MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘When two original MMT developers get together to discuss their work’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Bill Mitchell summarizes: “Last week, Warren Mosler and I had one of our regular catchups and we discussed at length the state of play in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We are quite protective of it. We mused about how we started out on this Project and where it has gone. As old stagers do when they get together. We also reflected and compared notes on what the state of MMT is now, given the increasing visibility of the ideas in the mainstream media all around the world and the proliferation of social media activists who have chosen to identify and promote our ideas. There were aspects of that development that we identified as being of concern for us and other aspects which we considered to be a cause for optimism (celebration is too strong a word).”

In other words, the two MMT chief propagandists congratulated themselves and laid down the 2019 communication strategy for the foot soldiers, a.k.a social media activists, “who have chosen to identify and promote our ideas”. Unfortunately, these activists a.k.a trolls/operatives/shills/salespeople, impair the reputation of MMT because they “use the term MMT as a slogan rather than relating to it as a coherent and body of academic work in economic theory and practice that has been meticulously developed over more than 25 years.”

In order to restore reputation and credibility and to raise the low standards of social media communication, #1 and #2, Bill Mitchell took it upon himself to lay down the joint list of essential talking points of MMT propaganda.

What appears to be a bit strange at first glance is that Bill Mitchell and Warren Mosler do not address once the lethal critique of MMT, that is, that MMT’s policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is nothing but a free lunch for the Oligarchy. The word profit does not appear at all in the whole article. As the old quip says, Economics without profit is like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

So, Bill Mitchell’s (Academia) and Warren Mosler’s (Wall Street) joint propaganda directive talks about everything between heaven and earth except MMT’s real political agenda, that is, money-making for the Oligarchy. #3 Obviously, it is intended as a user manual for disinformation and political fraud.

Accordingly, the basic principles of MMT, as laid down by the Oligarchy’s spokespersons, do not deal with how the monetary economy works but with how the state works.

Basic Principle 1: “The state, from inception, as the sole supplier of the funds needed to pay taxes or buy the debt issued by the state, must necessarily impose tax liabilities on the non-government sector before it can spend.”

This is NOT correct. A monetary economy with zero taxes is a real possibility. #4, #5, #6 So, the whole MMT “money story” breaks down already in the first sentence.

There is no need to waste time with the rest of the story. #7

MMT is simply poor 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) MMTers do NOT have the true theory.

This is the fact of the matter. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law reads Q_m≡Y_d+(I−S_m)+(G−T)+(X−M). With regard to the government’s budget, it boils down to Public Deficit = Private Profit, i.e., (G−T)≡Q_m. This piece of pure economic analysis translates into the scientific insight that MMT’s foundational sectoral balances equation is false, and into the political insight that MMT’s policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is nothing but a free lunch for the Oligarchy. In other words, “progressive” MMT policy is a political fraud. #8

The fraud is exactly located in this assertion: “In accounting terms, the government’s deficit (surplus) is exactly equal at all times to the non-government sector’s surplus (deficit).” #9

MMT is a refuted economic theory, and its proponents are either stupid or corrupt or both. Bill Mitchell’s and Warren Mosler’s joint propaganda directive is the incontrovertible proof.

The general public, a.k.a. WeThePeople is accustomed to the idea that the state is in the hands of the Oligarchy but upholds the idea of the independence, objectivity, and impartiality of science. Economics has never been a science, but what Feynman called a cargo cult science. It is NOT a coincidence that both Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the United States Declaration of Independence were published in 1776. Together, they constitute the birth certificate of the US Oligarchy.

MMT stands firmly in this tradition. Its scientific content is zero, and its scientific ethics is zero. #10

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 You are fighting for life? On all fronts? MMT can save you! Or maybe not?
#2 The Kelton-Fraud
#3 MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy
#4 The Third Way: Towards the Happy Zero-Tax economy
#5 The ultimate ― analytical ― origin of money
#6 Nick Rowe’s soapbubbling about money
#7 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
#8 Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show
#9 MMT and the magical profit disappearance
#10 MMT: Time to say goodbye

Related 'MMT, Warren Mosler, and the little helpers from Wall Street and Academia' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople' and 'MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy' and 'MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler' and 'Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Bill Mitchell’s spam folder'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Scientific Incompetence.

