There are many chances for the unmasking of the so-called social sciences and the character of the ‘critical public intellectual’ after Feynman's exposure of #CargoCultSciencehttps://t.co/uGPMARut1u
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 19, 2021
See:
The representative economist ― a cargo cult clownhttps://t.co/3DhBWidGqQ
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query label:PsySoc. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query label:PsySoc. Sort by date Show all posts
September 19, 2021
Occasional Tweets: Economists ― jesters of the Queen of Social Sciences
February 19, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLIX)
“At its core, economics is political. It has never been — and never will be — a value-free science.” (Jostein Hauge)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) February 19, 2026
Economists have never understood the difference between politics and science. This is why economics is failed/fake science to this day. At its core, economics is… pic.twitter.com/FrHkLKP9p1
March 22, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLXXXIII)
“Austrian economics isn't a single grand theory. It's a set of insights built up over a century by economists who started from one simple premise: economics must begin with the individual human being and work outward — not the other way around.” (Handre)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) March 22, 2026
Economics is about how…
December 17, 2024
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CXXXVI)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 17, 2024
“Intelligent people tend to be socialists because they are more likely to overvalue intelligence and to suppose we must owe all the advantages and opportunities that our civilization offers to deliberate design rather than to following traditional… pic.twitter.com/SYEVfUMMxP
March 8, 2016
Economics and the social science delusion
Comment on Maria Alejandra Madi on ‘The formal and the substantive meanings of “economics”’
Blog-Reference
Economics is a failed science. This means more specifically: Orthodoxy has failed to produce anything of real scientific value and Heterodoxy has failed to develop a superior alternative.
Quite naturally, there are many ideas about causes and cures “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362)
Let us face reality: economists have proven their scientific incompetence over more than 200 years and have no clue about how to proceed. Until this day, the representative economist cannot tell what profit is and what the essential difference between profit and income is and what this means for growth/boom/bust.
Since Adam Smith, economics claims to be a science. It started as a mixture of sociology and political science: “The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, ...” (Mill, 1874, V.39)
Right from the beginning, economists saw themselves as agenda pushers for some greater good and science as a means to that end. The idea of pure science, i.e. the free and independent pursuit of knowledge, never occurred to these storytellers and propagandists.
With the Marginalists, the focus shifted to methodological individualism and economics became a mixture of dilettantish psychology, sociology, and political science.
The red thread of the history of economic thought is that both orthodox and heterodox economists regarded economics as a social science. This is why they both failed.
Economics is NOT a science of individual/social/political behavior — this is the social science delusion — but of the behavior of the monetary economy. All Human-Nature issues are the subject matter of other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/ Darwinism, political science, social philosophy, history, etcetera) and are taken in from these by way of multi-disciplinary cooperation.
The contributions of sociologists/historians/etc are valuable for economics but social scientists are, strictly speaking, out of economics. Economists have to answer the question of how the monetary economy works. Until now they cannot even answer the question of what profit is (2015). And, of course, Karl Polanyi cannot answer it either.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Ingrao, B., and Israel, G. (1990). The Invisible Hand. Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2705395: 1–6. URL
Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
Related 'Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'Why economists have not been effective in economics' and 'The irrelevance of populism for economics' and 'Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior.
Blog-Reference
Economics is a failed science. This means more specifically: Orthodoxy has failed to produce anything of real scientific value and Heterodoxy has failed to develop a superior alternative.
Quite naturally, there are many ideas about causes and cures “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362)
Let us face reality: economists have proven their scientific incompetence over more than 200 years and have no clue about how to proceed. Until this day, the representative economist cannot tell what profit is and what the essential difference between profit and income is and what this means for growth/boom/bust.
Since Adam Smith, economics claims to be a science. It started as a mixture of sociology and political science: “The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, ...” (Mill, 1874, V.39)
Right from the beginning, economists saw themselves as agenda pushers for some greater good and science as a means to that end. The idea of pure science, i.e. the free and independent pursuit of knowledge, never occurred to these storytellers and propagandists.
With the Marginalists, the focus shifted to methodological individualism and economics became a mixture of dilettantish psychology, sociology, and political science.
The red thread of the history of economic thought is that both orthodox and heterodox economists regarded economics as a social science. This is why they both failed.
Economics is NOT a science of individual/social/political behavior — this is the social science delusion — but of the behavior of the monetary economy. All Human-Nature issues are the subject matter of other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/ Darwinism, political science, social philosophy, history, etcetera) and are taken in from these by way of multi-disciplinary cooperation.
The contributions of sociologists/historians/etc are valuable for economics but social scientists are, strictly speaking, out of economics. Economists have to answer the question of how the monetary economy works. Until now they cannot even answer the question of what profit is (2015). And, of course, Karl Polanyi cannot answer it either.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Ingrao, B., and Israel, G. (1990). The Invisible Hand. Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2705395: 1–6. URL
Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
Related 'Economists’ three-layered scientific incompetence' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'Why economists have not been effective in economics' and 'The irrelevance of populism for economics' and 'Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior.
September 20, 2016
Scientists and science actors
Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Chicago drivel — a sure way to get a ‘Nobel prize’ in economics’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Personal experience makes only a tiny part of what every human knows about the world/ universe and other humans, the greater part stems from myth/religion/philosophy/ science. Myth/religion/philosophy is storytelling and does not satisfy the scientific criteria of logical and empirical consistency. Storytelling is easy, to establish consistency is hard. From the history of the last 5000 years, we know that stories sell well, the absurder the better. The average person prefers belief/opinion (= doxa) to knowledge (= episteme) and thinks more about natural/supernatural persons/personifications and less about the universe and its sub-systems. Because of this, nearly 100 percent of human communication consists of gossip.
A case in point is economics. What Thomas Sargent tells his students boils down to: (i) humans respond to incentives, (ii) one cannot always get what one wants, (iii) in equilibrium economic agents are satisfied, (iv) sometimes people/governments keep their promises, sometimes not, (v) people try to get more out of the social pot than they put in, (vi) it is difficult/impossible to know other peoples’ motives/preferences and to forecast their actions. (See intro)
This is folk psychology and folk sociology — PsySoc for short. The economist Sargent tells his students how humans work but not how the economy works. The main reason is that Sargent and his fellow economists at Chicago, Berkeley, Harvard, and elsewhere do not know how the economy works.
