Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘MbS Must Go’
Blog-Reference
The key to understanding economics is that there are TWO versions: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The objective of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, and the objective 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.
Theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by the agenda pushers of political economics. Political economics has NOT achieved anything of scientific value. This is the actual state of economics, provably false:
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• microfoundations, for 150+ years,
• macrofoundations, for 80+ years,
• the application of elementary logic and mathematics since the founding fathers.
Needless to emphasize that this was not a linear process. There were always economists who were committed to the scientific standards of material/formal consistency, but in the end, political agenda-pushing retained the upper hand, and economics never got out of the proto-scientific swamp.
The vast majority of economists have been devoured by the swamp. Barkley Rosser is a case in point. His post ‘MBS Must Go’ has ZERO scientific content and is plain political agenda-pushing.
Since the founding fathers, economics violates the first rule of science, i.e., the strict separation of science and politics. #1 As a result, economics fell prey to the Reverse Alchemy of Communication, which means: If transposed from the sphere of science to the sphere of politics, every scientific idea (tentative or well-established through numerous logical and empirical cross-checks), is with absolute necessity perverted/inverted in the process.
As a failed science, economics needs a
Paradigm Shift. Paradigm Shift means, in methodological terms, a change of foundational premises/axioms. Needless to emphasize, economists also perverted the concept of Paradigm Shift. Transposed from the scientific sphere to the political sphere of agenda-pushing, it now means nothing else than a change of policy.
“So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that.
• You keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm.
• You keep speaking and acting, loudly and with assurance, from the new one.
• You insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.
• You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather, you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.” #2
Of course, these tips are the basics of marketing/public relations/rhetoric/ propaganda/ proselytizing/agenda pushing.
To this day, economists do not understand what science and a Paradigm Shift are all about. #3 Since Adam Smith/Karl Marx, they have never risen above the level of useful political idiots.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For details of the big picture, see
cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption
#2 Links to Twitter,
Kate Raworth,
Club of Rome
#3
The inexorable Paradigm Shift in economics
From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations
The new macroeconomic paradigm
***
Graphic
AXEC123e
***
REPLY to The Economists Challenge on Oct 20
Economics is about how the economy works. Scientists, by consequence, focus their communication strictly on the diverse aspects that constitute the economy. Incompetent scientists, though, do not talk about the economy but about what Walras or Keynes has written in their books or told their students as the oral tradition of their Alma Mater, or that Walras was not a Neoliberal but had socialist leanings, or that Keynes was bisexual, and all this other irrelevant gossip. In one word, incompetent scientists do not stick to the subject matter but get almost immediately lost in meta-communication = storytelling = empty blather = propaganda = agenda pushing (e.g., Barkley Rosser’s MBS Must Go).
This explains why economists never got to the bottom of their subject matter, i.e., to the foundational concept of profit. The historical fact is that economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Because of this, one can safely forget all the rest, from supply-demand-equilibrium to DSGE and New Keynesianism.
In the end, meta-communication boils down to motive-speculation/imputation. Schumpeter has said all about this nuisance: “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.”
The only content of a scientific debate is: Is the statement S about how the economy works true or false? With truth well-defined for 2300+ years.
So, all you (or Barkley Rosser, for that matter) say about yourself or this guy Egmont is plain talk-show BS and has NOTHING to do with the subject matter of economics. If you think the macrofounded Profit or Employment Law is false, do what a scientist is supposed to do: demonstrate that it is materially/formally inconsistent.#1 Science is about proof, politics exhausts itself in brain-dead blather and self-stylization as the savior of the nation/world/universe.
The only thing you (or Barkley Rosser, for that matter) can do for the progress of science and the welfare of humanity is to take a shovel and bury yourself at the Flat-Earth Cemetery.
***
REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 21
Economics is dead. Supply-demand-equilibrium, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, DSGE, New Keynesianism, etc., are provably false.
Economics needs a Paradigm Shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations.
There is one elementary question for every economist to answer: which of the two macroeconomic balances equations is true
1 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−Sm)−(Qm−Yd)=0
2 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0?
