffer from the second crisis than there were to be discredited in the first.”

So, who was discredited in 2016? All those who have still not realized that the foundational economic concept of profit is ill-defined and that all I=S/IS-LM models are false since Keynes. Featuring in the “throng of superfluous economists” are Krugman, Wren-Lewis, Rowe, Farmer, Syll, Glasner, Radford, DeLong, Douglas, Mitchell, Keen, Smith, and, last but not least, Barkley Rosser#1.

It is high time to fulfill Joan Robinson’s scientific legacy: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Keynes’s Missing Axioms. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1841408: 1–33. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory? SSRN Working Paper Series, 2511741: 1–23. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money.  London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Robinson, J. (1956). The Accumulation of Capital. London: Macmillan.
Tómasson, G., and Bezemer, D. J. (2010). What is the Source of Profit and Interest? A Classical Conundrum Reconsidered. MPRA Paper, 20557: 1–34. URL

#1 For links to papers and blog discussions see cross-references I=S: Mark of the Incompetent.

Related 'Let’s do it' and 'The overdue public clarification of economics’ actual scientific state'.

***

Wikimedia AXEC121i

Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘When ignorance is bliss’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Jul 30

The geniality of Joan Robinson is engraved in everlasting granite with this verdict about economics: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

To her fellow economists, she referred as a “throng of superfluous economists”. Indeed, this is their track record: provably false
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S, IS-LM), for 80+ years.

ALL theories/models that contain profit, maximization-and-equilibrium, or I=S/IS-LM are a priori false and this is more than 90 percent of the content of peer-reviewed economic quality journals and 100 percent of textbooks of renowned authors since 1948.

The student of economic theory is taught supply-demand-equilibrium. This is proto-scientific garbage, but “Before he ever does ask, he has become a professor, and so sloppy habits of thought are handed on from one generation to the next.” (Joan Robinson)

Thus, the propagation of silly orthodox economics goes on and on and the silly heterodox critique, too, goes on and on and 100 percent of what orthodox or heterodox or pluralistic muddle-headed economics professors teach is provably false.

Joan Robinson realized this and told the world. High time now to draw the logical consequence.#1

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 See also
► You are fired!
► Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’
► Let’s do it
► A science without scientists
► Habermas, Albert, Robinson, Syll are right — now scrap the crap
► The overdue public clarification of economics’ actual scientific state
► Will economics ever become a science?

***

Wikimedia AXEC121i

Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Joan Robinson and the inadequacies of revealed preference theory’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 22

“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)

How do scientists eventually arrive at the true theory? “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)

Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists have developed anything that remotely resembles the true (= materially/formally consistent) theory.

Samuelson, to his credit, at least realized that utility is a NONENTITY and that, by consequence, marginalism had no sound scientific foundations: “The very raison d’être for developing revealed preference theory in the 1930s and 1940s was to be able to ascertain people’s preferences by observation of their actual behaviour on markets and not having to make unobservable psychological assumptions or rely on any utility concepts.” (Lars Syll, Intro)

What Samuelson did realize was that economics cannot be based on a behavioral axiom like constrained optimization but he did not realize that it cannot, as a matter of principle, be based on any other behavioral assumption whatsoever. The economy is a system and economics has to be based on objective-systemic macrofoundations and not on subjective-behavioral microfoundations.

The significance of the failure of revealed preference theory lies in the fact that economics is not a science of behavior and that microfoundations are the methodologically wrong approach.#1

It was Joan Robinson who drew the correct conclusion: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

However, Keynes’ attempt to move from microfoundations to macrofoundations failed.#2 Thus, the propagation of silly orthodox and heterodox economics goes on and on. The scrapping of the false micro-behavioral paradigm did not happen. What indeed happened was the pseudo-progress from the entirely vacuous behavioral assumption of utility maximization to more ‘realistic’ assumptions under the label of Behavioral Economics.

For Behavioral Economics, though, holds what held already for the microfoundations of Jevons, Walras, Menger: Scrap the lot and start again. In other words, if it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.