This would not be a big issue, after all, people talk most of the time about NONENTITIES and things they know nothing about. To believe in standard economics is in no way different from the belief in the myths of ancient goat herders. The real trouble with economics begins here: “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.
The keyword is science[s]. Why not simply “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics”? The original title clearly communicates the claim that economics is a science. This claim is as old as Adam Smith/Karl Marx. But economists never lived up to the claim.
Science is well-defined by the criteria of formal and material consistency: “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)
Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the criteria of formal and material consistency. Worse, economists violate scientific standards since the founding fathers. There is no exception: Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, or Austrian economics is provably inconsistent.
There are political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers were straightforward people and called themselves political economists, that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). And this is how economics became one of the most embarrassing failures in the history of scientific thought.
Economics is not a science, but what Feynman famously called a cargo cult science. Accordingly, economists are not scientists but science actors. The difference is this: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack, 1997, p. 1)
Not only the Chicago version but economics in all its orthodox and heterodox variants is unacceptable proto-scientific garbage. The first thing to do is to rename the most prestigious economics prize into “Bank of Sweden Oscar for the best science actor/actress.”
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Haack, S. (1997). Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Inquirer, 21(6): 1–7. URL
Related 'Feeble minds, shaky assumptions, and the inevitable failure of economics' and 'How to get out of the Econ 101 PsySoc woods' and 'Economics is NOT a science of behavior' and 'From PsySoc to SysHum' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'A farewell to PsySoc economics'.
Your argument adds nothing to the discussion but distracts from the main point. The question is: Is the theory/model true or false. The character of the author, his CV, and what his motives might be is ultimately irrelevant. Science is about proof and not about personality or credibility.
“Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.” (Schumpeter)#1
Chicago economics is provably false. The same holds for Cambridge economics. It is irrelevant whether Cambridge is regarded as politically more leftist and Chicago more rightist. The point is that both Chicago and Cambridge produce proto-scientific garbage.
#1 See also the first 60 seconds of Feynman on Scientific Method on YouTube
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Personal experience makes only a tiny part of what every human knows about the world/ universe and other humans, the greater part stems from myth/religion/philosophy/ science. Myth/religion/philosophy is storytelling and does not satisfy the scientific criteria of logical and empirical consistency. Storytelling is easy, to establish consistency is hard. From the history of the last 5000 years, we know that stories sell well, the absurder the better. The average person prefers belief/opinion (= doxa) to knowledge (= episteme) and thinks more about natural/supernatural persons/personifications and less about the universe and its sub-systems. Because of this, nearly 100 percent of human communication consists of gossip.
A case in point is economics. What Thomas Sargent tells his students boils down to: (i) humans respond to incentives, (ii) one cannot always get what one wants, (iii) in equilibrium economic agents are satisfied, (iv) sometimes people/governments keep their promises, sometimes not, (v) people try to get more out of the social pot than they put in, (vi) it is difficult/impossible to know other peoples’ motives/preferences and to forecast their actions. (See intro)
This is folk psychology and folk sociology — PsySoc for short. The economist Sargent tells his students how humans work but not how the economy works. The main reason is that Sargent and his fellow economists at Chicago, Berkeley, Harvard, and elsewhere do not know how the economy works.
This would not be a big issue, after all, people talk most of the time about NONENTITIES and things they know nothing about. To believe in standard economics is in no way different from the belief in the myths of ancient goat herders. The real trouble with economics begins here: “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.
The keyword is science[s]. Why not simply “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics”? The original title clearly communicates the claim that economics is a science. This claim is as old as Adam Smith/Karl Marx. But economists never lived up to the claim.
Science is well-defined by the criteria of formal and material consistency: “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)
Neither orthodox nor heterodox economics satisfies the criteria of formal and material consistency. Worse, economists violate scientific standards since the founding fathers. There is no exception: Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, or Austrian economics is provably inconsistent.
There are political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers were straightforward people and called themselves political economists, that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). And this is how economics became one of the most embarrassing failures in the history of scientific thought.
Economics is not a science, but what Feynman famously called a cargo cult science. Accordingly, economists are not scientists but science actors. The difference is this: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack, 1997, p. 1)
Not only the Chicago version but economics in all its orthodox and heterodox variants is unacceptable proto-scientific garbage. The first thing to do is to rename the most prestigious economics prize into “Bank of Sweden Oscar for the best science actor/actress.”
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Haack, S. (1997). Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Inquirer, 21(6): 1–7. URL
Related 'Feeble minds, shaky assumptions, and the inevitable failure of economics' and 'How to get out of the Econ 101 PsySoc woods' and 'Economics is NOT a science of behavior' and 'From PsySoc to SysHum' and 'The happy end of the social science delusion' and 'The Science-of-Man fallacy' and 'PsySoc — the scourge of economics' and 'A farewell to PsySoc economics'.
***
REPLY to Peter on Sep 21Your argument adds nothing to the discussion but distracts from the main point. The question is: Is the theory/model true or false. The character of the author, his CV, and what his motives might be is ultimately irrelevant. Science is about proof and not about personality or credibility.
“Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.” (Schumpeter)#1
Chicago economics is provably false. The same holds for Cambridge economics. It is irrelevant whether Cambridge is regarded as politically more leftist and Chicago more rightist. The point is that both Chicago and Cambridge produce proto-scientific garbage.
#1 See also the first 60 seconds of Feynman on Scientific Method on YouTube
March 16, 2022
Occasional Tweets: The futile attempt to recycle behavioral economics (I)
Economics is NOT a social sciencehttps://t.co/zJHeQboYGH
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 16, 2022
and NOT about human behaviorhttps://t.co/MzGiF9gpXa#Economics is about how the economic #System works. That, #Economists have still NOT figured out because they are too stupid for #Science. pic.twitter.com/v9SlZ51K0x
For details of the big picture see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior
February 23, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLXVI)
“If you're studying economics & they're not teaching Max Weber, you're not getting an education.” (Jack Meyer, quoted by Vincent Geloso)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) February 23, 2026
“If you're studying economics, you're not getting an education.” (AXEC)
Both mainstream and heterodox economists never had any idea what… pic.twitter.com/MUgEHdj52M
For more about sociology, see AXECquery.
