#Economics#FailedFakeScience#DisInfoTainment
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 6, 2024
“Disinformation isn't new, but its scale and impact are. Can we navigate a world where anyone can spread lies easily?”
For 200+ years, economics claims to be #Science but is NOT. The major approaches (#Walrasianism, #Keynesianism,…
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Title:narrative. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Title:narrative. Sort by date Show all posts
June 6, 2024
Occasional Xs: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (II)
May 13, 2025
Occasional Xs: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (VI)
#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 13, 2025
Economics claims to be science but is NOT. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory & axiomatically false & materially/formally inconsistent & ALL got #Profit wrong.…
October 24, 2017
Economics: Stories, narratives, and disinformation
Comment on David Glasner on ‘The Standard Narrative on the History of Macroeconomics: An Exercise in Self-Serving Apologetics’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Keynes has to be credited for realizing that the economics of Jevons/Walras/Menger/ Marshall was false at its core and that nothing less than a Paradigm Shift was needed: “The [neo-]classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight ― as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics.”
After Keynes, every economist who still does not see the necessity of a Paradigm Shift is simply scientifically incompetent. One spokesperson of this prevailing majority is Krugman who debunks himself with: “… most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point.”
The fact is that maximization-and-equilibrium economics has already been dead in the cradle 150+ years ago.
Keynes, though, messed up the shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. His lethal blunder can be exactly located in the GT: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This elementary syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit. (Tómasson et al.)
Because profit is ill-defined, the whole analytical superstructure of Keynesianism is false.#1 Yet one of the outstanding characteristics of the cargo cult science economics is that refutation is persistently ignored: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern)
As a result of the continuous violation of scientific standards, the history of economic thought boils down to a narrative of incompetence, failure, self-deception, and lame excuses.#2 What we have today is the pluralism of provably false theories.
After-Keynesians never realized Keynes’ foundational blunder and thereby became part of the abysmal failure of what was meant as a Paradigm Shift.#3, #4 Neither DSGEers nor Post Keynesians up to MMT can define macroeconomic profit until this very day.
Science is indeed the search for invariances (Nozick) a.k.a. laws. In economics, though, the invariances are NOT in Human Nature/motives/behavior/action but in the properties of the economic system. Because of this, economics has to move from subjective-behavioral microfoundations to objective-systemic macrofoundations.#5 Nothing less than a Paradigm Shift will do and it is overdue for 150+ years. It holds: If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses
#3 Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science
#4 Heterodoxy, too, is proto-scientific garbage
#5 Ten steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good
Related 'Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom' and 'How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time' and 'United in the social science delusion' and 'Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought' and 'Econogenics in action' and 'Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens' and 'Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion' and Ch. 13, The indelible scientific disgrace of economics, in Sovereign Economics.
Wikimedia AXEC112a Basic Laws of the elementary production-consumption economy
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Keynes has to be credited for realizing that the economics of Jevons/Walras/Menger/ Marshall was false at its core and that nothing less than a Paradigm Shift was needed: “The [neo-]classical theorists resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke the lines for not keeping straight ― as the only remedy for the unfortunate collisions which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work out a non-Euclidean geometry. Something similar is required to-day in economics.”
After Keynes, every economist who still does not see the necessity of a Paradigm Shift is simply scientifically incompetent. One spokesperson of this prevailing majority is Krugman who debunks himself with: “… most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point.”
The fact is that maximization-and-equilibrium economics has already been dead in the cradle 150+ years ago.
Keynes, though, messed up the shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations. His lethal blunder can be exactly located in the GT: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63) This elementary syllogism is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit. (Tómasson et al.)
Because profit is ill-defined, the whole analytical superstructure of Keynesianism is false.#1 Yet one of the outstanding characteristics of the cargo cult science economics is that refutation is persistently ignored: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern)
As a result of the continuous violation of scientific standards, the history of economic thought boils down to a narrative of incompetence, failure, self-deception, and lame excuses.#2 What we have today is the pluralism of provably false theories.