***

REPLY to Joe on Dec 14

You say: “Imo, Principle 3 should be principle 1, as the sectoral balances is the most important economic principle, by far. It’s the basis of every single economic transaction, monetary or barter, ever done. I gained what you lost and you gained what I lost. We may decide we’re both better off but nevertheless, the zero-sum nature of it remains. This principle alone rules out much of mainstream economic thought, especially in the European continental context. Everyone can’t be in surplus simultaneously.”

Mathematically true: Everyone can’t be in surplus simultaneously.

MMTers, though, got the math wrong. The blunder is exactly located in this assertion: “In accounting terms, the government’s deficit (surplus) is exactly equal at all times to the non-government sector’s surplus (deficit).”

The axiomatically correct 3-sector relation reads (G−T)≡Q_m+S_m, #1 i.e., the government’s deficit (surplus) is exactly equal at all times to the SUM of the business sector’s surplus (deficit) and the household sector’s surplus (deficit).

The business sector’s surplus Q_m is called profit, and the household sector’s surplus S_m is called saving. The business sector’s deficit is called loss, and the household sector’s deficit is called dissaving. All combinations of the business sector’s profit/loss and the household sector’s saving/dissaving that are equal to (G−T) are possible.

The blunder of Principle 3 invalidates the WHOLE of MMT. The two storytellers, Bill Mitchell and Warren Mosler, are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting. #2 Needless to emphasize that the “social media activists who have chosen to identify and promote” their ideas understand even less. They are brain-dead agenda pushers, as the posts of S400 and Clint Ballinger clearly demonstrate.


#1 Causally speaking, it reads Q_m⇐(G−T)−S_m, but this is not the point at the moment. The point is that one has 3 sectors (government, business, household) and NOT 2 (government, “non-government”). The inadmissible collapsing of the business sector and household sector to the “non-government” sector makes profit disappear. This operation, the Humpty Dumpty Fallacy, is absolutely disqualifying for an academic economist.
#2 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Dec 14

You say: “Egmont says they when the government deficit spends it creates inflation …”

No, I prove the exact opposite: deficit spending per se does NOT cause inflation. #1


#1 MMT and the inflation-red-herring

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Dec 15

You say: “… when the government deficit spends … the rich capture the money, but they capture most of people’s money in the end anyway. If people borrow from the banks, they capture this money as well when they buy goods and services. ”

The answer is in the mathematical truth: Everyone can’t be in surplus simultaneously.

So, if the balance of the government sector (G−T) is zero, and the balance of the household sector Sm is zero, the business sector as a whole cannot make any profit, i.e., Qm=0. This follows from the macroeconomic Profit Law Qm≡(G−T)−Sm.

So, “the rich” can capture NOTHING, i.e., cannot be in surplus, if the other sectors together are not in deficit. Profit for the economy as a whole does NOT depend on greediness or grabbiness or profit maximization or other psychological/behavioral factors, but solely on the macroeconomic balances.

While it is true that one firm can increase profit by increasing productivity or lowering wages, this does NOT hold for the economy as a whole. This is the Fallacy of Composition.

“WeThePeople” can effortlessly prevent “the rich” from “capturing” profit by setting the sectoral balances right. #1 With deficit-spending/money-creation, though, MMTers do the exact OPPOSITE.