September 18, 2017
New Economic Thinking = old scientific garbage
Comment on David Orrell on ‘Economyths: The Five Stages of Economic Grief’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Myth, well told, is still the most convincing way to explain how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. To recall, Zeus was the god of sky and thunder. He oversaw the universe, assigned the various gods their roles, and was known for his erotic escapades. Zeus was emotional, spontaneous and had a lot of trouble with other gods, goddesses, and humans. To handle his problems, Zeus regularly fell back to chicanery, force, and violence.#1 Since antiquity, everybody “understands” Zeus and his actions.
Not much has changed since the ancient Greeks. Ninety-nine percent of human communication still consists of myth, storytelling, and psychologism. Storytelling and psychologism are scientifically worthless. The “explanation” consists of connecting phenomenological dots by simply imputing a plausible emotional motive (anger, greed, fear, jealousy, hubris, revenge, etcetera) to an assumed actor with extraordinary capabilities.
The characteristic of science is the rejection of storytelling and the insistence on material and formal consistency: “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)
The goal of science is the true theory. The true theory is the humanly best mental representation of reality. Economics is a failed science. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concepts profit and income wrong. Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists can explain how the economy works and why crises happen.
The methodologically proper measure to overcome scientific failure is a paradigm shift. This, though, is NOT what David Orrell proposes. Instead, he reinterprets the manifest scientific mess as a psychological problem and advocates therapy: “I’m sure there are plenty of sociologists and psychologists (even grief counsellors probably) who can help.”
Needless to emphasize that David Orrell’s story of sickness and healing appeals very much to the ninety-nine percenters who can only understand what is presented in the accustomed sitcom format. Psychologism is the mode of explanation of morons for other morons. Psychology, to recall, is a so-called social science and the so-called social sciences have been debunked by Richard Feynman as cargo cult science.
Economics is a systems science and the functioning of the economic system has to be explained without recourse to psychological concepts like utility or greed.#2
Economics is a failure ― NOT a psychological or communicative failure but a scientific failure ― and the ultimate cause is not some mysterious psychological disorder but plain scientific incompetence. Both orthodox and heterodox economics has never been more than storytelling. There is neither material or formal consistency. The representative economist can until this very day not tell what profit is.#3 This is like medieval physics before the concept of energy was properly understood.
Economists have no mysterious psychological disorder, they are fake scientists.#4 This scourge cannot be overcome with therapy but only with the immediate expulsion of economists from the sciences.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia, Zeus
#2 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
#3 Why economists don’t know what profit is
#4 CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig
Related 'Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?' and 'Economics: the emancipation of science from politics' and 'What makes economics a failed science?' and 'Hunting down the economics body snatchers' and 'In search of new economists' and 'The myth of economics knowledge' and 'How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time' and 'New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points'. For details of the bigger picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Myth, well told, is still the most convincing way to explain how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. To recall, Zeus was the god of sky and thunder. He oversaw the universe, assigned the various gods their roles, and was known for his erotic escapades. Zeus was emotional, spontaneous and had a lot of trouble with other gods, goddesses, and humans. To handle his problems, Zeus regularly fell back to chicanery, force, and violence.#1 Since antiquity, everybody “understands” Zeus and his actions.
Not much has changed since the ancient Greeks. Ninety-nine percent of human communication still consists of myth, storytelling, and psychologism. Storytelling and psychologism are scientifically worthless. The “explanation” consists of connecting phenomenological dots by simply imputing a plausible emotional motive (anger, greed, fear, jealousy, hubris, revenge, etcetera) to an assumed actor with extraordinary capabilities.
The characteristic of science is the rejection of storytelling and the insistence on material and formal consistency: “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)
The goal of science is the true theory. The true theory is the humanly best mental representation of reality. Economics is a failed science. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concepts profit and income wrong. Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists can explain how the economy works and why crises happen.
The methodologically proper measure to overcome scientific failure is a paradigm shift. This, though, is NOT what David Orrell proposes. Instead, he reinterprets the manifest scientific mess as a psychological problem and advocates therapy: “I’m sure there are plenty of sociologists and psychologists (even grief counsellors probably) who can help.”
Needless to emphasize that David Orrell’s story of sickness and healing appeals very much to the ninety-nine percenters who can only understand what is presented in the accustomed sitcom format. Psychologism is the mode of explanation of morons for other morons. Psychology, to recall, is a so-called social science and the so-called social sciences have been debunked by Richard Feynman as cargo cult science.
Economics is a systems science and the functioning of the economic system has to be explained without recourse to psychological concepts like utility or greed.#2
Economics is a failure ― NOT a psychological or communicative failure but a scientific failure ― and the ultimate cause is not some mysterious psychological disorder but plain scientific incompetence. Both orthodox and heterodox economics has never been more than storytelling. There is neither material or formal consistency. The representative economist can until this very day not tell what profit is.#3 This is like medieval physics before the concept of energy was properly understood.
Economists have no mysterious psychological disorder, they are fake scientists.#4 This scourge cannot be overcome with therapy but only with the immediate expulsion of economists from the sciences.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia, Zeus
#2 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
#3 Why economists don’t know what profit is
#4 CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig
Related 'Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?' and 'Economics: the emancipation of science from politics' and 'What makes economics a failed science?' and 'Hunting down the economics body snatchers' and 'In search of new economists' and 'The myth of economics knowledge' and 'How the representative economist gets it wrong big-time' and 'New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points'. For details of the bigger picture see cross-references Paradigm Shift.
***
FACT: The comment above vanished within minutes from the Evonomics blog.
FICTION: This is how the New Economic Thinkers advertise themselves.
September 24, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCCLXV)
“MILEI: ‘CAPITALISM IS THE SYSTEM THAT GOD ESTABLISHED’” (Ignorance)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 24, 2026
Over God is mathematics, and either God is too stupid for it, or everything has been messed up by religious people.
The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their…
June 27, 2016
Lost in the wood
Comment on Jared Bernstein on ‘From the joint dept. of: capitalism is remarkable, and we are a very sick society’
Blog-Reference
(i) Your blog is clearly labeled ‘On the economy’.
(ii) We have seen on the preceding thread#1 that you have no idea about how the actual economy works and cannot even tell the difference between income and profit.
(iii) All this is disqualifying enough for an economist but it does not stop you from making things even worse by moralizing about the sick society. May I remind you that society is the subject matter of sociology/social philosophy and that the subject matter of economics is the economy?
