Separation of politics and economics

Comment on Blissex on ‘Euro — the antithesis of democracy’

Blog-Reference

“To be sure, economics may perform a valuable social role without adding any significant understanding to knowledge of the economy — a “good myth,” economically speaking, can work not only in primitive tribal cultures but also in modern societies. ... Indeed, ... the religious function may have been the most important role throughout the history of modern economics since the Enlightenment.” (Nelson, 2006, pp. 300-301)

We had the separation of church and state, what is needed next is the separation of politics and economics.

The task of the economist is to figure out how the actual Economy works, just like the physicist figures out how Nature works. What the economist has first of all to do is to take an objective observer standpoint — as far as possible. This is not compatible with taking a political side.

I am, of course, not against taking a political side. What I emphasize is that it is humanly impossible to do politics and science simultaneously. Because of this, institutional separation is necessary.

I have no trouble acknowledging that, for example, Hayek has the right to write political pamphlets, defend Capitalism, support Thatcher, and found a political club as he did with the Mont Pèlerin Society (MPS). What I say is, the moment he or any other economist starts with politics, the same moment he leaves economics understood as a science for good. It is the mixture that is toxic. Independently of this, Hayek is simply unacceptable as an economist. His economics is proto-scientific garbage.

You cite many cases of economists involved simultaneously in academia/business/politics that simply are not compatible with scientific ethics. Now, I cannot check them and, most importantly, I do not want to occupy myself with corrupt people in science, politics, business, and elsewhere. Something went wrong with these institutions, that much is clear at the moment. A lot of corruption fighters are needed, that much is also clear. Finally, a lot of institution-builders are needed, obviously. But the rest is hanging in the air at the moment.

This is why I urge heterodox economists not to become redundant quacking frogs in the swamp of political economics but instead to focus on economics as a science. The first step is to refute political economists according to well-defined scientific rules. As Feynman put it: "So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science." (1974, p. 11)#1

Orthodox economics is scientifically substandard. Heterodoxy is not any better. There is much opportunity to develop something better.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Feynman, R. P. (1974). Cargo Cult Science. Engineering and Science, 37(7): 10–13. URL
Nelson, R. H. (2006). Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

#1 The Farce That Is Economics: Richard Feynman On The Social Sciences

For more about the separation of science and politics see AXECquery.

***

Wikimedia AXEC166a

***

Twitter/X Sep 11, 2024, The separation of science and politics is gaining ground

Every thinking economist is heterodox by default, but how do we proceed from here?

Comment on Asad Zaman on ‘Is there a core of heterodox economics that we can all believe in?’

Blog-Reference

Economists do not understand how the market system works. Every interested non-economist gets this intuitively by reading one of the popular textbooks: “What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse.” (McCauley, 2006, p. 17)

Because of this, every thinking economist finds himself by default in the heterodox camp. But here only one obvious fact is agreed upon, the rest is blank “As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction.” (Nell, 1980, p. 1)

Construction, though, never happened. What we have is an incoherent multitude of individual approaches. Heterodoxy never rose above naive empirical/historical/partial/ sociological commonsense analysis and never formulated anything in the way of a general theory of how the monetary economy works.

Asad Zaman poses the all-decisive question ‘What is the core of Heterodoxy?’ and he gives tentative answers. Asad Zaman is right, Heterodoxy is at a crossroads and has to define itself and its future.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to distinguish between political and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, scientific standards are observed.

Theoretical economics has to be judged according to the criteria true/false and nothing else. What the fundamental decision between theoretical and political economics implies is well-known since the founding fathers: “Mill had grasped clearly in the Logic the distinction between positive and normative propositions, writing that ‘a scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision’.” (Whitaker, 1975, p. 1047)

What Mill and all methodologists say is that there is a fundamental difference between politics and science and that, by consequence, both should be kept apart. This separation is analogous to the separation of church and state, or the separation of legislative, judicature, and executive, or the separation of state and economy.

The classicals defined themselves as Political Economists and their task as: “The fundamental problem, therefore, of the social science, is to find the laws according to which any state of society produces the state which succeeds it and takes its place.” (J. S. Mill, 2006, p. 912)

Now, this is the definition of sociology and political science but not of economics. The task of economics is to find out how the actual economy works. Economics is not a social science but a systems science. The current state of economics is that of a failed science.

The core problem of economics as a science is, of course, that it is traditionally closely entangled with politics. The biggest threat to theoretical economics is that it gets hijacked by those with a political agenda. It does not matter whether this agenda is good or bad in predetermined moral terms. Science is committed to its own criteria or it ceases to be science.

“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, 1991, p. 30)

Since the classicals, economics has failed to develop the true theory. This means in concrete terms that the economic policy proposals of Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, and Austrians have no sound scientific foundations. This is (i) a violation of scientific standards and ethics, and (ii), explains why economic problems cannot, as a rule, be solved but only shifted.

In sum: Zaman’s proposals remain in the sphere of political economics and amount to the replacement of Agenda O by Agenda H. My proposal is to leave the sphere of political economics altogether, to focus on theoretical economics, and to make economics a science.

The proper task of economics is to develop the true theory. Whatever the political goals are, without the true theory economic policy is pointless, i.e. ineffective or even counter-productive. The separation of politics and economics implies that the overarching economic goals are determined in the political sphere according to agreed-upon rules. The economist qua economist is not legitimized to determine the overarching economic goals.

There is neither a political nor moral justification for an economist to give economic policy advice without sound scientific foundations. Economists owe society the true theory, not less, not more. As long as they do not have the true theory, the political sects of Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians, or Orthodoxy/Heterodoxy better shut up.

At the moment, neither orthodox nor heterodox economists have a core of scientific knowledge they can rely upon. They are loosely held together by political opinion. This is neither an acceptable nor tenable situation.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
McCauley, J. L. (2006). Response to "Worrying Trends in EconoPhysics". EconoPhysics Forum, 0601001: 1–26. URL
Mill, J. S. (2006). A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, Vol. 8 of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Nell, E. J. (1980). Growth, Profits, and Property, chapter Cracks in the Neoclassical Mirror: On the Break-Up of a Vision, 1–16. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Whitaker, J. K. (1975). John Stuart Mill’s Methodology. Chicago Journals, 83(5): 1033–1050. URL

Economics and corruption

Comment on Paul Krugman on ‘Why Corruption Matters’

Blog-Reference

A country’s order is defined by the interplay of its institutions. Lucky the country that has a well-designed architecture of public/private institutions that individually function as intended and codified in their mission statement.

One of the fundamental principles of institution-building is strict separation, for instance: separation of state and church, party and state, executive and legislative, state and economy, politics and science, etcetera.