To award in 2017 the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” for Behavioral Economics is the point where the abysmal scientific incompetence of orthodox and heterodox economists for 150+ years turns into a deception of the general public. Economics is not a science but what Feynman called a cargo cult science.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 A social science is NOT a science but a sitcom
#2 From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm

Related 'The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids' and 'What makes economics a failed science?' and 'Hunting down the economics body snatchers' and 'You are fired!' and 'Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’' and 'Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?' and 'Yes, economics is a bogus science' and '10 steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a science of behavior and cross-references New Economic Thinking

***

Wikimedia AXEC121i

Occasional Tweets: Joan Robinson's legacy

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

“Scrap the lot” (Joan Robinson)

Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?https://t.co/PYXQLqdqaS pic.twitter.com/CulFPMwQzy

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 13, 2021

For more about Joan Robinson see AXECquery, 

A science without scientists

Summary of comments on Barkley Rosser on ‘The Legacy of Joan Robinson’

Blog-Reference

It is essential to refocus the issue before tackling the minor points/distractions. The fact of the matter is:
(i) Economics is a failed science.
(ii) The profit theory is provably false.
(iii) By logical consequence, other parts of the theoretical superstructure, e.g. price theory, distribution theory, employment theory, I=S/IS-LM, etc, are false too.
(iv) Because of the failure to get the foundational concepts right, economics is still at the stage of a proto-science.
(v) The rules of conduct of the scientific community demand that the actual state of economics is at all times unambiguously communicated to the general public. This implies, as the very first step, that the word sciences is deleted from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

The proof that profit/loss is the complement to dissaving/saving has been given in the post above with the reference to Joan Robinson which shows that she came close to the true profit theory. Economics after Robinson lost this insight and fell into intellectual degeneration.

There is only ONE exception: Maurice Allais got profit right: “Autrement dit l’investissement n’est pas égal à l’épargne spontanée, mais à l’épargne spontanée augmenté du revenue non distribué des entreprises ....” (1993, p. 69). The rest of retarded economists marched even DEEPER into the proto-scientific woods with New Classicals and New Keynesians leading the pack.

It is a ridiculous attempt from Barkley Rosser to filibuster the clear-cut formal proof away with the little rhetorical tricks that are so characteristic for the low-IQ discussions in economics.

So Rosser asks theatrically: “Have you stopped claiming that profits are PR as you did in eq. (5) in your 2011 paper?” Answer: Profit in the 2011 paper ‘Keynes Missing Axioms’ has been defined in Section 11 headed Profit in eq. (23) and it is the same as in the post above. Eq. (5) defines the distributed profit ratio.

So Rosser applies wordplay “item (ii) that declares that there is "market clearing," which is in most peoples’ books another way of saying equilibrium, or supply equals demand, or no changes in inventories. Given that you are assuming equilibrium, it is pretty funny how you proceed later to denounce all those economists who engage in supply-demand analysis,” Equilibrium is a NONENTITY and NOT the same as the condition of market clearing. Because of this, ALL other peoples’ books that contain the concept of equilibrium are scientific junk like all books that contain nonentities like angels, unicorns, and the Easter Bunny. To be quite clear: “Given that you are assuming equilibrium” is provably false. The only statement about equilibrium that you can find in my posts and papers is that equilibrium is one of the landmarks of scientific idiocy of which there is plenty in economics.

The point is, not to get lost in the obvious distractions and evasions of confused confusers (2013) but to expel economics and what Joan Robinson called the ‘throng of superfluous economists’ from the sciences.

The one good deed many economists can do for economics science is to get out of the way — Barkley Rosser explicitly included.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Allais, M. (1993). Les Fondements Comptable de la Macro-Économie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edition.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2207598: 1–16. URL


Immediately preceding The overdue public clarification of economics’ actual scientific state.

Habermas, Albert, Robinson, Syll are right — now scrap the crap

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Some unfounded expectations of economic theory’

Blog-Reference

Standard economics is a failed approach and the root cause can be located with unsurpassable precision here: “As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: 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.
By definition, the hard-core propositions are taken to be true and irrefutable by those who adhere to the program. ‘Taken to be true’ means that the hard-core functions like axioms for a geometry, maintained for the duration of study of that geometry.” (Weintraub, 1985, p. 147)

Essentially the same assertion in Krugman’s scant blog post: “So, what is neoclassical economics? … I think we mean in practice economics based on maximization-with-equilibrium.”#1

Both, constrained optimization and equilibrium are NONENTITIES like Superman and the Easter Bunny. And this is the reason why standard economics is proto-scientific garbage to this day. Because economic theory cannot be based on NONENTITIES the propositions HC1 to HC5 have to be thrown out of economics and replaced by something better. In Joan Robinson’s words: "Scrap the lot and start again".

Habermas, Albert, Robinson, and Syll have to be criticized for elaborating endlessly on model Platonism and not taking the all-decisive step, that is, to do the Paradigm Shift and to put economics on new axiomatic foundations.#2

There are huge rewards: the world will assuredly become a better place when Krugman retires with his sorta-kinda maximization-with-equilibrium moronomics.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Weintraub, E. R. (1985). Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium: An Appraisal.
American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 75(2): 146–149. URL

#1 See here
#2 For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists and cross-references Not a Science of Behavior and cross-references Paradigm Shift and cross-referencesAxiomatization.