You have exactly one character for an answer. To recall: “No one ignorant of elementary mathematics and true macrofoundations can be admitted to economics.”
***
REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 22
You cannot answer an elementary economic question. “Both are correct” is the false answer because eq. 2 represents a zero-profit economy. There has NEVER been a zero-profit economy in the history of the world.
If simplified, eq. 2 boils down to the Keynesian I=S, and this tells everyone that macroeconomics is provably false for 80+ years and that economists ― both orthodox and heterodox economists ― are too stupid for elementary mathematics.
In your bottomless scientific incompetence, you have, of course, realized nothing in your whole academic career.
You started this thread with “MBS Must Go”. You produced NOT ONE scientifically valid sentence during the whole debate. So, it is the fake scientist, Barkley Rosser, who must go.
Take a shovel, go to the Flat-Earth-Cemetery, bury yourself, and deliver us from your brain-dead blather.
***
REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 23
I always acknowledged your superior knowledge of the family tree of the House of Sa’ud.
Jul 13, 2017: “Your true competence has always been insightful comments on the sex life of the House of Sa’ud and other celebrities, as demonstrated in two recent pieces:
• Muhammed Bin Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Al Sa’ud Confined To His Palace
• Was Thomas Jefferson A Monstrous Rapist?
Economics has never been your thing. Good for society to learn that you have left profit, capital, equilibrium, and other nonentities behind for good and dedicate your talent now fully to Sexual Research.” #1
Sep 28, 2017: “During his whole professional life as a cargo cult economist, Barkley Rosser never realized that there is something fundamentally wrong with both Walrasianism and Keynesianism. Neither did he resolve any contradictions nor rectify anything, except perhaps the family tree of the House of Sa’ud.” #2
Jun 1, 2018: “You have not realized either that your academic colleagues, the MMT money printers and deficit spenders, are deceiving the general public by obfuscating the profit effect of public deficit spending.
Macroeconomics is provably false since Keynes, academic economists push the agenda of Wall Street by telling people that public debt does not matter, and Barkley Rosser, an economist who never understood what profit is, entertains the audience with the Happiness Curve, how the Saudi crown prince tortures fellow princes, with the assassination of MLK and JFK, the death of Yeshua bin Yusuf, and the infighting of the Bolsheviks back in the 1920s.
Whatever you are doing, it is NOT economics and NOT science.” #3
***
REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 23
You never understood what profit is, so all you ever said about economics is senseless blather/political agenda-pushing.
You are the perfect example of a representative economist. Just like your academic colleagues, you have never produced anything of scientific value. You cannot even answer which of the two macroeconomic sectoral balances equations is true: 1 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−Sm)−(Qm−Yd)=0 or 2 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0.
The answers to the questions of The Economist's Challenge cannot be found in the heap of proto-scientific garbage called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, but only in macrofounded Constructive Heterodoxy, see
cross-references.
If The Economist's Challenge were a serious researcher, he would have easily found this out for himself. Obviously, he is as fake as Anonymous and the rest of Barkley Rosser’s troll circus at EconoSpeak.
***
REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 25
You are whining: “There you have it even more, Economist's Challenge. You sought advice from Egmont, and what you get for your efforts is to be labeled a ‘fake’ and part of our ‘troll circus’ here.”
You and The Economists Challenge could have easily avoided any effort/pain if your capability of reading/understanding was only slightly above absolute zero.
Take notice of this disclaimer: “This site does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup, to get out of national/global depression, or how to save humankind or a subgroup thereof. The effective solution of economic problems and the attainment of worthwhile goals presupposes the correct economic theory, which in turn presupposes the correct axiom set, which becomes the ultimate source of accountable advice. Because of this, this site is strictly about axiomatization. Economic advice of any sort is an entirely separate matter.”#1
You have NO correct Profit Theory, but pester the world with your advice. I have the axiomatically correct Profit Theory, but give NO advice to a random imbecile who calls himself The Economist's Challenge.
This is exactly the difference between a soapbox economist and a scientist.
