Showing posts sorted by relevance for query title:Paul. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query title:Paul. Sort by date Show all posts

March 2, 2019

Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk

Links on Stephanie Kelton’s ‘Paul Krugman Asked Me About Modern Monetary Theory. Here Are 4 Answers.’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Mar 5

First answer: “Fiscal policy works by driving income into people’s pockets.”
False. Instead: “MMT deficit-spending/money-creation works by driving profit into rich people’s pockets.”

Stephanie Kelton is a scientifically incompetent agenda pusher for the Oligarchy:
► Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
► The Kelton-Fraud
► Down with idiocy!
► Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both
► How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it
► MMT for beginners

Paul Krugman, of course, is already a little longer known as a failed/fake scientist (see Related).

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It' and 'Krugman vs MMT ― like the blind talking about colors' and 'Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show' and 'Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics' and 'Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading' and 'Enough! Economists, retire now!' and 'Just another wreck' and 'The Krugman curse' and 'Krugman is not an economist' and 'Not a question of simplicity but of stupidity' and 'The general theory of scientific incompetence' and 'Is Paul Krugman necessary?' and 'When fake scientists call out on fake politicians' and 'On economists’ stupidity' and 'Paul the Menace' and 'Economics and corruption' and 'Forget Krugman, forget Keynes, forget economists' and 'Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled' and 'Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation' and 'MMT-Refutation for Dummies' and 'The clock runs down on economics'.

For more on Kelton see AXECquery.

***

REPLY to Noah Way, Konrad, Detroit Dan, Ralph Musgrave, S400 on Mar 2

The notation of the sectoral balances equations is as follows
MMT (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
AXEC (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0
.

Because the MMT equation is provably false (it describes a zero-profit economy), the whole of MMT is false. As a consequence, MMT and its proponents are flushed down the scientific toilet. This is how mental hygiene works. And this is how science has worked for 2300+ years.

Genuine scientists settle matters by material/formal refutation and then move on to a superior approach. To this day, economists are unable to get out of their proto-scientific delirium. #1 Paul Krugman, Stephanie Kelton, and you are the living proof.


#1 Economists: Either stupid or corrupt or both

***
REPLY to Calgacus on Mar 2

People who invoke Jesus in an economic argument have disqualified themselves and are NOT allowed to utter any methodological pronouncements.#1

Obviously, you cannot stop making a fool of yourself: “Egmont, people are trying to make a point I have made in vain to you. These equations are meaningless if you don’t define your terms.”

Guess what, Calgacus and other people who invoke Jesus and cannot put 2 and 2 together: the variables in the AXEC sectoral balances equations are axiomatically well-defined, identical with the subset of the MMT equation, and measurable with the precision of two decimal places. #2, #3, #4, #5

So, if the subset of variables in the MMT equation is correctly defined, then the same set of variables in the AXEC equation is also correctly defined. The AXEC set contains, in addition, the well-defined variables profit Q and distributed profit Yd that are missing in the MMT equation.

The problem with MMTers is that they do not even understand what their own balances equation actually says. It actually says that macroeconomic profit is zero.#6 Note that a zero-profit economy is a NONENTITY like the Easter Bunny or Spiderman or the Tooth Fairy, or an intelligent MMTer.


#1 How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it, post of Feb 27
#2 From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm
#3 A crash course in macro accounting
#4 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#5 The final implosion of MMT
#6 Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (II)

***

REPLY to Bob Roddis, Andrew Anderson, Konrad, Noah Way

Your talk about greed and violence is folk psychology/sociology, or PsySoc for short. It may surprise you to learn that economics is NOT AT ALL about Human Nature/motives/ behavior/action.#1, #2

Economics is about how the economic system works. More precisely, economics deals with the objective systemic laws that govern the behavior of the monetary economy.

Economists, in an analogy, are like scientists/engineers who figure out the laws of aerodynamics, thermodynamics, etc., and manage in the end to get something heavier than air off the ground and safely to some distant destination. Except that economists have NOT figured out anything about how the economy works. Instead, they have had for 200+ years now a brain-dead palaver about utility maximization, rational expectations, animal spirits, supply-demand-equilibrium, greed, and other PsySoc BS.