***

ICYMI  Paradigm lost: from incompetent economics to psycho-sociological (PsySoc) agenda pushing.
Comment on 'Paul Krugman: Despair, American Style'

Related 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'From PsySoc to SysHum' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy'

Immediately following There is no like/dislike button in science.

***

Wikimedia AXEC121g

The overdue public clarification of economics’ actual scientific state

Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘The Legacy of Joan Robinson’

Blog-Reference

In what has been called the Keynesian Revolution, Keynes attempted the Paradigm Shift from the accustomed microfoundations to macrofoundations. This attempt failed. The deeper reasons have to be clarified by historians of economic thought. For the moment the formal proof suffices.

(1) Proof

Both, the Walrasian and Keynesian axioms are faulty and have to be replaced by the correct macrofoundations. This is achieved as follows.
(A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the (world-) economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm.
(A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L,
(A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L,
(A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

For the graphical representation of this ABSOLUTE formal MINIMUM see Wikimedia AXEC31:

(A1) to (A3) asserts: At any given level of employment L, the wage income Yw that is generated in the consolidated business sector follows by multiplication with the wage rate W. On the real side, output O follows by multiplication with the productivity R. Finally, the price P follows as the dependent variable under the conditions of (i) budget balancing, i.e. C=Yw, and (ii), market clearing, i.e. X=O.

Under the conditions (i)|(ii) the price is derived in each period as P=W/R, i.e. the market-clearing price is in the most elementary case equal to unit wage costs which vary over successive periods. This is the elementary form of the Law of Supply and Demand which fully REPLACES supply-demand-equilibrium.

In the next period, the households save, i.e. (i) is lifted. The result is shown on Wikimedia AXEC33:

Consumption expenditures C fall below Yw and with it the market-clearing price P. There are NO unsold quantities and NO change in inventory. The product market is cleared due to (ii) and there is no such thing as inventory investment, i.e. I=0. Monetary saving of the household sector is given by Sm≡Yw−C.

The business sector makes a monetary loss that is equal to the household sector’s saving, i.e. Qm≡−Sm (Robinson, 1956, pp. 401-2). Therefore, loss is the exact counterpart of saving; by consequence, profit is the exact counterpart of dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the Profit Law. It follows directly from the profit definition Qm≡C−Ym and the definition of household sector saving. The sector balances always add up to zero.

So the OVERALL profit of the elementary production-consumption economy has NOTHING at all to do with productivity or uncertainty or wages or exploitation or monopoly power or the smartness of CEOs or any other of the familiar interpretations. The familiar profit theories are false, which is the consequence of gross methodological mistakes, i.e. microfoundations and Fallacy of Composition.

The correct Profit Law for the investment economy reads Qm≡Yd+I−Sm. Legend: Qm monetary profit, Yd distributed profit, Sm monetary saving, I investment expenditures. Saving has never been and will never be equal to investment, neither ex-ante nor ex-post.

Conclusions: (a) All I=S/IS-LM models from Keynes to Krugman are provably false (2014). (b) All microfounded profit theories are provable false. (c) Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists have gotten (a)|(b).

(2) The two main charges

(I) Scientific standards are 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, p. 31)
(II) Science is about IS and NOT about OUGHT. Therefore, the strict separation of science and politics has to be observed.

Currently, economics neither complies with (I) nor with (II). This applies to the major schools Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism.

(3) Immediate consequences

Economists sometimes claim that economics is a science and sometimes admit that it is only a discipline (Hicks), or science with lowercase S (Solow), or a separate and inexact science (J. S. Mill). This is confusing: currently, economics is de facto a proto-science.

Science governs itself by the implementation of specific ethics and rules of conduct and built-in checks and the commitment to well-defined truth. This implies that its actual state is clearly communicated to the general public.

Therefore, as an all-important first step, the word ‘sciences’ has to be deleted until further notice from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

A proto-science that has not yet managed to consistently define its foundational concepts cannot legitimately present itself as science.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2392856: 1–19. URL
Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
Robinson, J. (1956). The Accumulation of Capital. London: Macmillan.

Immediately preceding Joan Robinson and the ‘throng of superfluous economists’.

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 4

You quote me with: “There are NO unsold quantities and NO change in inventories.” Note that the proof starts with two conditions: (i) budget-balancing, and (ii), market-clearing. Then (i) is lifted which produces the complementary phenomena of saving/dissaving and loss/profit. Condition (ii) is kept in place. As you could easily imagine it has been already dealt with elsewhere (2011).