After-Keynesians never realized Keynes’ foundational blunder and thereby became part of the abysmal failure of what was meant as a Paradigm Shift.#3, #4 Neither DSGEers nor Post Keynesians up to MMT can define macroeconomic profit until this very day.
Science is indeed the search for invariances (Nozick) a.k.a. laws. In economics, though, the invariances are NOT in Human Nature/motives/behavior/action but in the properties of the economic system. Because of this, economics has to move from subjective-behavioral microfoundations to objective-systemic macrofoundations.#5 Nothing less than a Paradigm Shift will do and it is overdue for 150+ years. It holds: If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 How Keynes got macro wrong and Allais got it right
#2 Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses
#3 Why Post Keynesianism Is Not Yet a Science
#4 Heterodoxy, too, is proto-scientific garbage
#5 Ten steps to leave cargo cult economics behind for good
Related 'Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom' and 'How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time' and 'United in the social science delusion' and 'Macroeconomics and the fake History of Economic Thought' and 'Econogenics in action' and 'Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens' and 'Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion' and Ch. 13, The indelible scientific disgrace of economics, in Sovereign Economics.
***
Wikimedia AXEC112a Basic Laws of the elementary production-consumption economy
October 7, 2024
Occasional Xs: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (IV)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience#DisInfoTainment
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) October 7, 2024
The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The major approaches (#Walrasianism, #Keynesianism, #Marxianism, #Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory & axiomatically false &…
June 7, 2021
Occasional Tweets: Economic narratives cause severe mental damage
#Economics#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 7, 2021
“People live by narrative”. Indeed, but #Politics is the weaponization of narratives and thus they become a tool for fraud and deception.
Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformationhttps://t.co/Wl1hw0DfCL
For more about narrative see AXECquery.
For more about storytelling see AXECquery.
For more about propaganda see AXECquery.
For more about disinfotainment see AXECquery.
December 28, 2019
Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump
Comment on Maria Popova on ‘How Kepler Invented Science Fiction and Defended His Mother in a Witchcraft Trial While Revolutionizing Our Understanding of the Universe’*
Own post, Twitter-Reference
To recall, science is about true/false and nothing else. Strictly speaking, it is NOT the task of science to convince the “scientifically illiterate public.” The acceptance of a theory depends alone on the proof of material/formal consistency and NOT on the approval of the general public or the number of followers on Twitter. Storytelling, on the other hand, has been the tool of religious/political fraudsters since they put down their fake accounts of creation and evolution/history in their so-called holy books. To put the scientist Kepler at one level with religious/political impostors is an absolute disgrace.
“In 1609, Johannes Kepler finished the first work of genuine science fiction — that is, imaginative storytelling in which sensical science is a major plot device. Somnium, or The Dream, is the fictional account of a young astronomer who voyages to the Moon. Rich in both scientific ingenuity and symbolic play, it is at once a masterwork of the literary imagination and an invaluable scientific document, all the more impressive for the fact that it was written before Galileo pointed the first spyglass at the sky and before Kepler himself had ever looked through a telescope. Kepler knew what we habitually forget — that the locus of possibility expands when the unimaginable is imagined and then made real through systematic effort.”
To call Somnium a piece of “imaginative storytelling” is tempting but utterly misleading. Somnium is an example of a thought experiment. And Kepler drives home the crucial point of the exercise: “Everyone says it is plain that the stars go around the earth while the Earth remains still. I say that it is plain to the eyes of the lunar people that our Earth, which is their Volva, goes around while their moon is still. If it be said that the lunatic perceptions of my moon-dwellers are deceived, I retort with equal justice that the terrestrial senses of the Earth-dwellers are devoid of reason.”
So, the use of the thought experiment is to clarify a feature of the real world. It is a consistent abstraction that gets closer to reality. A narrative, on the other hand, is an inconsistent fantasy that leads away from reality. This is what science fiction does. It is therefore misleading to call Kepler an inventor of science fiction or a storyteller.