To this day, neither MMTers nor Austrians nor Walrasians nor Keynesians nor Marxians get the interaction of the macroeconomic balances right.#3 So, economics is at a level analogous to physics before Archimedes had figured out the Law of the Lever about 2300 years ago.

Society is cursed with the fact that economic policy has, to this day, NO sound scientific foundations. What society got instead is incessant PsySoc blather at the intellectual zero lower bound.


#1 Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system
#2 PsySoc — the scourge of economics
#3 MMT-Refutation for Dummies

***
AXEC144b

April 19, 2026

Occasional X: Can anyone take Paul Krugman seriously? (III)

March 29, 2025

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Paul Samuelson (II)

 

January 15, 2016

Is Paul Krugman necessary?

Comment on Paul Krugman on ‘Is Vast Inequality Necessary?’

Blog-Reference

Economists do not understand their proper task to this very day. J. S. Mill once told them: “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.” (2006, p. 950)

Economists were, from the very beginning, torn between science and politics. As scientific dilettantes, they preferred politics. This explains why economics never rose above the level of proto-scientific garbage: “In this and many analogous cases, of which modern economics is another deplorable example, economists indulged their strong propensity to dabble in politics, to peddle political recipes, to offer themselves as philosophers of economic life, and in doing so neglected the duty of stating explicitly the value judgments that they introduced into their reasoning.” (Schumpeter, 1994, p. 19)

Economists are addicted to political economics, and this is why they have not produced anything of scientific value: “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)

Paul Krugman does not have the true theory. As he summarized on his blog, “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point ...”

This starting point is provably false. #1 Because of this, Krugman’s arguments and proposals have no sound scientific foundations (2014).

It is high time for the separation of science and politics in economics. The task of theoretical economics is to figure out how the economy works. Economists owe society the true theory. Political economists can no longer be allowed to speak in the name of science.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory? SSRN Working Paper Series, 2511741: 1–23. URL
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, volume 8 of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics and Econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

#1 Addendum to “Musings on Whether We Consciously Know More or Less than What Is in Our Models”


***

Graphic AXEC108l


***

REPLY  Wrong question, wrong answers

Most of the preceding posts fall into the Human-Nature category, and the contributors are obviously not aware that all questions about human behavior/motivation/aspiration/ intention/ etc belong to psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, etcetera, but not to economics. It is not the task of economics to explain how humans behave; the task is to explain how the economy behaves. Second-guessing human behavior and waffling about utility maximization is not science but — as confirmed by more than 100 years of failure — a senseless exercise.

The first thing an economist with a modicum of scientific instinct understands is that “if we wish to place economic science upon a solid basis, we must make it completely independent of psychological assumptions and philosophical hypotheses.” (Slutzky, quoted in Mirowski, 1995, p. 362)

Does the world expect economists to find out how people behave? No. Does the world expect economists to figure out what profit is? Yes, of course, no philosopher, psychologist, anthropologist, biologist, or sociologist will ever try to figure this out. Have economists done their proper job? No. The Palgrave Dictionary summarizes “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Desai, 2008, p. 10)

Did Keynes have any idea about what profit is? No. “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al., 2010, pp. 12-13, 16). This, obviously, could not hinder Keynes from philosophizing and sociologizing about the end of laissez-faire and third-generation men.

Does Krugman have any idea about what profit is? NO! (2014).

Does income distribution have something to do with wages and profits? These two concepts are obviously fundamental for distribution theory.

It is known since Hume that there is a categorical difference between ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’ and that science is exclusively concerned with ‘Is’. ‘Ought’ is the realm of philosophy, morals, ethics, and politics. ‘Is’ is the proper realm of science. Political economics is outside of science.

Krugman’s first mistake is to trespass on the line between ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’. It is pretty obvious that Ought-questions cannot, as a matter of principle, have a scientific answer. His second mistake is to answer the question without knowing the difference between profit and income, which is the worst thing that can happen to an economist.

The actual fact of the matter is that economists have no clear idea about the fundamental concepts of their discipline. This is like medieval physics before the concept of energy was fully understood.

Distribution theory is where economics reaches its lowest scientific ebb.