Lest it gets lost, the lifting of condition (i) is SUFFICIENT for the proof that standard profit theory and I=S/IS-LM are false.

It is not really big news for anybody that inventory changes happen. As a matter of fact, they appear explicitly in the correct market model, which fully replaces supply-demand-equilibrium (2013). It is perhaps news for you that this hapless construct is one of the biggest embarrassments in the history of what Feynman famously called cargo cult sciences.

As far as the empirical content of supply-demand-equilibrium is concerned this is common knowledge: “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)

Every economist who accepts or defends supply-demand-equilibrium exposes himself as scientifically incompetent to a degree that is intolerable.

I propose, firstly, that you read some of my working papers or posts#1 before you make a fool of yourself by running headless through wide-open doors. You will find that ALL of your kindergarten objections have been dealt with already.

I propose, secondly, that you take the structural-axiomatic Employment Law/Phillips curve (2012) and test it against the momentarily accepted peer-reviewed standard version.

I propose, thirdly, that depending on the outcome of testing of propositions that have been consistently derived from the structural axiom set#2 one of us has to leave economics for good.

It is widely known that this is the way how matters are settled in science. Time for all proto-scientific blatherers to catch up.


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Primary and Secondary Markets. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1917012: 1–26. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2012). Keynes' Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). How to Get Rid of Supply-Demand-Equilibrium. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2263172: 1–24. URL
McCauley, J. L. (2006). Response to "Worrying Trends in EconoPhysics". EconoPhysics Forum, 0601001: 1–26. URL

#1 See SSRN and Blog
#2 See Wikimedia AXEC137b

Immediately following A science without scientists.

Related 'How to leave proto-scientific economics behind' and 'Profit' and 'Disgrace again ― is economics really that bad?' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing'.

Neo-Paleo-Stupidicism

Comment on Roger Farmer on ‘Neo-Paleo-Keynesianism: A suggested definition’

Blog-Reference

Science was there before economics was there. Economists either conform to well-defined scientific standards or they are outside of science: they are in NO position to redefine scientific criteria. This, though, is what they regularly attempt to do. Roger Farmer’s featured post is a case in point.

Because economics — as represented by the four failed sects Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, and Austrians — has never risen above the level of a proto-science it has become popular among economists to question the standards, to lower them, or, as Blaug put it, ‘to play tennis with the net down’. Hence, economists are very receptive to methodological soft-pedaling like anything-goes (Feyerabend), economics is not a Science with a capital S (Solow), economics is an inexact and separate science (Hausman/J. S. Mill), pluralism of false theories or nobody-knows-anything (Heterodoxy), or Lakatosian replacement of scientific true/false by opportunistic like/dislike.

The scientific method is well-defined by formal and material consistency (Klant, 1994, p. 31). Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing. To secure both consistencies is a tough job and it is in no way predetermined how the general methodological principle applies at the cutting edge of research. To figure this out is the creative scientific achievement.

Economics fails on both counts: the axiomatic foundations are provably false and, as a consequence, testing is regularly inconclusive. So, the four economic sects have happily established themselves in the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes).

Standard economics is built upon this set of foundational propositions, a.k.a. 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, p. 147)

Methodologically, these premises are forever unacceptable but economists swallowed them hook, line and sinker from Jevons/Walras/Menger onward to DSGE. The failure of methodological individualism as embodied in HC1|HC5 is indisputable. NOT ONE axiom is acceptable.

Because of this, the microfoundations approach has already been dead in the cradle more than 140 years ago. Have economists realized this? Forget it! Krugman put it thus: “… most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point”.

Get this: ALL models that contain maximization-and-equilibrium in any shape or form are a priori unacceptable. Post-Keynesianism is different but in no way better.#1 This leaves only one option. As Joan Robinson put it: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

Roger Farmer asks: “How can we recover this idea, without discarding three hundred years of microeconomic principles?“ Wrong question. Sticking to these principles is as good as sticking to the flat-earth principle, that is, it is a reliable indicator of scientific incompetence.

The failure of economics requires a paradigm shift. Nothing less will do. Roger Farmer instead teams up with a zombie: “The neo-paleo-Keynesian research program is unashamedly neo-classical.” But it gets worse. Who is Roger Farmer’s ideal economist? “Keynes was notorious for changing his views on a daily basis and was said to be capable of holding several conflicting opinions at the same time.” Allais called this “insuffisance logique” (1993, p. 70) which unceremoniously translates into stupidity (see also 2013).