“Like any currency of value, the human imagination is a coin with two inseparable sides. It is our faculty of fancy that fills the disquieting gaps of the unknown with the tranquilizing certitudes of myth and superstition, that points to magic and witchcraft when common sense and reason fail to unveil causality. But that selfsame faculty is also what leads us to rise above accepted facts, above the limits of the possible established by custom and convention, and reach for new summits of previously unimagined truth. Which way the coin flips depends on the degree of courage, determined by some incalculable combination of nature, culture, and character.”
Right, there is progressive use of abstraction and regressive use. The latter is characteristic of economics. Economic storytelling is not applied to enlighten the general public but to deceive it. The deeper reason is that economics is not a science but for 200+ years now political agenda pushing in the mantle of science. Economics suffers since the founding fathers from the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction.
“By the time of Astronomia nova, Kepler had ample mathematical evidence affirming Copernicus’s theory. But he realized something crucial and abiding about human psychology: The scientific proof was too complex, too cumbersome, too abstract to persuade even his peers, much less the scientifically illiterate public; it wasn’t data that would dismantle their celestial parochialism, but storytelling.”
It is just the opposite in economics. There is much storytelling but neither mathematical nor empirical evidence for any of the major approaches, i.e. for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, or MMT. Narrative economics is proto-scientific garbage.
For more details see
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* brainpickings
Related 'How economists became the scientific laughing stock' and 'Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens' and 'Economics is a science? You must be joking!' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science' and 'Links on the Economics Nobel'.
Own post, Twitter-Reference
To recall, science is about true/false and nothing else. Strictly speaking, it is NOT the task of science to convince the “scientifically illiterate public.” The acceptance of a theory depends alone on the proof of material/formal consistency and NOT on the approval of the general public or the number of followers on Twitter. Storytelling, on the other hand, has been the tool of religious/political fraudsters since they put down their fake accounts of creation and evolution/history in their so-called holy books. To put the scientist Kepler at one level with religious/political impostors is an absolute disgrace.
“In 1609, Johannes Kepler finished the first work of genuine science fiction — that is, imaginative storytelling in which sensical science is a major plot device. Somnium, or The Dream, is the fictional account of a young astronomer who voyages to the Moon. Rich in both scientific ingenuity and symbolic play, it is at once a masterwork of the literary imagination and an invaluable scientific document, all the more impressive for the fact that it was written before Galileo pointed the first spyglass at the sky and before Kepler himself had ever looked through a telescope. Kepler knew what we habitually forget — that the locus of possibility expands when the unimaginable is imagined and then made real through systematic effort.”
To call Somnium a piece of “imaginative storytelling” is tempting but utterly misleading. Somnium is an example of a thought experiment. And Kepler drives home the crucial point of the exercise: “Everyone says it is plain that the stars go around the earth while the Earth remains still. I say that it is plain to the eyes of the lunar people that our Earth, which is their Volva, goes around while their moon is still. If it be said that the lunatic perceptions of my moon-dwellers are deceived, I retort with equal justice that the terrestrial senses of the Earth-dwellers are devoid of reason.”
So, the use of the thought experiment is to clarify a feature of the real world. It is a consistent abstraction that gets closer to reality. A narrative, on the other hand, is an inconsistent fantasy that leads away from reality. This is what science fiction does. It is therefore misleading to call Kepler an inventor of science fiction or a storyteller.
“Like any currency of value, the human imagination is a coin with two inseparable sides. It is our faculty of fancy that fills the disquieting gaps of the unknown with the tranquilizing certitudes of myth and superstition, that points to magic and witchcraft when common sense and reason fail to unveil causality. But that selfsame faculty is also what leads us to rise above accepted facts, above the limits of the possible established by custom and convention, and reach for new summits of previously unimagined truth. Which way the coin flips depends on the degree of courage, determined by some incalculable combination of nature, culture, and character.”
Right, there is progressive use of abstraction and regressive use. The latter is characteristic of economics. Economic storytelling is not applied to enlighten the general public but to deceive it. The deeper reason is that economics is not a science but for 200+ years now political agenda pushing in the mantle of science. Economics suffers since the founding fathers from the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction.