#1 How the 99 percent can bring overall profit of the 1 percent legally down to zero in 2017

Free academia from economics

Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Academic unfreedom in economics’

Blog-Reference

You say, “Most departments of economics [in North America] offer — in the classroom and in terms of research and policy advice — only mainstream economics. By that, I mean they hire economists who only teach, conduct research, and offer policy advice defined by one or another version of mainstream (neoclassical and Keynesian) economics. Other approaches to economics — generally, these days, referred to as heterodox economics — simply aren’t recognized by or represented within those departments.” (See intro)

There is a big problem here. Imagine the followers of geocentrism complain that academia is dominated by the followers of heliocentrism. Or that the Astrologers and Alchemists complain that there is no place for them in academia. Would anyone seriously conclude from these facts that there is unfreedom in physics, astronomy, or chemistry?

The real problem is this. Academia is, loosely speaking, committed to science — this is the original idea. And science is well-defined by material and formal consistency (Klant, 1994, p. 31). To recall, when Plato founded the first academy, he explicitly excluded what he considered nonscientists: "Let None But Geometers Enter Here." (See Wikipedia)

The practical problem is that it is not always easy to establish material and formal consistency, and this is what the demarcation problem has always been about: how to draw a clear line between science and non-science. “The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’ systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation. This problem was known to Hume who attempted to solve it. With Kant, it became the central problem in the theory of knowledge.” (Popper, 1980, p. 34)

As a good sophist, McCloskey has given the whole topic a social spin, insinuating that demarcation is the same as discrimination: “In practice methodology serves chiefly to demarcate Us from Them, demarcating science from nonscience. Once the modernists have found a Bantustan for nonscience, such as astrology, psychoanalysis, acupuncture, nutritional medicine, Marxist economics, spoonbending, or anything else they do not wish to discuss, they can get on with the business at hand with a clear head. Methodology and its corollary, the Demarcation Problem (What is Science? How is It to be distinguished from nonscience?), are ways at stopping conversation by limiting conversation to people on our side of the demarcation line.” (1998, p. 161)

Contrary to this subtle redefinition, it has to be affirmed that demarcation is not only legitimate but necessary in order to protect the integrity of science, which consists in upholding the distinction between true and false regardless of any other criteria.

It is pretty clear who should be in and who should be out: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Haack, 1997, p. 1)

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. The history of political economics, on the other hand, can be summarized as the perpetual violation of well-defined scientific standards.

The fact of the matter is that theoretical economics has, from the very beginning, been dominated by the agenda pushers of political economics. Smith and Mill fought against the precapitalistic order; Marx and Keynes were agenda pushers, so were Hayek and Friedman, and so are Krugman and Varoufakis.

Political economics is scientifically worthless. Economics is a failed science. Orthodox economics does not satisfy scientific criteria, and neither does Heterodoxy (see, for example, 2011).

Theoretical economics has been hijacked by politics and instrumentalized. Political economics, in turn, has occupied academia. Academic freedom means not only getting rid of Neoclassical economics but of all of economics as far as it is political economics. There can be no freedom and pluralism of false theories. Academic freedom does not include the freedom to push a political agenda, nor to talk plain proto-scientific garbage. Both current Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy have to go the way of astrology.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Haack, S. (1997). Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Inquirer, 21(6): 1–7. URL
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL
Klant, J. J. (1994). The Nature of Economic Thought. Aldershot, Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison, London: University of Wisconsin, 2nd edition.
Popper, K. R. (1980). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Melbourne, Sydney: Hutchison, 10th edition.

Related ‘The case for pure economics’ and ‘Time to get rid of political economics’ and ‘Heterodoxy: promising or hopeless?’ and 'How to be a good scientist' and 'A rough business plan for science'

MMT, Warren Mosler, and the little helpers from Wall Street and Academia

Comment on Katia Dmitrieva/Bloomberg/Businessweek on ‘A Hedge Fund Guy Lefties Can Love’

Blog-Reference

There is the entertainment industry, and it is about personalities/emotions. There is science, and it is about knowledge/consistency. There are not many people who prefer science over entertainment. In order to appeal to the majority, one has no choice but to gossip about personality.

Accordingly, Warren Mosler is introduced: “He ran a hedge fund, lives in a Caribbean tax haven, and loves fast cars and yachts ― not obvious qualifications for a left-wing guru. But that’s what Warren Mosler is rapidly becoming.”