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Allais, M. (1993). Les Fondements Comptable de la Macro-Économie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2nd edition.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2207598: 1–16. URL
Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
Weintraub, E. R. (1985). Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium: An Appraisal. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 75(2): 146–149. URL

#1 From microfoundations to macrofoundations

Don’t blame the model, blame the modeler

Comment Lars Syll on ‘Krugman’s modeling flim flam’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on May 3

You can make a model with the earth in the center and the planets circling around, or you can make a model with the sun in the center and the planets circling around. The model is just a realization of the underlying theory. The underlying theory in this example is the theory of gravitation which is formally encapsulated in the inverse square law. This law has NOT been found by simple observation, it has been a mental construct. Gravitation can not be seen with the two natural eyes, only with the third eye of theory.

Model building is NOT the crucial part. It is the underlying theory that is decisive. Because a well-designed theory consists of premises as foundations and the theoretical superstructure as a logical consequence the crucial part is ultimately the premises.

Standard economics is built upon this set of foundational propositions, a.k.a. 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, p. 147)

Methodologically, these premises are forever unacceptable but economists swallowed them hook, line and sinker from Jevons/Walras/Menger onward to DSGE. The failure of methodological individualism is indisputable. The ultimate reason can be stated as an impossibility theorem: NO way leads from the explanation of individual behavior to the explanation of how the economic system works. The Fallacy of Composition is the lethal blunder of microfoundations.

Because of this, the microfoundations approach has already been dead in the cradle. This leaves only one option. As Joan Robinson put it: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

Keynes started the macrofoundations research program in the General Theory formally as follows: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (1973, p. 63)

These formal foundations are conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit and therefore “discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al., 2010, p. 12).

Keynes’ original blunder kicked off a chain reaction of errors/mistakes:
• All I=S/IS-LM models are false since Keynes and Hicks (2011).
• Keynes’s profit conundrum has not been solved by After-Keynesians.
• Keynes got the Employment Law/Phillips curve wrong (2012).

So, for Keynesianism holds also: “Scrap the lot and start again.”

The situation is this: ALL models that have been built and are still being built on either the Walrasian or the Keynesian axioms are false.

What is Krugman doing? He tells on his blog: “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point”.

From this, we can be sure that anything that Krugman ever said or will say has NO sound scientific foundation. ALL his models are defective because the Iron Methodological Law says: garbage in, garbage out. The quality of a model is determined by the scientific competence of its creator. No scientist will ever accept ‘maximization-and-equilibrium’ as a starting point for building an economic model. No scientist will ever accept Krugman.

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). Keynes’s Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2130421: 1–19. URL
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Tómasson, G., and Bezemer, D. J. (2010). What is the Source of Profit and Interest? A Classical Conundrum Reconsidered. MPRA Paper, 20557: 1–34. URL
Weintraub, E. R. (1985). Joan Robinson’s Critique of Equilibrium: An Appraisal. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 75(2): 146–149. URL

***

Wikimedia AXEC121i

Will economics ever become a science?

Comment on Mathew Kahn on ‘2007 Krugman on Milton Friedman’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

The current state of economics is that of a cargo cult#1 or fake science. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism do not satisfy the scientific criteria of formal and material consistency. The major approaches are PROVABLY false.

Economics is a failed science. Since the founding fathers, economics has been political economics and political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years.

Both Friedman and Krugman are part of the failure. Faced with this indisputable fact Mathew Kahn looks the other way and concludes: “... what the world needs now, I’d argue, is a counter-counterreformation.”

This is the wrong conclusion. The right conclusion is: “So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science." (Feynman). Or, as Joan Robinson put it: “Scrap the lot and start again.” Neither Friedman nor Krugman can be taken seriously. There is no such thing as a reformation or counter-reformation or counter-counterreformation of an axiomatically false theory. There is only the wastebasket.

Accordingly, what the world needs, first of all, is the public clarification that economics is actually not a science. This is realized by deleting the word Sciences from the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.#2

The logical next step is to institutionally terminate the nuisance that is economics by expelling it officially from the sciences and by throwing the ‘throng of superfluous economists’ (Joan Robinson) out of the scientific community. It should be pretty obvious that Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Keynes, Hayek, Friedman were political agenda pushers and NOT scientists, and the same applies to Orthodoxy’s Krugman and Heterodoxy’s Varoufakis and the rest of the political clowns in the Circus Maximus.

There is no place in science for the proto-scientific garbage that has hitherto been labeled economics. The economists that Mathew Kahn hypes as public intellectuals have to be correctly called political agenda pushers and fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Feynman’s term, see Wikipedia
#2 The real problem with the economics Nobel

Immediately following A rough business plan for science.