When Krugman criticizes the lack of separation between Mr. Trump’s presidency and his private business he is in a rather awkward position. Krugman has been and still is a major participant in the deconstruction of the firewall between politics and science, or more specifically, between politics and economics.#1, #2

What the general public does not realize is that there is political economics and theoretical economics. The founding fathers called themselves political economists, that is, they left no doubt that their main business was agenda pushing. Economists never really got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing).

Economics consists of the major approaches Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism which are mutually contradictory and axiomatically false. Economics is NOT a science and because of this the claim as expressed in the title ‘Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ is false.

The Bank of Sweden is, of course, entitled to award prizes but is in NO position to upgrade a cargo cult science to a science. Actually, the Bank is misleading the general public about the dismal state of economics. Whether unintentionally or intentionally is a matter of indifference. What counts is the effect on the general public.

Political economics has produced nothing of scientific value in the last 200+ years. This carries over to politics: “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)

Economists do NOT have the true theory. Because of this, economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations. And it does not matter at all whether this guidance has been more rightist or more leftist, more conservative or liberal, more Rep or Dem. ALL political economists are fake scientists.

Let’s face it, Krugman has violated and still violates the separation of science and politics, which is vital for the integrity of science, that is, he practices illegitimately in economics what he legitimately criticizes in politics.#3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Scientific suicide in the revolving door
#2 Krugman is not an economist
#3 Economists: the Trumps of science

Related 'FakeNews, FakeScience: economics in the information age' and 'Economics: a science without scientists' and 'Turning the bananatization of economics around' and 'It's about institution-building, stupid' and 'Economics is not post-truth but pre-truth'.

***

Institute for New Economic Thinking, Oct 1, 2020

Lynn Parramore How Corruption is Becoming America’s Operating System

The UNZ Review, Jan 28, 2025

“In actual fact American economists are as corrupt as all other professions, because they are paid to write the narratives for those with the money.” (Paul Craig Roberts, An Economic Lesson for President Trump)

Hijackers, agenda pushers, PsySocs and other morons

Comment on Oleg Komlik on ‘Theodor Adorno on the division between economics and sociology’

Blog-References

Oleg Komlik quotes Adorno: “My thesis is quite simply that the strict division between economics and sociology, the consequence of which is unquestionably to dismiss the Marxian theory ante portas, causes the decisive social interests of both disciplines to disappear; and that precisely through this separation they both fail to assert their real interests, what really matters in them.”

All confusion about economics derives from the fact that there are TWO economixes: 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.

In the beginning, there was Political Economy. J. S. Mill defined it clearly as a social science: “The fundamental problem, therefore, of the social science, is to find the laws according to which any state of society produces the state which succeeds it and takes its place.” Or, a bit more specific with regard to economics: “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, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”

Economics started as a hodgepodge of sociology, history, folk psychology, and folk philosophy, which came under the heading of utilitarianism.

Classical Political Economy was carried one step further with methodological individualism: “It is a touchstone of accepted economics that all explanations must run in terms of the actions and reactions of individuals. Our behavior in judging economic research, in peer review of papers and research, and in promotions, includes the criterion that in principle the behavior we explain and the policies we propose are explicable in terms of individuals, not of other social categories.” (Arrow)

Methodological individualism is clearly defined by this set of behavioral axioms: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

Axiomatization is not only laudable but methodologically indispensable: “We should also like to underline Debreu’s effective reference to Bacon when he says that ‘citius emergit veritas ex errore quam ex confusione.’ It would be a mistake to lower the level of analysis and clarification. The only way possible is a thorough reexamination of the theory’s basic hypotheses, i.e., a true paradigmatic revolution.” (Ingrao et al.)

Orthodox economics remains firmly rooted in the social sciences because it is defined by behavioral axioms. Yet, orthodox economics is widely considered a scientific failure. To replace Orthodoxy requires the replacement of HC1-HC5 with an entirely new set of axioms. This is what a true paradigmatic revolution is all about.

What is true for Walrasianism holds for the rest of economics. The current state is this: the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong. How could this happen? 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, economics is a failed science.

There is no way around this: economists need the one true theory and not the pluralism of false theories: “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)

Everybody knows: the so-called social sciences in general and political economics in particular NEVER got anything off the ground. Feynman called them cargo cult sciences: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”#1

What is needed is a strict separation between the so-called social sciences and economics.#2 Separation of the subject matter, of course, does NOT exclude cooperation and the exchange of knowledge. Economics has to be clearly redefined as systems science:

• Old definition, subjective-behavioral: Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.
• New definition, objective-systemic: Economics is the science which studies how the monetary economy works.

All Human Nature issues can be left to psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, social philosophy, biology/Darwinism/evolution theory etcetera. What is needed is the strict separation (i) of science and politics, and (ii), of the so-called social sciences and economics. There is no other way out of the proto-scientific cul-de-sac of economics.#3

Adorno never understood what profit is#4, whether his understanding of sociology was much better is doubtful.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
#2 Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system
#3 For the axiomatically true theory see True macrofoundations: the reset of economics
#4 Profit for Marxists

The unconditional surrender/sellout of science

Comment on Sabine Hossenfelder on ‘Follow the Science? Nonsense, I say.’

Blog-Reference

Sabine Hossenfelder gets directly to the heart of the matter: “Today I want to tell you why I had to stop reading news about climate science. Because it pisses me off. Every. Single. Time. There’s all these left-wing do-gooders who think their readers are too fucking dumb to draw their own conclusions so it’s not enough to tell me what’s the correlation between hurricane intensity and air moisture, no, they also have to tell me that, therefore, I should donate to save the polar bears.”

Obviously, science has been captured by political agenda pushers. Scientists have quietly left the realm of science and moved over to the political Circus Maximus with all its funny clowns and useful idiots and breathtaking stunts. The self-conception of science has fundamentally changed in the process.

“When I was your age, we learned science does not say anything about what we should do. What we should do is a matter of opinion, science is a matter of fact. Science tells us what situation we are in and what consequences our actions are likely to have, but it does not tell us what to do.”

Indeed, that was exactly what J. S. Mill told his fellow economists: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.”

The decision has to be made by the Legitimate Sovereign. It is an entirely different matter to clarify who the Legitimate Sovereign in a given situation is but that much is certain: genuine scientists will refuse to get involved in the issue. The genuine scientist sticks to the principle of the separation of science and politics.

In economics, the principle of the separation of science and politics has been violated from the first day onward. The founding fathers called their subject matter Political Economy. What comes under the label of economics these days is in fact two economixes: 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.

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. Economics is a failed science.

Most people have not noticed it, but the official capitulation/sellout of science happened on Sep 3, 2020.#1

So, “Follow the Science is a complete rubbish idea, …” for various reasons. The worst of all is, that the prestige of science has been abused and ruined by the most unscientific assholes.