(iv) The sickness of economists in general and you, in particular, consists in the fact that they have no idea of how the economy works, and instead of shutting up they try to cover their failure with waffling about society.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Iatrogenic economics
Blog-Reference
(i) Your blog is clearly labeled ‘On the economy’.
(ii) We have seen on the preceding thread#1 that you have no idea about how the actual economy works and cannot even tell the difference between income and profit.
(iii) All this is disqualifying enough for an economist but it does not stop you from making things even worse by moralizing about the sick society. May I remind you that society is the subject matter of sociology/social philosophy and that the subject matter of economics is the economy?
(iv) The sickness of economists in general and you, in particular, consists in the fact that they have no idea of how the economy works, and instead of shutting up they try to cover their failure with waffling about society.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Iatrogenic economics
February 13, 2024
Occasional Xs: What economists really do (CLXX)
#Economics is #FailedFakeScience. #Economists NEVER understood what #Profit is and how the economic #System works. But these IQ-losers can explain why legalizing recreational marijuana boosts junk food sales. For more on #Junkonomics / #Craponomics see ⇒https://t.co/3LwhbU0NOY
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) February 13, 2024
July 3, 2026
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCL)
“But there's a problem with economics, even first-year economics. Economics isn't settled. That's not all bad, or a disgraceful scandal in the science. Obviously, for one thing, economics involves issues of ethics about which humans disagree. For another, the disagreeing,… pic.twitter.com/I4MBm49Aky
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) July 3, 2026
April 27, 2026
Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle behavioral economics (XVI)
“all these people saying they’d risk their lives for the social good yet not even 10k could give this guy a heart for providing the discussion for two days” (Robert Murphy)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 27, 2026
The basic behavioral assumptions are a matter of methodological indifference because, to begin with,… pic.twitter.com/2mXvccoqc0
August 23, 2015
United in confusion
Comment on Syll/Glasner on ‘Lucas’ caricature of economic science’
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
You write: “Economics confuses mathematization and internal consistency with science. It is amateurism at its worst. And it has gone on for too long.”
That is not quite correct. Science is defined by its methodology: “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)
So, one needs always both. Orthodoxy cannot be criticized for insisting on formal consistency but for lacking material consistency.
What you are proposing as a remedy — historicism, sociologism, psychologism — is not the way forward. We know from the examples of Veblen or the German Historical School that this program, too, has produced much storytelling but nothing of real scientific value.
The failure of Orthodoxy is due to the following set of foundational 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.” (Weintraub, 1985, p. 147)
HC1 is vacuous, and HC2 to HC5 lack material consistency. This is sufficient for the refutation of Orthodoxy.
The whole discussion about formalization and mathiness is beside the point. Science is defined by formal and material consistency. Economics lacks both. Ergo, economics is not a science. There is no difference between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in this respect. The representative economist is a confused confuser (2013), that is all.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
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
Related 'No foundations'
Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
You write: “Economics confuses mathematization and internal consistency with science. It is amateurism at its worst. And it has gone on for too long.”
That is not quite correct. Science is defined by its methodology: “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)
So, one needs always both. Orthodoxy cannot be criticized for insisting on formal consistency but for lacking material consistency.
What you are proposing as a remedy — historicism, sociologism, psychologism — is not the way forward. We know from the examples of Veblen or the German Historical School that this program, too, has produced much storytelling but nothing of real scientific value.
The failure of Orthodoxy is due to the following set of foundational 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.” (Weintraub, 1985, p. 147)
HC1 is vacuous, and HC2 to HC5 lack material consistency. This is sufficient for the refutation of Orthodoxy.
The whole discussion about formalization and mathiness is beside the point. Science is defined by formal and material consistency. Economics lacks both. Ergo, economics is not a science. There is no difference between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy in this respect. The representative economist is a confused confuser (2013), that is all.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
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
Related 'No foundations'
***
Graphic AXEC169
May 7, 2026
Occasional X: The foul spirit of political economics (CCXCV)
“Adam Smith used the phrase 'invisible hand' just once in The Wealth of Nations. And yet it became the defining idea of modern economics. ” (Mariana Mazzucato)
— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 7, 2026
Adam Smith was not an original thinker, not a scientist, not an economist; he was a populist moralizer. ⇓ People like… pic.twitter.com/G6UYL5376G
July 20, 2017
Economics: math-adorned incoherent blather
Comment on Jason Smith on ‘What mathematical theory is for’
Blog-Reference
Jason Smith asserts: “The primary purpose of mathematical theory is to provide equations that illustrate relationships between sets of numerical data.”
This is a bit shallow and does not reach the level of Wikipedia: “Mathematics is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers), structure, space, and change. … Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid’s Elements. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano, David Hilbert, and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”#1
Why mathematics is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality is not fully understood: “I find it quite amazing that it is possible to predict what will happen by mathematics, which is simply following rules which really have nothing to do with what is going on in the original thing.” (Feynman) see also (Wigner) and (Velupillai)
How does this relate to economics? Walrasian economics, too, is axiomatized, the hardcore premises are verbally given as follows: “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)
It should be pretty obvious that the Walrasian axiom set contains THREE NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization (HC2), (ii) rational expectations (HC4), (iii) equilibrium (HC5). Every model that contains a nonentity is A PRIORI false. And this is why mathematics does not work in economics and why economics is a failed science, or what Feynman famously called a cargo cult science.
In practical terms, it follows immediately: as soon as the word equilibrium/disequilibrium appears in an economic paper or textbook, it can be thrown into the wastebasket. The same holds for all other nonentities. Note well that this also holds for Jason Smith’s information equilibrium.
The decisive insight for the role of mathematics in economics is: “If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.”
The natural math of economics is the elementary math of accounting. This is the formalism to start with and NOT SS-function-DD-function-solution.#2 The problem with economists is that they grab a piece of math from the math department and apply it without a deeper understanding.
The cargo cultic methodologist Jason Smith asserts: “A big step in using math to understand the world is when you’ve collected several different empirically successful models into a single paradigm or framework. That’s what Newton did in the seventeenth century. He collected Kepler’s, Galileo’s, and others’ empirical successes into a framework we call Newtonian mechanics.”