Occasional Tweets: "Scrap the lot"

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

“Scrap the lot” (Joan Robinson)

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) April 26, 2021

For more on Joan Robinson see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: Finally make the Paradigm Shift!

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure, so “Scrap the lot and start again” (Joan Robinson).

Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?https://t.co/PYXQLqdqaS pic.twitter.com/tGzoOge9Uz

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) February 12, 2023

One entirely sufficient reason for the shutdown of economics

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Three symptoms of the sorry state of economics’

Blog-Reference

Terry Burnham resumes “Economics is a lost field. More than 200 years after Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, economics has no answer to the most important economic questions.” (See intro)

The conclusion is correct but drawn from weird symptoms. The fact that Merton/Scholes have bankrupted LTCM does not tell anything about the state of theoretical economics, just like a plane crash does not tell anything about the state of theoretical physics.

The real and ultimate reason why economics is indeed a lost field is that the profit theory is false since Adam Smith. After more than 200 years economists do not understand the foundational concept of their subject matter.#1 And this means that employment theory, distribution theory, growth theory, monetary theory, and all the rest are provably false. Because of this, the representative economist gives false answers to the most important economic questions. No Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, or Austrian economic policy advice ever has had sound theoretical foundations.

“As Joan Robinson said, our essential object in economics is ‘to understand how the economic system works’; ... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ or about the modus operandi of the invisible hand than we knew in 1790 after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations.” (Clower, 1999, p. 401)

Economics is a failed science. And there is no hope that those economists who are responsible for the ‘sorry state of economics’ will ever get out of the self-made cul-de-sac (2013).

Economics is a lost field and both orthodox and heterodox economists are lost scientists. As Joan Robinson put it “Scrap the lot and start again.” And — most important — make sure that those Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, or Austrian dilettantes and know-nothings are left behind the curve for good.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Clower, R. W. (1999). Post-Keynes Monetary and Financial Theory. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 21(3): 399–414. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013). Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2207598: 1–16. URL

#1 Profit and the collective failure of economists.

Related 'How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down' and 'The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***

Wikimedia AXEC109i

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder

Comment on Michel Zouboulaki on ‘The crisis in economics education’. Sequel to ‘Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Mark Thoma’s spam folder’ and ‘Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder’

Blog-Reference

Economics is a failed science. On this, heterodox economists of all colors agree, entirely forgetting that Heterodoxy itself has never risen above the proto-scientific level.

Beginning with Adam Smith/Karl Marx, theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Heterodoxy is a staunch defender of pluralism, which means practically the pluralism of false theories.

Until this day, in their research and communication, economists are not guided by the principles of Science but by the principles of Circus Maximus. As a consequence, in the econblogosphere the best stuff is in the spam folders, and what is tirelessly recycled is soft soap, blather, gossip, propaganda, disinformation, and proto-scientific garbage.

It is anybody’s guess to what extent the econblogosphere is corrupted. The problem, of course, is that spam folders are invisible to the general public. Private censorship is built into the blogging software and works without any traces.

Occasionally, there are exceptions. For those who appreciate the privilege of casting a glance into the Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder, here is a sample of posts the editors suppressed over the last four months.

• Macro for retarded economists
• Keynes’ intellectual nonexistence
• Robots, exploitation, and the reproducible economy
• Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science
• A brief history of soapbox economics
• Why Heterodoxy is no real alternative to mainstream economics
• The profit theory is false since Adam Smith
• Heterodoxy and Pluralism, too, are proto-scientific garbage
• Note on Edward Fullbrook’s My evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus
• This is New Economic Thinking? Give me a break!
• Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics
• Why does Heterodoxy not abolish the fake Nobel?
• The economics Cargo Cult Prize
• John Hicks, fake scientist

Needless to emphasize that the Real-World Economics Review represents not more than the tiny tip of the iceberg. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/ formally inconsistent. As a result, almost all of the econblogosphere consists of fake news, attention management, brown-nosing, wrestling exercises, buddy back-scratching, artificial applause, PR, slander, and cheer-leading.#1

The common denominator of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy is scientific incompetence. The inconsequential political skirmishes have no deeper meaning and are only meant as a rebuttal of the presumption that economists are not even useful as useful idiots.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum

Related 'Lars Syll, fake scientist'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake scientists.