“You’d think it’s bad enough that politicians conflate scientific fact with opinion, but the media actually make it worse. They make it worse by giving their audience the impression that it matters what someone whose job it is to execute the will of the electorate believes about scientific facts. But I couldn’t care less if Donald Trump ‘believes’ in climate change. Look, this is a man who can’t tell herd immunity from herd mentality, he probably thinks winter’s the same as an ice age. It’s not his job to offer opinions about science he clearly doesn’t understand, so why do you keep asking him. His job is to say if the situation is this, we will do that. At least in principle, that’s what he should be doing. Then you look up what science says which situation we are in and act accordingly.”

There is no better exemplification of the indispensable separation of science and politics. In economics, in particular, there is no point at all to appeal to science because there has never been an economic science. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT, and Pluralism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/ formally inconsistent.#2-#4

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Politics corrupts science, always and everywhere

#2 Trust in science? Yes, but economics is NOT a science

#3 Still beyond the reach of economists: The Holy Grail of Science

#4 Economics: A failed/fake science for 200+ years

Related 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Economics, MMT, and the corruption of science' and 'Economics ― the science that never was' and 'Economics, philosophy, and the crapification of science' and 'Economists: The Trumps of science' and 'Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing' and 'How to make economics a science' and 'A rough business plan for science'.

***

Wikimedia AXEC136g

***

REPLY to Matt Franko on Sep 26

I stated above “Most people have not noticed it, but the official capitulation/sellout of science happened on Sep 3, 2020.”

It turns out that there is at least one person who realized the significance of the event: John Derbyshire “They Might As Well Put Bones Through Their Noses”— the Corruption of Scientific America.

***

NOTE to Barkley Rosser on Sep 26, switch to EconoSpeak

On several occasions, I told you that economics is NOT a science and economists are NOT scientists but stupid and corrupt agenda pushers. With your replies, you regularly proved my point.

Things have now advanced into a new dimension. In a recent post, I stated “Most people have not noticed it, but the official capitulation/sellout of science happened on Sep 3, 2020.”

As it turned out, there was at least one person who realized the significance of the event: John Derbyshire “They Might As Well Put Bones Through Their Noses”— the Corruption of Scientific America.

Summarizing our exchanges about economics, it is fair to say that you played an active role in this development.

***

REPLY to Matt Franko on Sep 27

You said “Egmont I think you are mis interpreting them ... you keep saying “they are not scientists” or “fake scientists” ... I don’t think they ever claimed to be scientists...”

What? Economists never claimed to be scientists?

They claimed it from Adam Smith/Karl Marx (Marxism = “scientific socialism”) onward and repeat the mantra every year, i.e. with the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.#1

SCIENCES! can't you read?

Economists NEVER lived up to the methodological and ethical standards of science. Economists, including MMTers, do not even live up to the standards of elementary algebra.#2, #3

The fact of the matter is that economists claim to be scientists but are merely political agenda pushers.

However, there always was the role model of the genuine sciences with high standards and achievements that define every little piece of progress humanity has made over the last 200+ years.

Now, the significance of Sep 3, 2020, is that the genuine sciences have abandoned themselves by officially ending the separation of science and politics and by submitting themselves to political mob rule and the practices of the entertainment industry,#4 thus carrying the ongoing corruption of science one step further.

#1 Links on the Economics Nobel

#2 MMTers: too stupid for simple math

#3 See Ch. 13, The indelible scientific disgrace of economics, in Sovereign Economics

#4 Politics corrupts science, always and everywhere

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Oct 3

You ask “So, do you want to give a quick explanation of what supposedly happened on Sept. 3, 2020, that was so earth shatteringly important about economics?”

The significance of Sep 3, 2020, is that the genuine sciences have abandoned themselves by officially ending the separation of science and politics and by submitting themselves to political mob rule and the practices of the entertainment industry. See Politics corrupts science, always and everywhere.

This, though, is what economists did long ago. Since the founding fathers, economists claim to be scientists but have never been anything else than political agenda pushers.

In the recent presidential debate, Mr. Biden called Mr. Trump a liar and clown. As above, so below. What holds for the occupant of the top institution holds mutatis mutandis for the occupants of large parts of the institutional body, academic economics in particular. See my assessment of Nov 2016 Economists: The Trumps of science.

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Science (XX)

 

#Politics corrupts everything. Bc of this, the #FoundationalPrinciple of #Science/#Philosopy is the strict #Separation from politics. With increasing violation of this principle, #Academia & #SocialSciences in particular has become integral part of the #DisInfoTainment industry.

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) November 15, 2023

Related 'Separation of politics and economics'

For more about the separation of science and politics with regard to economics see AXECquery. 

Economics for believers

Comment on Andrew Anderson on Daniel José Camacho on ‘The deficit doesn’t matter: thinking morally about the economy with Stephanie Kelton’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Mar 29 adapted to context

The Lord spoke out of the bush and handed over these

Twelve Economics Commandments:

1. Never cite the Bible or other religious texts in an economic argument.

2. Maintain the strict separation of science and religion under all circumstances.

3. Maintain the strict separation of science and politics under all circumstances.#1

4. Do not dabble in Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Political Science, Social Philosophy, or any other of the so-called social sciences.

5. Do not believe: prove.

6. Figure out how the actual economic system works and communicate your results in the format of a materially/formally consistent theory.

7. Absolutely refrain from storytelling, metaphors, analogies, narratives, gossip, insinuation, second-guessing, filibuster, propaganda, disinformation, and other rhetorical means.

8. Do not apply Methodological Individualism/Microfoundations.#2

9. Do not moralize. The subject matter of economics is IS not OUGHT. How the Good Society can be realized has to be determined in the political sphere. See 3.

10. Be, first of all, aware that there are knowledge and opinion, science and non-science, scientific standards/ethics, and anything-goes, true and false with nothing in-between. The ethics of science is objectivity, i.e. material and formal consistency. The objective of economics is the true theory.

11. Rest assured that those who violate scientific standards/ethics go to hell and will be tortured in all eternity with the senseless blather of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and Pluralism.#3

12. Make no mistake: alone scientists will go to heaven. As you can easily imagine, the Lord will NOT share eternity with morons, imbeciles, agenda-pushers, blatherers, believers, and fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The strict separation of the scientific realm and the political realm is necessary because politics always and everywhere corrupts science. This point has been made abundantly clear by J. S. Mill: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” For details see Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science and The end of political economics
#2 If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics
#3 Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific garbage

Related 'MMT and grassroots movements' and 'The irrelevance of populism for economics' and 'The Supreme Being handed over these Twelve Economics Commandments'

Occasional Tweets: Politics corrupts everything, that's why the core principle of science is the strict separation of the two spheres (I)

 

Separation of #Politics/#Science
• #Politicians have NOTHING to say in scientific matters.
• #Scientists have NOTHING to say in political matters.#Economists violate this core principle. They are NOT #Scientists but #Clowns / #UsefulIdiots in the political #CircusMaximus. pic.twitter.com/Yh5OP8ak6f

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) March 20, 2022

For more about the separation of politics/science see AXECquery. 