And how does Newtonian mechanics start? Yes, with the axioms of motion, see Axiomata Sive Leges Motus at the very beginning of Principia. #3
Physicists got the axioms right, and this is why math works; economists messed up the axioms (first and foremost with HC5, i.e., equilibrium), and this is why the representative economist became a scientific laughing stock. The economist-turned-physicist Jason Smith is no exception.#4
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia Mathematics
#2 Macro for dummies
#3 Wikipedia Newton’s laws of motion
#4 You are fired!
For details of the bigger picture, see cross-references Math/Mathiness
You say: “Physics envy again. … Changing the framework in physics doesn’t fundamentally alter the behaviour of the elements studied ― even in quantum physics. It does in social sciences and economics ― because they involve people with brains and emotions that change their mind.”
This is not a case of physics envy but of social science delusion. Economics is a systems science, i.e., about the structure/behavior of the economy, and NOT a social science, i.e., about Human Nature/motives/behavior action. This is the subject matter of psychology, sociology, political science, etcetera.
Economists are simply at the wrong party and have not realized it since the founding fathers.
Standard economics is based on behavioral axioms (constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium) and mathematics simply does NOT work with nonentities. The calculation that when three angels and four angels dance on a pinpoint then the total is seven angels is not applied arithmetic but brain-dead crap.
It is well-known among mathematicians, but not among economists, that not all mathematical structures incorporate “certain aspect of empirical reality”, which means that there is a “... whole crop of monster-structures, entirely without application.” (Bourbaki)
Standard economics, i.e., supply-demand-equilibrium, is such a monster-structure, entirely without application. This is NOT the fault of mathematics but of abysmally incompetent economists. Count Jason Smith and yourself among them.*
* Incompetence — the original sin in economics
You quote: “Newton’s law of gravity hasn’t changed for eons, Derman said, but human behavior in markets changes all the time, wreaking havoc on even the best models made by scientists.”
WOW, what a revelation! Guess what, this has been known to scientists of all ages except, of course, to retarded economists: “The bifurcation of motion into two fundamentally different types, one for natural motions of non-living objects and another for acts of human volition … is obviously related to the issue of free will, and demonstrates the strong tendency of scientists in all ages to exempt human behavior from the natural laws of physics, and to regard motions resulting from human actions as original, in the sense that they need not be attributed to other motions.” (Brown)#1
Economists, in their ignorance, built economics on a set of BEHAVIORAL axioms with utility maximization at the core. This was 150+ years ago, and neither has Orthodoxy abandoned this proto-scientific rubbish nor has Heterodoxy come forward with something better. Economics has never risen above the level of folk psychology and folk sociology and second-guessing other people’s expectations.
Of course, there is NO such thing as a behavioral law or regularity or stable functional relationship, never was, never will be. Being axiomatically false, economics has to be abandoned and fully replaced.
There is no use in criticizing Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism. It is ALL proto-scientific sitcom blather. The only question is how to replace these failed approaches as fast as possible.
The first step to a Paradigm Shift is to understand that economics is not a so-called social science like psychology/sociology, and not a natural science like physics, but a systems science. The economist’s proper task is to look for objective systemic laws and to empirically verify/falsify them. Science is about the invariants beneath changes on the surface and not a commonsensical description of what happens here and now. There are NO BEHAVIORAL laws, but there are SYSTEMIC laws, and they are as objective, certain, mathematically exact, and eternal as physical laws.#2
#1 The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws
#2 New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points
Everybody can climb on a soapbox and make an economic proposal ― except an economist. In the political realm, anything goes, and no qualification is needed, only an emotionally backed opinion and some rhetorical talent. An economist, on the other hand, is supposed to be a scientist and to know what he is speaking about, that is, to know how the economy works.
Economists who have no scientific knowledge are at the same level as political cranks and these morons thrive when the economy is sluggish or worse: “A sure sign of a crisis is the prevalence of cranks. It is characteristic of a crisis in theory that cranks get a hearing from the public which orthodoxy is failing to satisfy. In the thirties we had Major Douglas, and social credit — it can all be done with a fountain pen — and Warren and Pearson who convinced President Roosevelt that raising the dollar price of gold would raise the price of everything else and bring the slump to an end. The cranks are to be preferred to the orthodox because they see that there is a problem. Nowadays we have plenty of cranks taking up the problems that the economists overlook.” (Joan Robinson)
The difference between a crank and an economist is NOT in the political orientation but in the necessity that the proposal of the economist must have a valid theoretical foundation. That is, the economist must have the true theory: “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)
Now, scientific truth is defined by material and formal consistency, and the problem of economics is that we know for sure that economics is false: the four main approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism — are materially and logically inconsistent.
So, people like Krugman have to be opposed NOT because they are liberal or conservative but because they are scientific fraudsters: they speak in the name of economic science, but there is NO such thing as economic science.
How is scientific knowledge established? “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)
And this is the point where math comes in. Math is simply the best available means to establish logical cohesion. And here, in turn, is where the problem of economists with math comes in: as natural-born muddleheads and cranks, they abhor nothing more than logic. The fact is that economists do not even get the elementary mathematics of accounting right.#1 Where things become comical is when these folks cover their stupidity by posing as philosophers.
#1 Macro for dummies
The curriculum at British schools is the business of the British people. Likewise for the US. No economist has to tell these or other countries how to organize their education and what to teach. The business of economists is to figure out how the economy = world economy works. The fact is that economists are failed/fake scientists. They do not even know the elementary mathematics of accounting, which, if anything, is the minimum condition of doing economics.*
Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.
* See also ‘A new curriculum for swampies?’
Jason Smith is NOT a random physicist but a random blatherer. Take notice that his proto-scientific drivel has been debunked in all dimensions:
Economics: math-adorned incoherent blather
Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere
True macrofoundations: the reset of economics
Macro imbeciles
IS-LM ― a crash course for EconoPhysicists
What genuine scientists believe about economics
Hayek and other informationally retarded proto-economists
Economics between cargo cult, farce, and fraud
The key to macro and Keen's debt-employment model
Blog-Reference
Jason Smith asserts: “The primary purpose of mathematical theory is to provide equations that illustrate relationships between sets of numerical data.”