And this is his message: “Its [MMT’s] main argument is that governments with their own currencies can’t go broke. They have more room to spend than is usually supposed and don’t need to collect taxes (or even borrow) to pay for it. One thing they can, and should, spend money on is a jobs guarantee ― offering work to anyone who wants it.”

All this, of course, is way beside the point. Economics claims for 200+ years to be a science, and MMT claims to be a superior scientific theory, so the point at issue is NOT the personality of Warren Mosler but whether MMT is true/false according to well-defined scientific criteria.

The unambiguous answer is: MMT is materially/formally false, MMTers are fake scientists, MMT’s policy proposals boil down to deficit-spending/money-creation, and this translates to money-making for the Oligarchy because the macroeconomic Profit Law implicates Public Deficit = Private Profit, which follows straight from the axiomatically correct sectoral balances equation (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−Sm)−(Qm−Yd)=0. #1…#7

In sum, MMT is refuted as proto-scientific garbage, its social rhetoric is a plain political fraud, and its effect ― intended or unintended, does not matter ― it is to undermine genuine grassroots movements. MMT lacks valid scientific foundations and is no more than gossip/entertainment/fraud in the political Circus Maximus.

Deficit-spending/money-creation has always been a program for the self-alimentation of the Oligarchy #8 and quite naturally enjoys the support of Wall Street in general and Bloomberg in particular.

According to Stephanie Kelton, the MMT snake oil works just fine: “Democrats are beginning to see that all the stories they’ve been told, and that they in fact even repeated themselves, weren’t good stories.” #9

Indeed, but the MMT story isn’t one iota better. #10

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 MMT: agenda-pushing and money-making for the Oligarchy
#2 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
#3 MMT and the single most stupid physicist
#4 MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy
#5 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
#6 MMTers are NOT Friends-of-the-People
#7 For the full-spectrum refutation, see cross-references MMT
#8 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, Biden and exploding profit
#9 The Kelton-Fraud
#10 MMT: How the Oligarchy communicates with WeThePeople

***

AXEC142c

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Oct 14

You say: “Egmont offers no answer, just more poverty for most people.”

The task of the economist as a scientist is to figure out how the economy works. Unfortunately, economists have done nothing of the sort over the last 200+ years because they were preoccupied with agenda-pushing.

As a result, the answers economists have offered from Adam Smith/Karl Marx onward have NO scientific content and have never been more than brain-dead political blather.

Needless to emphasize people with some scientific instinct have realized this long ago: “What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear … because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse.” (McCauley)

But economists have NO scientific instinct. They are clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus.

This is quite obvious in the case of Warren Mosler. Yes, he gives answers and offers solutions. The humanitarian mission of Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, and the rest of the MMTers is to end the poverty of the one-percenters by deficit-spending/money-creation.

To be sure, I have no qualms with MMTers pulling off a political fraud. #1 Politics is NOT the issue! What has to be made clear is that Modern Monetary Theory is NOT a valid theory and that MMT has NOTHING to do with science.

MMT is failed science, MMTers are fake scientists, MMT academics are campaigners for Warren Mosler, and Warren Mosler, in turn, is a campaigner for Wall Street. #2

#1 MMT is ALWAYS a bad deal for the 99-percenters

#2 Lying for money: a generalization

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Oct 14

You say: “Now, if the government taxes the people and spends it on public services, doesn/t that money also end up the pockets of the rich.”

I have presented the axiomatically correct Profit Law on more than one occasion. #1 It reads Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) and answers ALL your questions. If the government taxes the household sector and thereby balances the budget, then G=T and the profit effect is ZERO. It is deficit-spending/money-creation that produces the macroeconomic profit of the business sector and benefits the Oligarchy immediately and exactly by the same amount. Get it: Public Deficit = Private Profit.