The Supreme Being handed over these Twelve Economics Commandments

Comment on Barkley Rosser on 'Anniversary of Yeshua bin Yusuf dying on a cross'

Blog-Reference

The Supreme Being ― which is by logical necessity absolutely indifferent with regard to galaxy, planet, gender, age, race, nation, religion, party, social status, income/wealth ― spoke out of the clouds and handed over these Twelve Economics Commandments:

1. Never cite the Bible or other religious texts in an economic argument.

2. Maintain the strict separation of science and religion under all circumstances.

3. Maintain the strict separation of science and politics under all circumstances.#1

4. Do not dabble in psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, philosophy, theology, social philosophy, or any other of the so-called social sciences. Economics is a systems science.

5. Do not believe: prove. The number of followers on social media does NOT count as scientific proof.

6. Figure out how the actual economic system works and communicate your results in the format of a materially/formally consistent theory.

7. Absolutely refrain from storytelling, metaphors, analogies, narratives, gossip, insinuation, filibuster, sermonizing, propaganda,  disinformation, foretelling/ prophecies/predictions, and other rhetorical means.

8. Do not apply methodological individualism/microfoundations/partial analysis.#2

9. Do not moralize, the subject matter of economics is IS not OUGHT. How the Good Society can be realized has to be determined in the political sphere by the Legitimate Sovereign. See 3.

10. Be, first of all, aware that there are knowledge and opinion, science and non-science, scientific standards/ethics and anything-goes, true and false with nothing in-between. The ethics of science is objectivity, i.e. material and formal consistency. The goal of economics is the true theory.

11. Rest assured that those who violate scientific standards/ethics go to hell and will be tortured in all eternity with the senseless blather of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and Pluralism.#3

12. Make no mistake: alone scientists will go to heaven. As everyone can easily imagine, the Supreme Being will NOT share eternity with morons, imbeciles, political agenda pushers, blatherers, trolls, believers, impostors, journalists, the bigots of common sense, and failed/fake scientists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The strict separation of the scientific realm and the political realm is necessary because politics always and everywhere corrupts science. This point has been made abundantly clear by J. S. Mill: “A scientific observer or reasoner, merely as such, is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes, and that to obtain certain ends, certain means are the most effectual. Whether the ends themselves are such as ought to be pursued, and if so, in what cases and to how great a length, it is no part of his business as a cultivator of science to decide, and science alone will never qualify him for the decision.” For details see
Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science
#2 If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics
#3 Economics is not a science, not a religion, but proto-scientific garbage

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on Mar 1

Economics claims since Adam Smith/Karl Marx to be a science. Yet, everybody who has a rough idea of what science is all about and looks closer into the matter comes to the conclusion that economics is a failed science. Economics consists of four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― which are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent.

Economics has to this day produced NOTHING of scientific value. This is the track record: provably false

• profit theory, for 200+ years,

• Walrasian microfoundations (including equilibrium), for 150+ years,

• Keynesian macrofoundations (including I=S/IS-LM), for 80+ years.

Economics needs a Paradigm Shift because the pluralism of false theories is untenable. Heterodoxy is provably false, just as Orthodoxy.#1 Economists do not know to this day how the price- and profit mechanism works. Economic policy guidance has had no sound scientific foundation for 200+ years.

Economics is what Feynman called a cargo cult science, economists are failed/fake scientists, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is a deception of the public.  Economics is one of the worst cases of failure/fraud in the history of modern science.

Gresham’s Law says that bad money crowds good money out of circulation. Something similar holds for economics which has become over the years the venue of incompetent scientists, agenda pushers, cranks, scammers, and useful political idiots.

Two typical exemplars of this species are Barkley Rosser and Andres. Barkley Rosser does to this day not understand the difference between the foundational concepts of profit and income, has busily produced peer-reviewed papers but contributed nothing to the advancement of science, and now spreads idiocy/disinformation on economics blogs.#2 His Yusuf post is a case in point. This self-disqualifying post is a good indicator of the vast proportions the accumulated bullshit has grown into in the last 200+ years of “economic sciences”.

#1 The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy

#For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists

***

Wikimedia AXEC139d

***

REPLY to Andres on Mar 2

You say: “6. Human beings are irritating creatures. If you make an argument for why they should behave consistently under a given system, they will find some situation to make their behavior inconsistent, if for no other reason than to annoy the economist.”

Obviously, you have not realized that economics is a systems science and that there are objective systemic laws. It is long known that there is NO such thing as behavioral laws. Exactly for this reason it is sheer madness to build economics on the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization.

The morons of economics do not know what the scientists in all ages knew: “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)

For details see:

• Economics is NOT a social science
• Cross-references NOT a Science of Behavior
• The existence of economic laws and the nonexistence of behavioral laws

***

REPLY to Andres on Mar 2

It is always a grand spectacle to observe a goldfish brain starting to work and getting into high gear. You just re-discovered behavioral uncertainty: “… we might say that the human factor is the ultimately uncertain and wayward element in social life and in all social institutions.” (Popper, 1960), and change: “Important revolutions have occurred before our time, and since the days of Heraclitus change has been discovered over and over again.” (Popper, 1960)#1

I wonder how long it takes you to discover that the story of “one hapless dude who was nailed to a cross” is fake news for 2000+ years.#2

The true mystery is why the alleged economist Barkley Rosser recycles scientifically long-refuted storytelling on an alleged economics blog. Even goldfishes know by now that the subject matter of economics is the economy and NOTHING else.

#1 The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History

#2 YouTube Richard Carrier

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser, Andres, ANC Driver on Mar 3

SURGEON GENERAL'S GAGANOMICS WARNING

The continued production of verbal soap bubbles may result in a hazardous lack of oxygen in the brain and in para-scientific hallucinations which inevitably lead via the Yusuf-Syndrome to a total mental collapse and, in addition, cause incurable cognitive disturbances among unsuspecting economics students and explosive vomiting in the scientific community.

Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption: cross-references

Posts

• Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing   here
• Since the founding fathers, economics is NOT science but political agenda-pushing   here
• The dumb economist ― a jack of all trades   here
• The activist is no scientist, the scientist is no activist   here
• Economics ― for 200+ years just storytelling and mythmaking   here
• Proof of the non-existence of scientific standards   here
• Bill Mitchell says that economists are fake scientists ― true, but MMTers are NOT different   here
• Economists are NOT scientists   here
• The end of political economics   here
• The abysmal stupidity/corruption of political economists   here
• Political fraud and the silence of academia   here
• Economics has been captured by agenda pushers   here
• Economics is proto-scientific garbage   here
• Political economics is NOT science but brain-dead agenda-pushing   here
• Fake economics great again   here
• The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession   here
• OMG, after 200+ years, economics becomes a science   here
• The Paradigm Shift is an accomplished fact   here
• In the grand scheme of things, Lord Keynes was only a small-time crook   here
• Disgrace again ― is economics really that bad?   here
• Not all academic pursuits are science   here
• Economists’ scientific incompetence is worse than the plague   here
• MMT: the Oligarchy's latest beauty treatment   here
• The tragedy of economics: stupid/corrupt economists   here
• All behavior-based economic textbooks are false   here
• Economists can hardly wait for their burial at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery   here
• Economics is a disgrace ― now more than ever   here
• Economics as thought-reading and motive-imputation   here
• Economics is a disgrace   here
• Economists: at the end of the wrong track   here
• Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?   here
• That’s wrong with a fiscal deficit   here
• The US economy hangs on the state ventilator for its survival   here
• MMT ― now official doctrine   here
• The value of money and the worthlessness of economics   here
• Failed economics and the losers’ closed circle of mutual promotion   here
• Mindfuck or the Eternal Return of dead economic theories   here
• There are NO crank scientists in economics because economics is NOT a science   here
• Economics: Not a pretty story   here
• ASSA2020 has been a success ― sorta-kinda   here
• Mission accomplished: Economists as useful idiots of the Oligarchy   here
• Trust in science? Yes, but economics is NOT a science   here
• Understanding socialism presupposes understanding profit   here
• Economics ― the science that never was   here
• Economic backstabbing: Bill Mitchell hits again   here
• How Randall Wray takes the piss out of the House Budget Committee   here
• Marx and Marxists ― too stupid for the elementary algebra of profit   here
• Gosh! The One-Percent have gotten $21 trillion richer: Links on Distribution   here
• Links on Neoliberalism   here
• Macroeconomics and the vacuous History of Economic Thought   here
• The sectoral balances obfuscation: stupidity or corruption?   here
• Keynes ― the poster boy for the weakness of the economist’s mind   here
• MMT/GND: Another case of bad people capturing a good cause   here
• The real trouble with Capitalism: stupid/corrupt economists   here
• The dirty secret of Capitalism: Economists have NO idea how Capitalism works   here
• Swabian housewife vs Wall Street loan shark   here
• Is MMT Alt-Right? No, it is fake science   here
• Links on the Economics Nobel   here
• Bill Mitchell’s dishonorable discharge from the sciences   here
• Deficit cheerleaders ― the Oligarchy’s useful idiots   here
• Economics ― not science, not ideology, just useful idiocy   here
• Right policy depends on true theory   here
• MMT undermines democracy   here
• Circus Maximus: Economics as entertainment, personality gossip, virtue signaling, and lifestyle promotion   here
• Trump and MMT: Make profits great again   here
• The decisive reason to worry about government debt   here
• Bill Mitchell ― Wall Street’s hitman keeps an eye on MMT defeatists   here
• Profit analysis ― another exercise in economic deception   here
• The surefire way to abolish billionaires   here
• How to spot economics trolls   here
• MMT and the woes of useful political idiots   here
• Totally schizo ― MMT and policy   here
• Economics as target group marketing   here
• The Levy/Kalecki Profit Equation is false   here
• MMT: The communicative war on budget-balancers   here
• Economic policy and the skirmishes of failed/fake scientists   here
• The economist as storyteller   here
• MMT’s true program   here
• MMT: A Trojan Horse for Labour courtesy of the Oligarchy   here
• For MMT = For the Oligarchy   here
• Controlled demolition of MMT ― an exercise in elementary logic   here
• MMT: doom or survival?   here
• You know you are in the political Circus Maximus when economists talk about Democracy or Liberty   here
• MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)   here
• Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism   here
• The not-so-funny MMT vs Neoliberalism slapstick   here
• Economics: failure, fake, fraud   here
• MMT: economics for suckers   here
• Economics, MMT, and the capture of science by the political mob   here
• How a Swedish professor cares about the Oligarchy’s financial well-being   here
• Dear idiots, it is deficit spending that creates the distribution people complain about   here
• Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers   here
• MMT is an economic policy fraud   here
• MMT vs WSJ: Another futile exercise in moron bashing   here
• Economists: “a bevy of camp-following whores”   here
• Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk   here
• Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both   here
• Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (II)   here
• A battle for hearts and minds ― economics redefined   here
• Economics as a cover for agenda pushing   here
• Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong   here
• Who is really a scientist?   here
• The half-truths and half-falsehoods of MMT   here
• Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom   here
• Socialism and scientific incompetence   here
• The day when WeThePeople sends debt-deranged economists to hell   here
• Thinking about economic policy for future PM Corbyn   here
• Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich   here
• If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people   here
• “But economics is not pure mathematics or logic” No, it is pure blather   here
• Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy   here
• MMT and the clash of old and new agenda pushers   here
• What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong?   here
• MMT: From science to agenda-pushing to story-telling to fraud   here
• Warren Mosler: scientific dilettante and political fraudster  here
• Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick   here
• Econogenics in action   here
• The end of political economics (II)   here
• The failure of Post-Keynesianism   here
• Urgent: Taking politics out of economics   here
• “We have sunk very low”   here
• Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show   here
• MMT = Trumponomics   here
• Fake religion, fake science, fake news, and false complaints   here
• The MMT defenders of interest on public debt: stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• What comes first: eco-self-destruction or oeco-self-destruction?   here
• MMT and the overall political corruption of economics   here
• Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents   here
• Reverse Alchemy: from scientific gold to political shit   here
• MMT, Warren Mosler, and the little helpers from Wall Street and Academia   here
• If we only had classes   here
• Mission impossible: economists join WeThePeople   here
• Legitimacy lost   here
• Both Mainstreamer and MMTer are either stupid or corrupt or both   here
• MMT-Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists   here
• The economist as useful political idiot   here
• How Bill Mitchell stalks Jeremy Corbyn   here
• MMTers are NOT Friends-of-the-People   here
• Economics, too, is pre-truth   here
• Real-World Economics: The sanctuary of stupidity and corruption   here
• And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization   here
• Beware of the moralizing economist   here
• Political economists ― the village idiots of science   here
• Right troll left troll pack your bag and get out of economics   here
• Do first your macroeconomic homework!   here
• Richard Murphy: the MMT fraudster dressed up as realist   here
• Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling   here
• The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax economy   here
• Austerity and the political games Progressives play   here
• Does economics matter more for bread or for circuses?   here
• How MMT enlightens Washington   here
• Progressive shell games   here
• Marx’s bicentennial ― nothing to discuss, nothing to celebrate   here
• Did economics fail? No! Yes, and everybody knows it!   here
• Profit and the Private-Property-Irrelevance Theorem   here
• Profit: after 200+ years still elusive   here
• MMT: Just another political fraud   here
• MMT: So-called progressives as trailblazers for Trumponomics   here
• Economics is NOT about what Happiness is but about what Profit is   here
• Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation   here
• Economics has arrived at the bottom of the proto-scientific shithole   here
• MMT vs Neoliberalism: Just another clown show   here
• MMT is dead: An unfriendly critique of Bill Mitchell   here
• Political economics: Who hijacks British Labour?   here
• Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading   here
• Forget Keynes   here
• Economics: communication without content   here
• MMT: Academic snake oil for the people   here
• Ricardo and the invention of class war   here
• Econblogosphere: The flawed Top 101   here
• Time to retire political economists   here
• Lars Syll, fake scientist   here
• Are MMTers stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• MMT = proto-scientific garbage + deception of the 99-percenters   here
• Economists, stupid or corrupt or both?   here
• MMT and grassroots movements   here
• Down with idiocy!   here
• Mr. Corbyn and the perils of political economics   here
• Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit   here
• Economists’ rude awakening   here
• Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople   here
• Freedom for fake scientists?   here
• Yes, economics is a bogus science   here
• From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations   here
• Dani Rodrik, fake scientist   here
• How to make economics a science   here
• This is New Economic Thinking? Give me a break!   here