This is a bit shallow and does not reach the level of Wikipedia: “Mathematics is the study of topics such as quantity (numbers), structure, space, and change. … Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid’s Elements. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano, David Hilbert, and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions.”#1
Why mathematics is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality is not fully understood: “I find it quite amazing that it is possible to predict what will happen by mathematics, which is simply following rules which really have nothing to do with what is going on in the original thing.” (Feynman) see also (Wigner) and (Velupillai)
How does this relate to economics? Walrasian economics, too, is axiomatized, the hardcore premises are verbally given as follows: “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)
It should be pretty obvious that the Walrasian axiom set contains THREE NONENTITIES: (i) constrained optimization (HC2), (ii) rational expectations (HC4), (iii) equilibrium (HC5). Every model that contains a nonentity is A PRIORI false. And this is why mathematics does not work in economics and why economics is a failed science, or what Feynman famously called a cargo cult science.
In practical terms, it follows immediately: as soon as the word equilibrium/disequilibrium appears in an economic paper or textbook, it can be thrown into the wastebasket. The same holds for all other nonentities. Note well that this also holds for Jason Smith’s information equilibrium.
The decisive insight for the role of mathematics in economics is: “If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics.”
The natural math of economics is the elementary math of accounting. This is the formalism to start with and NOT SS-function-DD-function-solution.#2 The problem with economists is that they grab a piece of math from the math department and apply it without a deeper understanding.
The cargo cultic methodologist Jason Smith asserts: “A big step in using math to understand the world is when you’ve collected several different empirically successful models into a single paradigm or framework. That’s what Newton did in the seventeenth century. He collected Kepler’s, Galileo’s, and others’ empirical successes into a framework we call Newtonian mechanics.”
And how does Newtonian mechanics start? Yes, with the axioms of motion, see Axiomata Sive Leges Motus at the very beginning of Principia. #3
Physicists got the axioms right, and this is why math works; economists messed up the axioms (first and foremost with HC5, i.e., equilibrium), and this is why the representative economist became a scientific laughing stock. The economist-turned-physicist Jason Smith is no exception.#4
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Wikipedia Mathematics
#2 Macro for dummies
#3 Wikipedia Newton’s laws of motion
#4 You are fired!
For details of the bigger picture, see cross-references Math/Mathiness
***
REPLY to Neil Wilson on Jul 21You say: “Physics envy again. … Changing the framework in physics doesn’t fundamentally alter the behaviour of the elements studied ― even in quantum physics. It does in social sciences and economics ― because they involve people with brains and emotions that change their mind.”
This is not a case of physics envy but of social science delusion. Economics is a systems science, i.e., about the structure/behavior of the economy, and NOT a social science, i.e., about Human Nature/motives/behavior action. This is the subject matter of psychology, sociology, political science, etcetera.
Economists are simply at the wrong party and have not realized it since the founding fathers.
Standard economics is based on behavioral axioms (constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium) and mathematics simply does NOT work with nonentities. The calculation that when three angels and four angels dance on a pinpoint then the total is seven angels is not applied arithmetic but brain-dead crap.
It is well-known among mathematicians, but not among economists, that not all mathematical structures incorporate “certain aspect of empirical reality”, which means that there is a “... whole crop of monster-structures, entirely without application.” (Bourbaki)
Standard economics, i.e., supply-demand-equilibrium, is such a monster-structure, entirely without application. This is NOT the fault of mathematics but of abysmally incompetent economists. Count Jason Smith and yourself among them.*
* Incompetence — the original sin in economics
***
REPLY to Neil Wilson on Jul 21You quote: “Newton’s law of gravity hasn’t changed for eons, Derman said, but human behavior in markets changes all the time, wreaking havoc on even the best models made by scientists.”
WOW, what a revelation! Guess what, this has been known to scientists of all ages except, of course, to retarded economists: “The bifurcation of motion into two fundamentally different types, one for natural motions of non-living objects and another for acts of human volition … is obviously related to the issue of free will, and demonstrates the strong tendency of scientists in all ages to exempt human behavior from the natural laws of physics, and to regard motions resulting from human actions as original, in the sense that they need not be attributed to other motions.” (Brown)#1
Economists, in their ignorance, built economics on a set of BEHAVIORAL axioms with utility maximization at the core. This was 150+ years ago, and neither has Orthodoxy abandoned this proto-scientific rubbish nor has Heterodoxy come forward with something better. Economics has never risen above the level of folk psychology and folk sociology and second-guessing other people’s expectations.
Of course, there is NO such thing as a behavioral law or regularity or stable functional relationship, never was, never will be. Being axiomatically false, economics has to be abandoned and fully replaced.
There is no use in criticizing Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism. It is ALL proto-scientific sitcom blather. The only question is how to replace these failed approaches as fast as possible.
The first step to a Paradigm Shift is to understand that economics is not a so-called social science like psychology/sociology, and not a natural science like physics, but a systems science. The economist’s proper task is to look for objective systemic laws and to empirically verify/falsify them. Science is about the invariants beneath changes on the surface and not a commonsensical description of what happens here and now. There are NO BEHAVIORAL laws, but there are SYSTEMIC laws, and they are as objective, certain, mathematically exact, and eternal as physical laws.#2
#1 The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws
#2 New Economic Thinking: the 10 crucial points
***
REPLY to Matt Franko, Six, Tom Hickey on Jul 22Everybody can climb on a soapbox and make an economic proposal ― except an economist. In the political realm, anything goes, and no qualification is needed, only an emotionally backed opinion and some rhetorical talent. An economist, on the other hand, is supposed to be a scientist and to know what he is speaking about, that is, to know how the economy works.
Economists who have no scientific knowledge are at the same level as political cranks and these morons thrive when the economy is sluggish or worse: “A sure sign of a crisis is the prevalence of cranks. It is characteristic of a crisis in theory that cranks get a hearing from the public which orthodoxy is failing to satisfy. In the thirties we had Major Douglas, and social credit — it can all be done with a fountain pen — and Warren and Pearson who convinced President Roosevelt that raising the dollar price of gold would raise the price of everything else and bring the slump to an end. The cranks are to be preferred to the orthodox because they see that there is a problem. Nowadays we have plenty of cranks taking up the problems that the economists overlook.” (Joan Robinson)
The difference between a crank and an economist is NOT in the political orientation but in the necessity that the proposal of the economist must have a valid theoretical foundation. That is, the economist must have the true theory: “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)
Now, scientific truth is defined by material and formal consistency, and the problem of economics is that we know for sure that economics is false: the four main approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism — are materially and logically inconsistent.