“By the time of Astronomia nova, Kepler had ample mathematical evidence affirming Copernicus’s theory. But he realized something crucial and abiding about human psychology: The scientific proof was too complex, too cumbersome, too abstract to persuade even his peers, much less the scientifically illiterate public; it wasn’t data that would dismantle their celestial parochialism, but storytelling.”
It is just the opposite in economics. There is much storytelling but neither mathematical nor empirical evidence for any of the major approaches, i.e. for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, or MMT. Narrative economics is proto-scientific garbage.
For more details see
- Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom
- Economics: stories, narratives, and disinformation
- How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time
- Economics as storytelling and entertainment for the masses
- Economics is not science, not religion, but proto-scientific garbage
- If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people
- Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro
- The economist as storyteller
- Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion
- The apocalypse of stupidity
- Economics ― the science that never was
- How to spot economics trolls
- Cross-references Scientific Incompetence
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* brainpickings
Related 'How economists became the scientific laughing stock' and 'Econogenics: economists pose a hazard to their fellow citizens' and 'Economics is a science? You must be joking!' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science' and 'Links on the Economics Nobel'.
***
 |
| Source: Twitter |
August 31, 2022
Occasional Tweets: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (I)
#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 31, 2022
Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcomhttps://t.co/zc99rWEnTK
For more about communication see AXECquery.
August 23, 2024
Occasional Xs: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (III)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 23, 2024
“The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal. (von Mises)
This has been known to humans since the dawn of civilization, i.e., long before Adam Smith described the pin factory in his Wealth of Nations.… pic.twitter.com/yrzfahy7Yz
November 7, 2024
Occasional Xs: The role of narratives and storytelling in economics (V)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience#DisInfoTainment
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 7, 2024
“ … spricht unter anderem von neuen Narrativen, die man entwickeln müsse.” (FiscalFuture)
Economics claims to be science but is NOT. The major approaches (#Walrasianism, #Keynesianism, #Marxianism, #Austrianism, and their…
June 18, 2018
Wrapping up the MMT narrative
Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘The Wage[s]-Lump Doctrine ― still dogma after all these years’
Blog-Reference
Tom Hickey puts the MMT narrative straight: “… it’s contradicted by Warren Mosler’s account of how he discovered what he called ‘soft currency economics’ through an operationally-based understand of government finance, from which he made a pile of $. Subsequently, Warren met Randy Wray and then Bill Mitchell, who jointly developed the economics that came to be called MMT. Warren funded it.”
This information helps to wrap up this thread.*
• MMT is the most recent incarnation of Political Economy. Political Economy abuses science since Adam Smith/Karl Marx for the purpose of agenda-pushing.
• Political Economy started as open propaganda, became more sophisticated over time, and is now a mixture of propaganda and science with varying proportions of the component parts. In most cases, the science ingredient does not satisfy the criteria of material and formal consistency. So what remains in the end of political economics, is a piece of communication with zero scientific content.
• The scientific component of MMT is provably false. More precisely: MMT’s foundational macroeconomic balances equation, i.e. (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0, is false. The true equation reads (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)−(Q−Yd)=0.#1
• The true equation says, inter alia, Public Deficit = Private Profit.
• The economic policy guidance of MMT boils down to money-creation/deficit spending. Deficit spending has multiple effects, the main and immediate effect is that it increases macroeconomic profit.
• MMT is presented to the general public as a socially beneficial program that uses the fiat money system for the Common Good. MMT’s argumentative flagship is the Job Guarantee. MMTers always talk about the employment effect of deficit spending but never about the profit effect.
• As a matter of fact, MMT amounts to a capturing of the state/central bank for continuous deficit spending which in turn amounts to a continuous self-financing of the one-percenters.
• Members of the Oligarchy like Warren Mosler fund the propagation of the MMT self-financing scheme on all levels of communication from academia to social media.