• Joan Robinson and the early death of Behavioral Economics   here
• When non-thinkers rethink   here
• Proof of the inherent instability of the market economy   here
• Why is MMT so false?   here
• MMT: Just political heat, no scientific light   here
• Why is economics such a scientific embarrassment?   here
• Economics: the emancipation of science from politics   here
• MMT: for the record   here
• MMT: scientific incompetence or political fraud?   here
• Hunting down the economics body snatchers   here
• The Death of Keynesianism   here
• MMT, fake science   here
• The moralizing economist is not a good guy but a fake scientist   here
• Austerity: Who takes the little man for a ride?   here
• Marx and the curious coexistence of provably false economic theories   here
• Karl Marx, fake scientist   here
• The abject failure of orthodox and heterodox distribution theory   here
• Economics: a hereditary mental disease with scientific incompetence as father and political fraud as mother   here
• MMT is NOT an alternative to neoliberalism   here
• No exploitation, no classes   here
• Economics: a "science" from suckers for suckers   here
• Barkley Rosser, fake scientist   here
• The irrelevance of populism for economics   here
• Milton Friedman, fake scientist   here
• What is MMT?   here
• Refutation of Asad Zaman’s heterodox methodology: all arguments you ever need   here
• Forget Friedman, forget Keynes   here
• Forget Hayek   here
• The myth of economics knowledge   here
• Intellectual deficit spending   here
• On econblogosphere bias   here
• How economists habitually mess it up   here
• Just another cargo cultic exercise   here
• Marx, the moron   here
• The end of political economics   here
• Needed: The Worst of the Worst of economics blogs   here
• Just another wreck   here
• Soapbox economics   here
• Garbage economics   here
• Hijackers, agenda pushers, PsySocs, and other morons   here
• Consensus, buddy consensus, scientific consensus, or what?   here
• Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system   here
• Getting out of the economics swamp   here
• Economists ― blinded by political balloons   here
• Austerity and the total disconnect between economic policy and science   here
• Does Asad Zaman fly with POL or SCI Airlines?   here
• Feynman Integrity, fake science and the econblogosphere   here
• Note on Barkley Rosser on political/scientific failure   here
• Hayek and other informationally retarded proto-economists   here
• Economics and encephalomalacia   here
• Ditch scientific incompetence!   here
• Media-fake-farce-fraud-storytelling-macro   here
• How Heterodoxy became the venue for science’s scum   here
• Toward the New Academy   here
• Economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations   here
• The economist as moralist   here
• Austerity and the idiocy of political economists   here
• The non-existence of economics   here
• Economics and truth   here
• Pre-truth and post-truth in economics   here
• New economic thinking = old political fake   here
• Endtime for soapbox economists   here
• Where economics went wrong   here
• NAIRU ― letting one more nonentity go   here
• Schizonomics   here
• Economics, Plato’s Cave and the Silver Blaze Case   here
• Economics is a science? You must be joking!   here
• Economics, methodology, morals ― a creepy freak-show   here
• New economic thinking, or, let’s put lipstick on the dead pig   here
• Paul the Menace   here
• Why Bernie Sanders is unintentionally a godsend for the one-percenters   here
• Friedman and the cluelessness of fake scientists   here
• Economism, vulgar economics, and the curse of goofy critics   here
• Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?   here
• Gossip economics   here
• Delusions of useful idiots   here
• Mass unemployment: The joint failure of orthodox and heterodox economics   here
• How the 99 percent can bring overall profit of the 1 percent legally down to zero in 2017   here
• Economics: Poor philosophy, poor psychology, poor science   here
• Economics is indefensible   here
• Inequality: Market failure or theory failure?   here
• Economics as poultry entrails reading   here
• When fake scientists call out on fake politicians   here
• Economics: The pluralism of false theories is over   here
• Will economics ever become a science?   here
• A political stench is in the air   here
• Americans believe crazy things, yet they are outdone by economists   here
• Why Hayek was not a scientist   here
• Economics: Two centuries of scientific incompetence   here
• Economic policy advice has never had sound scientific foundations   here
• Economics is not post-truth but pre-truth   here
• The economist’s pick: liar, moron, or what?   here
• Economics and corruption   here
• FakeNews, FakeScience: economics in the information age   here
• Keynes’s message for contemporaries   here
• Economists: The Trumps of science   here
• The economist as standup comedian   here
• Economists: Jacks of all trades ― except economics   here
• Political economics: a deadhead sitcom   here
• There is NO such thing as an economic expert   here
• Scientific suicide in the revolving door   here
• Not big news: political economics is a failure   here
• Economics pedagogy: an un- and anti-scientific exercise   here
• Economics: a science without scientists   here
• Heterodoxy ― a new paradigm or just another political sect?   here
• The bigots of common sense   here
• Go, Heterodoxy, move on!   here
• A basket of scientific deplorables   here
• All models are false because all economists are stupid   here
• Scientists and science actors   here
• The trouble with economics prizes   here
• Economists: No legitimacy whatever   here
• False and true economic laws   here
• Krugman is not an economist   here
• Unemployment is the outcome of political economics   here
• Economists and the economy ― a nonstarter since 200 years   here
• Turning the bananatization of economics around   here
• Demystifying employment theory and policy   here
• Nothing to choose between Orthodoxy and traditional Heterodoxy   here
• Failed institutions   here
• Economics and Project Augean Stable   here
• A heap of scientific rubbish   here
• Economics is NOT a social science   here
• Economics: The chief demerit is inconsistency   here
• Economic policy guidance out of the scientific kindergarten   here
• Economics: Deadlocked between politics and science   here
• Economics: The Battle of Frogs and Mice is over   here
• Enough! Economists, retire now!   here
• Politics, storytelling, and science   here
• Political economics: as worthless as ever   here
• Hayek ― agenda pusher or scientist?   here
• Economics: A cargo cult science from the very beginning   here
• Politics is national, science is not   here
• Politics or Science? Decide and act accordingly   here
• The mad flip-floppers   here
• Hayek or how economists miss their subject matter since more than 200 years   here
• Economics: From proto-science to freak show   here
• Society, you have a problem   here
• Economic policy has gone wrong because economic theory has gone wrong   here
• Economic recommendations out of the swamp between true and false   here
• Heterodox schizo   here
• Why don’t economists simply shut up for a while?   here
• High profits and low economics   here
• It’s the price and profit mechanism, stupid!   here
• There is no truth in political economics   here
• Economics: neither craft nor science   here
• Helicopter money — a free lunch for the one-percenters   here
• Hayek was not an economist   here
• Trump and the weaponizing of economics   here
• Economics and the weapons of mass distraction   here
• Low-IQ economics: the beginner’s guide   here
• Sick or false?   here
• Economics and the social science delusion   here
• Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics   here
• What heterodox economists are embarrassed to admit   here
• Political economics: a playground for scientific deadbeats   here
• The still unfinished Keynes (II)   here
• On economists’ stupidity   here
• What comes next?   here
• End of a storyteller   here
• Every thinking economist is heterodox by default, but how do we proceed from here?   here
• Agenda pushing or science?   here
• It’s not the ideology, it’s the methodology, stupid!   here
• Confused Orthodoxy vs. confused Heterodoxy   here
• Is Paul Krugman necessary?   here
• Are economists natural born scientific failures?   here
• Economics: of the stupid by the stupid for the stupid   here
• Scientific dabbler and peddler   here
• Soap-opera economics   here
• Which breakdown?   here
• How economists became the scientific laughing stock   here
• Swedish muddle   here
• Economics is a scientific zombie waiting to be put down   here
• The tragedy of Heterodoxy   here
• Political economics and intellectual corruption   here
• The utter senselessness of political economics   here
• Pseudo-voodoo-moron-proto-mumbonomics   here
• Profit and the poverty of economics   here
• The x-th reinvention of evolutionary economics   here
• Hayek: mad, bad, or just another incompetent economist?   here
• Free the academy from economics   here
• Keynes and the logical brilliance of Bedlam   here
• How to be a good scientist   here
• Exponentially growing garbage   here
• Doomed and damned   here
• PsySoc — the scourge of economics   here
• Economics: ‘a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury’?   here
• Confounding sociology and economics   here
• How to minimize political confusion   here
• Confounding Is and Ought: the economist as moralist   here
• Time to get rid of political economics   here
• The philosophy of know-nothingers   here
• Whatever it is, let's call it conservatism   here
• Buridan’s ass economics   here
• Heterodoxy: important decisions ahead   here
• Economics: the honeypot for know-nothingers   here
• Here it comes: the sexit   here
• Knowledge vs. Belief   here
• The case for pure economics   here
• Mental messies and loose losers   here
• Separation of politics and economics   here
• In science, NO is the answer   here
• True/false is different from good/bad   here
• An exercise in futility    here
• It's about institution-building, stupid   here
• From economics to politics to idiotism   here
• Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine   here
• It's all over — but for whom?   here
• Ditto and the hazards of diprosopus   here
• Value — the Bermuda triangle for economic theories   here
• More than two centuries of waffling in the dark   here
• Flight of ideas and the dead end of all econtalk   here
• From true/false to garbage-wrestling and back   here
• Keenonomics, aggregate demand/change of debt, and some misleading critique   here
• Lost between pure fiction and parochial realism   here
• The art of start   here
• A farewell to PsySoc economics   here
• Wake up: economics is not a science of behavior   here
• Sloppiness as economic methodology   here
• The guessing game   here
• Tricky business   here
• Objective Principles   here