So, people like Krugman have to be opposed NOT because they are liberal or conservative but because they are scientific fraudsters: they speak in the name of economic science, but there is NO such thing as economic science.
How is scientific knowledge established? “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)
And this is the point where math comes in. Math is simply the best available means to establish logical cohesion. And here, in turn, is where the problem of economists with math comes in: as natural-born muddleheads and cranks, they abhor nothing more than logic. The fact is that economists do not even get the elementary mathematics of accounting right.#1 Where things become comical is when these folks cover their stupidity by posing as philosophers.
#1 Macro for dummies
***
REPLY to Neil Wilson on Jul 22The curriculum at British schools is the business of the British people. Likewise for the US. No economist has to tell these or other countries how to organize their education and what to teach. The business of economists is to figure out how the economy = world economy works. The fact is that economists are failed/fake scientists. They do not even know the elementary mathematics of accounting, which, if anything, is the minimum condition of doing economics.*
Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.
* See also ‘A new curriculum for swampies?’
***
NOTE NOTE NOTE on Cameron K. Murray’s ‘A random physicist takes on economics’ on Aug 28Jason Smith is NOT a random physicist but a random blatherer. Take notice that his proto-scientific drivel has been debunked in all dimensions:
Economics: math-adorned incoherent blather
Feynman Integrity, fake science, and the econblogosphere
True macrofoundations: the reset of economics
Macro imbeciles
IS-LM ― a crash course for EconoPhysicists
What genuine scientists believe about economics
Hayek and other informationally retarded proto-economists
Economics between cargo cult, farce, and fraud
The key to macro and Keen's debt-employment model
***
#PointOfProof
#PointOfProof
April 28, 2017
Note on Barkley Rosser on political/scientific failure
Blog-Reference 'Financial Times Messes Up On Italy'
I agree, corruption in Italy and elsewhere is a matter to worry about. It is, though, a matter sociology, political science, the police, and the voters have to deal with. The subject matter of economics is how the monetary economy works.
To put this in perspective: physicists do not try to figure out why and how Nero burnt down Rome but they try to figure out the laws of thermodynamics, which hold for all places and all times. Nonscientists are defined by the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction, which is the mirror image of Whitehead’s Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
From this follows that the economist as a scientist is NOT interested in why “the FT has joined so many other newspapers in just going down the toilet of bad reporting” but is indeed very much interested in why economics has gone down the toilet of bad science.
To come back from the sad state of Italy to the sad state of economics: the four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Poland: "What Are These People Complaining About?"' and 'Turkey And The Trend To Authoritarianism'
COMMENT on 'Is Authoritarian Nationalism Mostly A Rural Phenomenon?' on Apr 29
Most people are not aware that there are TWO economixes and that this has been the cause of endless confusion. Actually, it is quite simple: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
The state of economics is this: theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. As a result of the utter scientific incompetence of political economists,#1 economics is a failed science.
In methodological terms, economics is axiomatically false, that is, it is beyond repair. Accordingly, there is no progress at all in economics since 150+ years only the senseless multiplication of silly models which are based on the maximization-and-equilibrium axiom set.#2
As a consequence, what is needed is the Ultimate Separation. These are the options:
― Economics is thrown out of science.
― Political economists (= fake scientists) are thrown out of economics (= science).
As a corollary:
― EconoSpeak changes its name to PoliticoBlather or
― Soapbox economists like Barkley Rosser and Sandwichman are told to no longer abuse economics as a pretext for spreading their political opinion.#3
The nullification of political economics requires also the nullification of all scientific credentials (Master, Ph.D., Peer Reviewer, Journal Editor, Professor, Nobel Laureate) economists ever received since Walras/Jevons/Menger. Political economics is NOT science.
#1 The profit theory is false since Adam Smith, see Palgrave Dictionary online, Desai (2008)
#2 About 90 percent of the content of peer-reviewed quality journals consists of models that are axiomatically false.
#3 See the recent posts about Trump, Turkey, Poland, Italy and my standard comment: Whatever this is, it is NOT economics.
May I draw your attention to the fact that Marx’s characteristic of the ‘peasantry as a sack of potatoes’ is something like folk sociology but certainly not economics. Marx’s economics, on the other hand, was even more self-disqualifying than his sociology.
Fact is that Marx never figured out what profit is.#1 This is the worst thing that can happen to an economist. Clearly, when the core concept of economics is false then the whole analytical superstructure is false and the sociological implications have no sound theoretical foundations. From the correct profit theory follows the concept of cross-exploitation and this, in turn, explodes the concept of class.
It is a bit curious that After-Marxians have not detected and rectified Marx’s lethal error to this day.
#1 See ‘Profit for Marxists’
Immediately following 'Economics ― a doctor worse than the disease'
I agree, corruption in Italy and elsewhere is a matter to worry about. It is, though, a matter sociology, political science, the police, and the voters have to deal with. The subject matter of economics is how the monetary economy works.
To put this in perspective: physicists do not try to figure out why and how Nero burnt down Rome but they try to figure out the laws of thermodynamics, which hold for all places and all times. Nonscientists are defined by the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction, which is the mirror image of Whitehead’s Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
From this follows that the economist as a scientist is NOT interested in why “the FT has joined so many other newspapers in just going down the toilet of bad reporting” but is indeed very much interested in why economics has gone down the toilet of bad science.
To come back from the sad state of Italy to the sad state of economics: the four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
Related 'Poland: "What Are These People Complaining About?"' and 'Turkey And The Trend To Authoritarianism'
***
Most people are not aware that there are TWO economixes and that this has been the cause of endless confusion. Actually, it is quite simple: there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
The state of economics is this: theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. As a result of the utter scientific incompetence of political economists,#1 economics is a failed science.
In methodological terms, economics is axiomatically false, that is, it is beyond repair. Accordingly, there is no progress at all in economics since 150+ years only the senseless multiplication of silly models which are based on the maximization-and-equilibrium axiom set.#2
As a consequence, what is needed is the Ultimate Separation. These are the options:
― Economics is thrown out of science.
― Political economists (= fake scientists) are thrown out of economics (= science).