References
Desai, M. (2008). Profit and Profit Theory. In S. N. Durlauf, and L. E. Blume (Eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online, 1–11. Palgrave Macmillan, 2nd edition. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2392856: 1–19. URL
Mirowski, P. (1995). More Heat than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tómasson, G., and Bezemer, D. J. (2010). What is the Source of Profit and Interest? A Classical Conundrum Reconsidered. MPRA Paper, 20557: 1–34. URL

October 23, 2019

Links on Paul Krugman, proto-scientific impresario

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Paul Krugman ― finally ― admits he was wrong!’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Oct 25

Paul Krugman has always been a clown and useful idiot in the political Circus Maximus. But Lars Syll has NOT been one iota better. Both, Krugmanian Orthodoxy and Syllian Heterodoxy are proto-scientific garbage.

► Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics
► Krugman is not an economist
► Paul the Menace
► Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It
► Forget Krugman, forget Keynes, forget economists
► Profit and Distribution Theory is false for 200+ years
► Hooray! The formalization issue is finally settled
► Economics: a comedy of errors full of intrigue and aberration
► Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk
► The stupidity of Heterodoxy is the life insurance of Orthodoxy

May 2, 2025

Occasional Tweets: Can anyone take Paul Krugman seriously? (II)

 


For more about Paul Krugman, see AXECquery

February 28, 2018

Paul Krugman and economic poultry entrails reading

Comment on Brad DeLong on ‘Paul Krugman Looks Back at the Last Twenty Years of the Macroeconomic Policy Debate’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Mar 1

A theory must satisfy TWO criteria ― material AND formal consistency. Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing. This is known for 2300+ years: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.” (Aristotle Wikipedia)

Paul Krugman, for one, is quite explicit about how he has solved the Starting Problem: “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point.”

Paul Krugman has not realized since his student days that neoclassical economics has been dead in the cradle 150+ years ago. In other words, the neoclassical premises are NOT certain, true, and primary. In still other words, neoclassical economics is axiomatically false. And when the axiomatic foundations are false, the whole analytical superstructure is false. #1 As a result, the microfoundations approach from Jevons/Walras/ Menger onward to DSGE is scientifically worthless.

But Paul Krugman is also a Keynesian, sorta-kinda. Keynes built macro on these premises: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, p. 63)

Unfortunately, Keynes got macroeconomic profit wrong: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

Because profit is ill-defined, the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesianism is false, in particular, all I=S/IS-LM models. #2

Paul Krugman, of course, realized nothing and used and praised IS-LM as a superior tool for macroeconomic analysis. #3

Needless to emphasize that Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations do not fit together. Therefore, a synthesis of the two has been methodological madness since Samuelson’s 1948 textbook.

To this day, Paul Krugman’s economic policy guidance has NO sound scientific foundations but is plucked out of the thin air of political populism. Because both Walrasianism and Keynesianism are axiomatically false, economic policy advice is to this day no different from the poultry entrails reading of the old Roman haruspex.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Axiomatization.
#2 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Keynesianism.
#3 Mr. Keynes, Prof. Krugman, IS-LM, and the End of Economics as We Know It

Related 'Krugman and the scientific implosion of economics' and 'The Krugman curse' and 'Paul the Menace'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

***

Graphic AXEC128c The Humpty Dumpty Fallacy

April 4, 2021

Occasional Tweets: Can anyone take Paul Krugman seriously? (I)

 

For more  Paul Krugman, see AXECquery

May 5, 2025

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Paul Samuelson (III)

 


Related 'Naive arithmetic'. 

May 6, 2025

Occasional X: The futile attempt to recycle Paul Samuelson (IV)

 

February 3, 2017

Paul the Menace

Comment on Paul Krugman on ‘Donald the Menace’

Blog-Reference

Paul Krugman presents himself as an economist, however, his main occupation is not economics but politics. In his capacity as a political commentator, he points out that the institution of the presidency has been hijacked by an incompetent and dangerous person.

This comment is the unintended proof that the institution of academic economics has been hijacked by agenda pushers and incompetent scientists.

Krugman defines himself as follows: “most of what I and many others do is sorta-kinda neoclassical because it takes the maximization-and-equilibrium world as a starting point.” What he completely overlooks is that maximization-and-equilibrium is not a scientifically acceptable starting point, that is, the acceptance of maximization-and-equilibrium is disqualifying for an economist.