Related working papers on SSRN

• Major defects of the market economy   here
• Objective principles of economics   here

For the new scientific foundations of economics see cross-references Paradigm Shift

***

Grok on Mar 6, 2025

Q:

What does the AXEC Project say about the separation of Science and Politics in general and about the failure/fraud of political economics in particular? Here are some relevant resources:

Blog: https://axecorg.blogspot.com/

Papers SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665

X/Twitter, old: E.K-H@AXECorg

X/Twitter, new: AXEC@EgmontHandtke

Homepage: https://www.axec.org/

A:

The AXEC Project, spearheaded by Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, offers a sharp critique of economics as it has been traditionally practiced, emphasizing the need for a clear separation between science and politics and arguing that political economics has been a failure—and even a fraud—due to its inability to adhere to scientific standards. Below, I’ll outline the AXEC Project’s stance on these two key issues based on its foundational principles and arguments, as reflected across its blog, papers, and other materials.

The Separation of Science and Politics

The AXEC Project insists that economics must be fundamentally restructured as a science, distinct from political influence, to achieve any meaningful explanatory power about how the economy actually works. It draws a stark line between theoretical economics (which it equates with science) and political economics (which it dismisses as agenda-driven storytelling). The project argues that:

• Science vs. Politics: Theoretical economics should aim to explain economic phenomena objectively, using clearly defined axioms and rigorous logical consistency, much like the natural sciences. Political economics, in contrast, is about pushing agendas—whether for power, ideology, or vested interests—and thus lacks scientific integrity. The project invokes John Stuart Mill’s view that a scientist’s role is to uncover causal relationships, not to advocate for political ends: “A scientific observer or reasoner… is not an adviser for practice. His part is only to show that certain consequences follow from certain causes…” This separation is seen as essential because politics inherently corrupts science by introducing bias and subjective goals.
• Historical Corruption: The AXEC Project contends that economics has been compromised since its inception by political agenda-pushers. From Adam Smith onward, economists have blended normative goals (what ought to be) with positive analysis (what is), resulting in a discipline that fails to meet the standards of material and formal consistency required of a true science. This mixing of spheres has prevented economics from developing a coherent, objective framework.
• Paradigm Shift: To remedy this, AXEC advocates for a “Paradigm Shift” in economics, moving from behavior-centric, subjective microfoundations to structure-centric, objective macrofoundations. This shift requires stripping away political motivations and psychological assumptions, focusing instead on systemic economic laws (e.g., the Profit Law) derived from axioms, akin to how physics operates independently of human intent.