• With regard to economics, which still claims to be a science, this has become common practice.#2
• The real problem with MMT, though, consists of the employment of the well-meaning and unsuspecting philosopher Tom Hickey and other proponents of the Good Society for pushing an a-social agenda.#3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
#2 Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America
#3 Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople
* Related 'Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling'
Blog-Reference
Tom Hickey puts the MMT narrative straight: “… it’s contradicted by Warren Mosler’s account of how he discovered what he called ‘soft currency economics’ through an operationally-based understand of government finance, from which he made a pile of $. Subsequently, Warren met Randy Wray and then Bill Mitchell, who jointly developed the economics that came to be called MMT. Warren funded it.”
This information helps to wrap up this thread.*
• MMT is the most recent incarnation of Political Economy. Political Economy abuses science since Adam Smith/Karl Marx for the purpose of agenda-pushing.
• Political Economy started as open propaganda, became more sophisticated over time, and is now a mixture of propaganda and science with varying proportions of the component parts. In most cases, the science ingredient does not satisfy the criteria of material and formal consistency. So what remains in the end of political economics, is a piece of communication with zero scientific content.
• The scientific component of MMT is provably false. More precisely: MMT’s foundational macroeconomic balances equation, i.e. (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0, is false. The true equation reads (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)−(Q−Yd)=0.#1
• The true equation says, inter alia, Public Deficit = Private Profit.
• The economic policy guidance of MMT boils down to money-creation/deficit spending. Deficit spending has multiple effects, the main and immediate effect is that it increases macroeconomic profit.
• MMT is presented to the general public as a socially beneficial program that uses the fiat money system for the Common Good. MMT’s argumentative flagship is the Job Guarantee. MMTers always talk about the employment effect of deficit spending but never about the profit effect.
• As a matter of fact, MMT amounts to a capturing of the state/central bank for continuous deficit spending which in turn amounts to a continuous self-financing of the one-percenters.
• Members of the Oligarchy like Warren Mosler fund the propagation of the MMT self-financing scheme on all levels of communication from academia to social media.
• With regard to economics, which still claims to be a science, this has become common practice.#2
• The real problem with MMT, though, consists of the employment of the well-meaning and unsuspecting philosopher Tom Hickey and other proponents of the Good Society for pushing an a-social agenda.#3
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
#2 Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America
#3 Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople
* Related 'Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling'
January 10, 2017
Narrative economics and the imperatives of the sitcom
Comment on Tim Taylor on ‘Narrative Economics and the Laffer Curve’
Blog-Reference
Tim Taylor summarizes: “Shiller’s broad point was that the key distinguishing trait of human beings may be that we organize what we know in the form of stories.”
This is slightly incorrect. It is morons who can only grasp stories, human beings in the full sense organize knowledge in the form of scientific theories. This is known since the ancient Greeks introduced the distinction between opinion (= doxa) and knowledge (= episteme). The fact of the matter is that ― as a rule of thumb ― one percent of a population fits the description of a scientist = human being.
Obviously, Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor are 2700+ years behind the curve: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994)
Plausible myth, narrative, hearsay, story, and common sense are simply euphemisms for proto-scientific garbage.
The average person dislikes an objective explanation (e.g. the thunderbolt is an electromagnetic phenomenon subject to physical laws) and likes a subjective explanation (e.g. Zeus threw the thunderbolt because he was angry/vengeful/authoritarian). The scientific explanation takes the form of a theory, and the non-scientific explanation takes the form of an emotionally reinforced narrative. Almost all societal communication consists of storytelling/blather/wish-wash/truisms/BS, and only a tiny part has scientific content.
Economics claims to be a science, yet has never risen above the level of storytelling. What we have is the narrative of how the Invisible Hand of supply-demand-equilibrium (S-D-E) turns all to the best ― in the long run. Note well that in 200+ years NO proof of this claim has been presented. General equilibrium theory is one of the worst failures in the history of scientific thought.