***

#PointOfProof

Occasional Tweets: The critical economist ― just another laughing stock

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure: “Scrap the lot and start again.” (Joan Robinson)

Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?https://t.co/PYXQLqdqaS pic.twitter.com/p4leD8TDqT

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 6, 2021

Note on Edward Fullbrook’s My evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

• Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?
• Marshall and the Cambridge school of plain economic gibberish
• How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum
• This is New Economic Thinking? Give me a break!
• Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Heterodoxy: cross-references

Posts

• Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing   here
• Heterodoxy’s trouble with macro   here
• Trust in economics as a science?   here
• #DrainTheScientificSwamp   here
• The failure of Post-Keynesianism   here
• Causality in economics   here
• Economics should never be a substitute for thinking   here
• Links on Lars P. Syll’s ‘Wren-Lewis insults medical science’   here
• Heterodox economics: When stupidity becomes a public danger   here
• The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists   here
• “I never learned maths, so I had to think” ― another False-Hero-Memorial   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
• The inexorable paradigm shift in economics   here
• There is no soft science only soft brains   here
• Neoclassics and MMT ― much like pest and cholera   here
• Is Lars Syll’s stupidity really infinite?   here
• Why is economics a total scientific failure?   here
• Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics   here
• Stop beating mainstream economics ― it is long dead   here
• Knowledge is attainable ― even in economics   here
• Economists: political trolls since 200+ years   here
• Heterodoxy ― an axiomatic failure just like Orthodoxy   here
• Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Lars Syll’s spam folder   here
• Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Real-World Economics Review’s spam folder   here
• Time to retire political economists   here
• Lars Syll, fake scientist   here
• Are MMTers stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• Economics: Defending the indefensible   here
• Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science   here
• Dear philosophers, economics is a systems science   here
• A brief history of soapbox economics   here
• Why Heterodoxy is no real alternative to mainstream economics   here
• The profit theory is false since Adam Smith   here
• Heterodoxy and Pluralism, too, are proto-scientific garbage   here
• How to make economics a science   here
• Note on Edward Fullbrook’s My evening with Joan Robinson and the Tractatus   here
• Why does Heterodoxy not abolish the fake Nobel?   here
• Social science is NOT a science but a sitcom   here
• Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?   here
• Austerity: Who takes the little man for a ride?   here
• The abject failure of orthodox and heterodox distribution theory   here
• Economics: a hereditary mental disease with scientific incompetence as father and political fraud as mother   here
• Refutation of Asad Zaman’s heterodox methodology: all arguments you ever need   here
• Why don’t you do what Joan Robinson told you to do?   here
• Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific rubbish   here
• The end of political economics   here
• Morons on math   here
• How Heterodoxy got lost in the methodological woods   here
• Note on Lars Syll on ‘Cauchy logic’ in economics   here
• Let Chicago economics rest in peace   here
• Needed: the Top 10 of substandard economics blogs   here
• The equilibrium of idiocy   here
• The tragicomedy of Heterodoxy   here
• Austerity and the total disconnect between economic policy and science   here
• Does Asad Zaman fly with POL or SCI Airlines?   here
• Failed critique of failed economics   here
• The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy   here
• Ricardian vice and Keynesian confusedness   here
• How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum   here
• Economics — from storytelling to science   here
• The economist as moralist   here
• Methodology for heterodox one-cell-brainers   here
• Austerity and the idiocy of political economists   here
• The non-existence of economics   here
• Heterodoxy’s chronic thinking incapacity   here
• NAIRU and the scientific incompetence of Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy   here
• The methodological blunders of fake scientists   here
• Economics is a science? You must be joking!   here
• Traditional Heterodoxy’s paradigmatic impotence   here
• Ideology? Incompetence? Fake? Or all this together?   here
• Economics: Poor philosophy, poor psychology, poor science   here
• Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses   here
• Complexity and stupidity   here
• A heterodox pushback or just another shot in the foot?   here
• The economic machine is broken? Don’t call the heterodox repairman!   here
• The distribution theory is false because the profit theory is false   here
• The one stone that kills orthodox and heterodox employment theory   here
• Economics ― a Zombie wrestling show   here
• Heterodoxy and the re-invention of science   here
• The economist as stand-up comedian   here
• Economists: Jacks of all trades ― except economics   here
• Heterodoxy’s popular but silly math denial   here
• A new curriculum for swampies?   here
• Political economics: a deadhead sitcom   here
• It is better to be precisely right than roughly wrong   here
• Heterodox economics and the problem of inferior and superior critique   here
• Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy: the squabbling of quacks   here
• Economics: a science without scientists   here
• Go, Heterodoxy, move on!   here
• Economics: The pathetic story of two failures   here
• Keynesianism is broken: Get over it!   here
• Economic policy advice has never had sound scientific foundations   here
• The final smackdown of blahblah-Keynesianism   here
• There is no such thing as THE market   here
• The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids   here
• How the mainstream vanished in the gutter   here
• Not big news: political economics is a failure   here
• Economists have no brain   here
• Stuck with the economics prisoner’s dilemma   here
• The Cambridge crap curriculum   here
• Feeble thinkers, feeble rethinkers: the perennial misery of economics   here
• Economics and scientific foolishness   here
• When proto-scientific Heterodoxy calls Orthodoxy pseudo-scientific   here
• Heterodoxy’s scientific self-deception   here
• How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right   here
• All models are false because all economists are stupid   here
• Economics is NOT a social science   here
• Heterodoxy’s scientific self-burial   here
• Post Keynesianism, science, and universal idiocy   here
• Economics: The chief demerit is inconsistency   here
• Economic policy guidance out of the scientific kindergarten   here
• Economics: The Battle of Frogs and Mice is over   here
• Economics: A cargo cult science from the very beginning   here
• Forget Chicago, and also Cambridge   here
• The scientific self-elimination of Heterodoxy   here
• The consistent ancients and the confused moderns   here
• How to get out of the Econ 101 PsySoc woods   here
• Heterodoxy, you have a problem   here 
• Heterodox schizo   here
• Heterodoxy: From bad to better or from bad to worse?   here
• Where advanced Heterodoxy — represented by Steve Keen — took the wrong turn   here
• Storytelling vs Theory = Politics vs Science   here
• Heterodoxy, too, is no longer what it once was   here
• How to get out of the swamp of ignorance   here
• Economics and the social science delusion   here
• Lawson’s fundamental methodological error and the failure of Heterodoxy   here
• What heterodox economists are embarrassed to admit   here
• Heterodoxy and the nullity of dead horse beating   here
• The economist’s hajj from Mordor to Mecca   here
• How Heterodoxy keeps the Naked-Emperor-Zombie alive   here
• How to restart economics   here
• Economists and methodology: the horror of all horrors   here
• Every thinking economist is heterodox by default, but how do we proceed from here?   here
• Economists’ proto-scientific methodology   here
• Why the Naked-Emperor-Zombie cannot die   here
• Axiomatics — the heterodox bugbear   here
• Lousy scientists   here
• Confused Orthodoxy vs. confused Heterodoxy   here
• Are economists natural-born scientific failures?   here
• Economics: of the stupid by the stupid for the stupid   here
• Economics as fool’s paradise   here
• Still on the wrong track   here
• The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws   here
• Economics is NOT a science of behavior   here
• Towards the true economic theory   here
• How economists became the scientific laughing stock   here
• The ur-blunder of economics and its rectification   here
• The tragedy of Heterodoxy   here
• Heterodoxy as superior alternative   here
• Heterodoxy: important decisions ahead   here
• Heterodoxy at the crossroads  here
• Heterodoxy, too, is still in the wood  here
• Heterodoxy, too, is proto-scientific garbage   here
• The real limit of Heterodoxy  here
• The unfinished Keynes (I)  here
• Let Post-Keynesianism rest in peace  here
• What the Top 20 heterodox economists say  here
• A simple question  here
• From behavior to structure  here
• Yes, orthodox economics is poor science, but can Heterodoxy raise hope?  here
• Kalecki, the man who missed it by a hair's breadth  here
• Kalecki got it wrong, Allais got it right  here
• Economic theory ― as false as ever  here
• Lacking the Midas touch of science  here
• Still in the woods   here
• Time to get out of gossip economics  here