In short, AXEC sees the separation of science and politics as a prerequisite for economics to escape its “proto-scientific shithole” and become a legitimate field of knowledge. Politics is relegated to the realm of opinion (doxa), while science deals in verifiable knowledge (episteme).

The Failure/Fraud of Political Economics

The AXEC Project is scathing in its assessment of political economics, labeling it not just a failure but often a deliberate fraud due to its scientific worthlessness and its role in perpetuating economic confusion for political gain. Key points include:

• Scientific Failure: Political economics, according to AXEC, has produced “nothing of scientific value in the last 200+ years.” It fails the basic tests of science—material consistency (alignment with empirical reality) and formal consistency (logical coherence)—because it prioritizes narrative over rigor. Schools like Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are dismissed as “social narratives” or “storytelling,” not valid representations of economic reality. For instance, the project argues that foundational concepts like supply and demand curves or equilibrium are illusory and lack empirical grounding.
• Fraudulent Agenda-Pushing: Beyond mere incompetence, AXEC accuses political economics of being a vehicle for fraud, particularly in cases like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It claims MMT’s advocacy of deficit spending is a “political fraud” that benefits the oligarchy by equating public deficits with private profits (via the macroeconomic Profit Law: Public Deficit = Private Profit), while disguising this as a social good. This manipulation of economic theory for political ends exemplifies how political economics distorts reality to serve powerful interests.
• Profit Theory as a Litmus Test: A recurring critique is that economists—orthodox and heterodox alike—have gotten the theory of profit wrong since Adam Smith. AXEC asserts that profit is not a reward for innovation or risk but a systemic outcome of monetary flows, misunderstood due to political biases clouding analysis. This error underscores the broader failure of political economics to explain core economic phenomena, rendering it “scientifically worthless.”
• Hijacking of Economics: The project argues that economics was “hijacked from the very beginning by political economists” who turned it into a tool for shaping public opinion rather than a pursuit of truth. This has left the discipline as “the most embarrassing failure in the history of modern science,” a wrestling show of competing agendas rather than a field of genuine inquiry.
• Consequences: The failure of political economics to provide a true theory means policymakers and the public are left with “educated common sense or personal opinion” rather than reliable guidance. AXEC cites Schumpeter: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie,” suggesting that political economists knowingly perpetuate falsehoods to advance their causes, further entrenching the fraud.

Conclusion

The AXEC Project’s vision is uncompromising: economics must shed its political baggage to become a science grounded in axiomatic foundations, focusing on systemic structures like monetary flows and profit dynamics rather than human behavior or ideological goals. Political economics, in its view, is a failed enterprise—scientifically invalid and often fraudulent—because it has never risen above opinion-driven storytelling to deliver objective knowledge. This critique is not just academic; it’s a call to “scrap the lot and start again,” redefining economics as a discipline free from the distortions of politics.

If you’d like me to dig deeper into specific AXEC arguments (e.g., the Profit Law or critiques of MMT), let me know!

DeepSeek on Mar 17, 2025

Q:

What does the AXEC Project say about the separation of science and politics in economics and about the methodological specifics of (i) theoretical economics (= science) and the methodological failure of (ii) political economics (= agenda pushing) since the founding fathers ― Adam Smith and J. S. Mill in particular? Here are some relevant resources: Blog: https://axecorg.blogspot.com/ Papers SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665 X/Twitter, old: E.K-H@AXECorg X/Twitter, new: AXEC@EgmontHandtke Homepage: https://www.axec.org/

A:

The AXEC (Analysis-Exchange-Correction) Project, spearheaded by economist Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, critiques the current state of economics, particularly the entanglement of science and politics, and the methodological flaws in both theoretical and political economics. Here's a breakdown of the AXEC perspective on the issues you raised: ### 1. **Separation of Science and Politics in Economics** - The AXEC Project argues that economics, as a science, should be strictly separated from politics. It contends that political influence has corrupted economic theory, leading to the dominance of agenda-driven research rather than objective scientific inquiry. - According to AXEC, the failure to separate science from politics has resulted in the proliferation of what it calls "political economics," which prioritizes ideological or policy-driven goals over the pursuit of truth and scientific rigor. ### 2. **Methodological Specifics of Theoretical Economics (Science)** - Theoretical economics, as envisioned by AXEC, should adhere to the principles of scientific methodology. This includes: - **Logical consistency**: Economic theories must be internally consistent and free from contradictions. - **Empirical adequacy**: Theories should be testable and align with observable reality. - **Axiomatic foundations**: Economics should be built on clearly defined, non-contradictory axioms. - AXEC emphasizes that theoretical economics must focus on understanding the fundamental laws and mechanisms of the economic system, independent of political or ideological biases. ### 3. **Methodological Failure of Political Economics (Agenda Pushing)** - AXEC identifies political economics as a form of "agenda pushing" that has dominated the field since the time of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. It argues that political economics: - Prioritizes policy recommendations and ideological goals over scientific truth. - Often relies on flawed or inconsistent theoretical frameworks that are tailored to support specific political agendas. - Fails to meet the standards of scientific rigor, leading to persistent errors and misunderstandings in economic theory. - The project critiques the founding fathers of economics, including Smith and Mill, for blending normative (what ought to be) and positive (what is) analysis, which has perpetuated the confusion between science and politics. ### 4. **Critique of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill** - AXEC argues that Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, while foundational to economic thought, contributed to the methodological confusion in economics by mixing descriptive and prescriptive elements in their work. - Smith's *Wealth of Nations*, for example, is seen as a blend of scientific analysis and political advocacy, which set a precedent for the entanglement of science and politics in economics. - Similarly, Mill's work is criticized for its normative focus, which AXEC believes detracts from the development of a purely scientific economic theory. ### 5. **The Need for a Paradigm Shift** - AXEC calls for a paradigm shift in economics, advocating for a return to scientific principles and the elimination of political influence. It proposes: - A clear distinction between theoretical economics (science) and political economics (agenda pushing). - The development of a new axiomatic foundation for economics that is free from ideological contamination. - A focus on correcting the methodological errors that have plagued the discipline since its inception. In summary, the AXEC Project argues that the separation of science and politics is essential for the progress of economics as a discipline. It critiques the methodological failures of political economics and calls for a rigorous, scientifically grounded approach to theoretical economics, free from the distortions of political and ideological agendas.

Meta references