As a corollary:
― EconoSpeak changes its name to PoliticoBlather or
― Soapbox economists like Barkley Rosser and Sandwichman are told to no longer abuse economics as a pretext for spreading their political opinion.#3
The nullification of political economics requires also the nullification of all scientific credentials (Master, Ph.D., Peer Reviewer, Journal Editor, Professor, Nobel Laureate) economists ever received since Walras/Jevons/Menger. Political economics is NOT science.
#1 The profit theory is false since Adam Smith, see Palgrave Dictionary online, Desai (2008)
#2 About 90 percent of the content of peer-reviewed quality journals consists of models that are axiomatically false.
#3 See the recent posts about Trump, Turkey, Poland, Italy and my standard comment: Whatever this is, it is NOT economics.
***
COMMENT on Anonymous, Barkley Rosser on Apr 29May I draw your attention to the fact that Marx’s characteristic of the ‘peasantry as a sack of potatoes’ is something like folk sociology but certainly not economics. Marx’s economics, on the other hand, was even more self-disqualifying than his sociology.
Fact is that Marx never figured out what profit is.#1 This is the worst thing that can happen to an economist. Clearly, when the core concept of economics is false then the whole analytical superstructure is false and the sociological implications have no sound theoretical foundations. From the correct profit theory follows the concept of cross-exploitation and this, in turn, explodes the concept of class.
It is a bit curious that After-Marxians have not detected and rectified Marx’s lethal error to this day.
#1 See ‘Profit for Marxists’
Immediately following 'Economics ― a doctor worse than the disease'
December 13, 2015
History and the identity problem of economics
Comment on Peter Radford on ‘History and Economics’
Blog-Reference
Peter Radford summarizes, “Sorting all that out is what historians do well. Rediscovering the past is hard work. It is a lot more difficult than developing rational choice theory for instance. The one has to deal with ambiguities or uncertainties and tease them apart. The other simply assume them away.
Richer economics has room for both. It is after all about the behavior of human beings.”
Economics is not at all about the behavior of human beings. Psychology and Sociology are about the behavior of human beings. #1 Economics is about the behavior of the economy.
Economics is not a social science like sociology nor a natural science like physics, but a systems science.
Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists got this point. Rational choice theory, for example, is not economics at all; it is a scary example of amateur psychology.
The blatant methodological blunder of Orthodoxy consists of taking the green cheese behavioral assumption of constrained optimization into the set of foundational propositions, aka axioms. Because of this, the whole neoclassical axiom set is untenable, and this explodes the whole theoretical superstructure. #2
Because economics is not a social science, no behavioral assumption must appear in the foundational propositions of economics (Hudík, 2011). The explanation for the manifest lack of success of Heterodoxy in replacing Orthodoxy is that it suffers from the social science delusion, just like Orthodoxy.
The second delusion is that history deals with plain facts while theory takes place in some Platonic parallel universe. Suffice it to remind oneself that historians could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt in more than 2300 years whether Jesus existed or not. As a matter of fact, history consists largely of pointless speculation about NONENTITIES and NONEVENTS. Not to forget that historians have devoted and still devote a considerable part of their ingenuity and energy to the production of ‘historical facts’.
If Peter Radford means by “A richer economics has room for both” that waffling about utility maximization and storytelling about the Medicis and medieval banking can coexist, then he is in full accordance with experience. If he means by richness more scientific knowledge about the actual economy, then he is certainly mistaken.
It is a historical fact that, taken as a whole, historical reality as uncovered/produced by historians is less real than theoretical reality as uncovered/produced by scientists.
The role of history is to gather the facts and the data that are necessary for testing economic theories. To lecture about economic methodology is not the historian's job.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Hudík, M. (2011). Why Economics is Not a Science of Behaviour. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 147–162.
#1 PsySoc— the scourge of economics and The Science-of-Man fallacy and From PsySoc to SysHum
#2 How economists became the scientific laughing stock
Blog-Reference
Peter Radford summarizes, “Sorting all that out is what historians do well. Rediscovering the past is hard work. It is a lot more difficult than developing rational choice theory for instance. The one has to deal with ambiguities or uncertainties and tease them apart. The other simply assume them away.
Richer economics has room for both. It is after all about the behavior of human beings.”
Economics is not at all about the behavior of human beings. Psychology and Sociology are about the behavior of human beings. #1 Economics is about the behavior of the economy.
Economics is not a social science like sociology nor a natural science like physics, but a systems science.
Neither orthodox nor heterodox economists got this point. Rational choice theory, for example, is not economics at all; it is a scary example of amateur psychology.
The blatant methodological blunder of Orthodoxy consists of taking the green cheese behavioral assumption of constrained optimization into the set of foundational propositions, aka axioms. Because of this, the whole neoclassical axiom set is untenable, and this explodes the whole theoretical superstructure. #2
Because economics is not a social science, no behavioral assumption must appear in the foundational propositions of economics (Hudík, 2011). The explanation for the manifest lack of success of Heterodoxy in replacing Orthodoxy is that it suffers from the social science delusion, just like Orthodoxy.
The second delusion is that history deals with plain facts while theory takes place in some Platonic parallel universe. Suffice it to remind oneself that historians could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt in more than 2300 years whether Jesus existed or not. As a matter of fact, history consists largely of pointless speculation about NONENTITIES and NONEVENTS. Not to forget that historians have devoted and still devote a considerable part of their ingenuity and energy to the production of ‘historical facts’.
If Peter Radford means by “A richer economics has room for both” that waffling about utility maximization and storytelling about the Medicis and medieval banking can coexist, then he is in full accordance with experience. If he means by richness more scientific knowledge about the actual economy, then he is certainly mistaken.
It is a historical fact that, taken as a whole, historical reality as uncovered/produced by historians is less real than theoretical reality as uncovered/produced by scientists.
The role of history is to gather the facts and the data that are necessary for testing economic theories. To lecture about economic methodology is not the historian's job.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Hudík, M. (2011). Why Economics is Not a Science of Behaviour. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 147–162.
#1 PsySoc— the scourge of economics and The Science-of-Man fallacy and From PsySoc to SysHum
#2 How economists became the scientific laughing stock
August 7, 2024
Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (XCIX)
#Economics#FailedFakeScience#PsySoc
— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 7, 2024
“Economic value is subjective, rooted deeply in human desire and perception.” (Carl Menger)
Subjective valuation is a psychological fact that must be left to #Psychology / #Sociology. Economics is about how from individual subjectivity the…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)