Working papers

• Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Profit   here
• What is Wrong with Heterodox Economics? Kalecki’s Profit Theory as an Example   here

Note: The profit theory of Keynes, Kalecki, Marx, or Keen is demonstrably false. See also this compilation and the summary 'An inquiry into the nature and causes of profit' on the AXEC web page.

For the difference between Orthodoxy, Traditional Heterodoxy and Constructive Heterodoxy see the graph on Wikimedia AXEC83.

Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy are axiomatically false, that is, materially and formally inconsistent.

Terminological clarification, Mar 5, 2025: A rough distinction between various economic approaches has been Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy with Orthodoxy being congruent with the current Mainstream. According to this traditional distinction, the AXEC approach is heterodox. However, AXEC does not have much in common with traditional Heterodoxy beyond being antagonistic to Orthodoxy. So, a new distinction has to be introduced, i.e. between Traditional Heterodoxy and Constructive Heterodoxy. Constructive Heterodoxy is not only critical of Orthodoxy but replaces it completely. This is done by a Paradigm Shift that makes both Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy obsolete. For the sake of clarity, the AXEC Paradigm is henceforth not labeled as Constructive Heterodoxy but as Metadoxy.

For the difference between Orthodoxy, Traditional Heterodoxy and Constructive Heterodoxy see the new graph on Wikimedia AXEC83a.

Meta references