Within the tiny box of folk psychology, folk sociology, folk history, and folk politics, economic storytelling has taken place since Adam Smith: “Smith ... disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter)
Storytelling is the natural form of communication of confused confusers and the sitcom is the format the general public wants economics to be presented. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism survive only as social narratives and not as scientifically valid representations of reality.
Storytelling is not prohibited, of course, but there is no place for storytellers in the sciences. So, both orthodox and heterodox economic storytellers have to leave economics now for good because of proven scientific incompetence. This includes Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor.
It is the task of the economist as a scientist to figure out how the economy works and NOT to appear in sitcoms and spoon-feed morons with silly narratives.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Economics for philosophers' and 'The market economy is inherently unstable and economists never grasped it' and 'The economist as storyteller' and 'If You Meet the Storyteller on the Road, Kill Him' and 'The monstrous utility-supply-demand-equilibrium failure' and 'Economics and the weapons of mass distraction' and 'How to creatively destruct Orthodoxy' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig' and 'Economics: communication without content' and 'Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'Links on Diane Coyle' and 'What’s the trouble with some Canadian economists?' and 'Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump'.
Blog-Reference
Tim Taylor summarizes: “Shiller’s broad point was that the key distinguishing trait of human beings may be that we organize what we know in the form of stories.”
This is slightly incorrect. It is morons who can only grasp stories, human beings in the full sense organize knowledge in the form of scientific theories. This is known since the ancient Greeks introduced the distinction between opinion (= doxa) and knowledge (= episteme). The fact of the matter is that ― as a rule of thumb ― one percent of a population fits the description of a scientist = human being.
Obviously, Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor are 2700+ years behind the curve: “There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter (such as the gods). This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper, 1994)
Plausible myth, narrative, hearsay, story, and common sense are simply euphemisms for proto-scientific garbage.
The average person dislikes an objective explanation (e.g. the thunderbolt is an electromagnetic phenomenon subject to physical laws) and likes a subjective explanation (e.g. Zeus threw the thunderbolt because he was angry/vengeful/authoritarian). The scientific explanation takes the form of a theory, and the non-scientific explanation takes the form of an emotionally reinforced narrative. Almost all societal communication consists of storytelling/blather/wish-wash/truisms/BS, and only a tiny part has scientific content.
Economics claims to be a science, yet has never risen above the level of storytelling. What we have is the narrative of how the Invisible Hand of supply-demand-equilibrium (S-D-E) turns all to the best ― in the long run. Note well that in 200+ years NO proof of this claim has been presented. General equilibrium theory is one of the worst failures in the history of scientific thought.
Within the tiny box of folk psychology, folk sociology, folk history, and folk politics, economic storytelling has taken place since Adam Smith: “Smith ... disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along.” (Schumpeter)
Storytelling is the natural form of communication of confused confusers and the sitcom is the format the general public wants economics to be presented. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism survive only as social narratives and not as scientifically valid representations of reality.
Storytelling is not prohibited, of course, but there is no place for storytellers in the sciences. So, both orthodox and heterodox economic storytellers have to leave economics now for good because of proven scientific incompetence. This includes Robert Shiller and Tim Taylor.
It is the task of the economist as a scientist to figure out how the economy works and NOT to appear in sitcoms and spoon-feed morons with silly narratives.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Economics for philosophers' and 'The market economy is inherently unstable and economists never grasped it' and 'The economist as storyteller' and 'If You Meet the Storyteller on the Road, Kill Him' and 'The monstrous utility-supply-demand-equilibrium failure' and 'Economics and the weapons of mass distraction' and 'How to creatively destruct Orthodoxy' and 'Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics' and 'Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence' and 'The economist as stand-up comedian' and 'New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig' and 'Economics: communication without content' and 'Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole' and 'Why is economics a total scientific failure?' and 'Links on Diane Coyle' and 'What’s the trouble with some Canadian economists?' and 'Economic narratives are for the scientific garbage dump'.
***
World Economic Forum, Dec 5, 2021, Bruce Wydick, How narratives influence human behaviour
***
Wikimedia AXEC108l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)