Economists are not very smart. History shows that they swallow every logical blunder hook, line and sinker provided it is presented in the form of an easy-to-grasp narrative. The most prominent example in the history of economic thought is the diamond-water paradox. It goes as follows: “The paradox of value (also known as the diamond-water paradox) is the apparent contradiction that, although water is on the whole more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market.”#1

The paradox is solved by ‘thinking at the margin’ which is advertised as the outstanding characteristic of an economist. Accordingly, the price of diamonds is high relative to water because the marginal utility of diamonds is high relative to the marginal utility of water which in turn is normally more abundant than diamonds.

The idiotism of the answer is obvious, except for an economist. Water and diamonds cannot be compared in this way because water is consumed, i.e. it vanishes, and the very characteristic of diamonds is that they are NOT consumed but, just the opposite, they are the proverbial eternal store of value. Because of this, the determination of the prices of perishable and durable goods follows entirely DIFFERENT principles. The first thing to notice is that there is NO such thing as “the” market but that there are at least TWO entirely different types of markets.#2 This alone makes it clear, that the economist’s one-size-fits-all supply-demand-equilibrium explanation must be false.

By consequence, what in the first analytical step has to be done is to determine the relative prices of two perishable goods within the framework of what Keynes called the ‘monetary theory of production’. Barter models are out from the outset. The correct starting point is a pure hand-to-mouth economy where, for example, bread and wine are produced in two firms and fully consumed by the households in one and the same period. The stock of goods is zero at the beginning and at the end of the period. The total number of working hours is given and the wage rate is, for a start, equal in the bread and wine production. The wage income is fully spent. Because total consumption expenditures are equal to total wage income total profit of the business sector is zero.#3

For this elementary two-goods hand-to-mouth economy we get with a little algebra for the relative price of bread and wine Pb/Pw=Rw/Rb, that is, the relative price is inverse to the productivities, that is, the relative price or the exchange ratio is OBJECTIVELY given and INDEPENDENT of marginal utility. In other words, the production conditions determine relative prices. This amounts to a refutation of marginalism which is a subjective concept.

To see this more clearly, let us assume that the preferences of the households change from one period to the next. In order to cut out the details of the adaptation process, it is assumed that the household sector tells the business sector that it wants more wine and less bread. Accordingly, the business sector shifts labor from bread production to wine production. Because the wage rate is equal to total wage income and total consumption expenditures do not change. Only the partitioning of total expenditures changes according to the new preferences, that is, expenditures for wine go up and expenditures for bread go down. With a little algebra we arrive under the condition of market clearing and zero profit in both firms again at Pb/Pw=Rw/Rb, that is, a change of preferences or marginal utilities has NO effect on relative prices. In other words, demand is NOT a determinant of price. Changes in the partitioning of demand lead to a change of quantities and NOT to price changes.

This result plainly refutes marginalism. This gives a pause to recall where marginalism came from. Ultimately, marginalism can be traced back to the importation of calculus into economics and the translation of formalism into the BEHAVIORAL assumption of utility maximization under constraints. This assumption is part of the Walrasian axiom set which is given by: “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)

The upshot is that not only constrained optimization (HC2) is forever unacceptable as an axiom but rational expectations (HC4) and equilibrium (HC5), too. Therefore, marginalism or, more precisely, the microfoundations approach has already been dead in the cradle 140+ years ago. The representative economist and Paul Krugman have not realized this until this very day. The water-diamond story is still told as exemplary for how economists think ‘at the margin’ and every student generation since Walras/Jevons/Menger swallows this methodological crap without turning an eyelid.

Maximization-and-equilibrium economists like Krugman are groping in the dark with regard to the two most important features of the market economy: the profit mechanism and the price mechanism. And this means that their economic policy advice lacks a sound scientific foundation. And this, in turn, means that they are a hazard to their fellow citizens roughly on a par with ‘Donald the Menace’.#4

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Wikipedia
#2 Primary and Secondary Markets
#3 The Logic of Value and the Value of Logic and The Value of Water and Diamonds: Back to Square One and The Pure Logic of Value, Profit, Interest
#4 Economists and the destructive power of stupidity

Related 'Scientific suicide in the revolving door' and 'Krugman is not an economist'