The Profit Law also tells one that it does not matter whether deficit-spending is private or public. The effect on profit is the same.

In the MMT balances equation (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0, profit does not appear. Isn’t that a bit curious? An economic theory that is completely silent about profit? #2

The MMT balances equation is mathematically false. And exactly at this point, MMT is outside of science. If profit theory is false, the whole analytical superstructure is false, including employment theory. #3 A policy that is based on a false theory is a fraud. This also holds for the MMT Job Guarantee. #4

So, the matter is settled. Warren Mosler is a political fraud, and MMT academics are his useful idiots.#5

#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT

#2 Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit

#3 Employment theory as an example of proto-scientific soapbubbling

#4 Full employment through the price mechanism

#5 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler

***

REPLY to Calgacus on Oct 15

Bloomberg presents Warren Mosler as the “guy Lefties can love”.

Calgacus presents himself as a class-fighter who can read the minds of the enemies: “But the purpose and action of such neoliberals and business leaders is NOT to enrich themselves in absolute terms, but rather in relative terms, to keep themselves in the saddle, to create and maintain rigid class divisions.” #1

Bill Mitchell presents himself as a Progressive, i.e. as a true Left who brings the somewhat naive and disoriented Socialist Parties back on the right path. #2

Tom Hickey uses every opportunity to make it clear that MMT is more than macroeconomic accounting and has deep philosophical roots in Hegel/Marx. #3

Stephanie Kelton presents herself as the Mother Teresa of economics who cares about everything between babies and global warming and promises a golden MMT future with “a pony for every American”. #4

All this is crappy personality marketing.

The fact is that MMTers are NOT in any sense Left or social or caring or fighting for WeThePeople. MMT is objective ― i.e., independent of what MMTers think or say of themselves ― agenda-pushing for the Oligarchy.#5 Calgacus is part of it.

#1 If we only had classes

#2 How Bill Mitchell stalks Jeremy Corbyn

#3 Note on Amy Willis ‘Can majoring in philosophy make you a better person?’

#4 The Kelton-Fraud

#5 Rethinking MMT

***

REPLY to Kaivey on Oct 15

You say: “Did you watch the Spiders Web video I put out, which was about Britain’s second empire? These are the real issues if today.”

That Britain is NOT a sovereign nation but the annex to the money-making and money-laundering machine called the City of London is a well-known fact since the founding of the Bank of England.

The real issue of today is how economists helped to bring this state of affairs about. The curious fact of today is that Warren Mosler lives in a tax haven and promises full employment for WeThePeople by applying perpetual deficit-spending/money-creation. And he is supported by incompetent academics and brain-dead trolls like Kaivey.

The real issue of today is that the “Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” has been awarded. This has to be put in perspective.#1. Provably false:

• profit theory, for 200+ years,

• microfoundations, for 150+ years,

• macrofoundations, for 80+ years,

• the application of elementary logic and mathematics since the founding fathers.

For everyone with some scientific instinct, it is quite obvious:

• Economics is a cargo cult science,

• Both Nordhaus and Romer are fake scientists,

• The economics Nobel is a fraud.

MMT perfectly fits into the big picture. The political fraud of MMT, the corruption of the British banking system, and the agenda-pushing since Smith/Marx are bad, but the worst thing of all is the scientific corruption of economics in all its variants from Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, Pluralism, to MMT.

This is the real issue of today

#1 Where economics went wrong

***

REPLY to Calgacus on Oct 16

You say: “Attacks on deficit spending are almost always on ‘MMT welfare spending’ or ‘New Deal spending’ In that case that Egmont AND the oligarchs attack ― it is VERY clearly the opposite of the truth.”

The smart folks in the kindergarten already know that nobody can give a sh* about what politicians say about deficit spending or austerity.#1, #2 This has always been propaganda and NOT economics. My argument is NOT about deficit spending but about the profit effect of deficit spending.#3 It is exactly here, where the MMT fraud sneaks in.#4

You say “… if there is a Job Guarantee there is no unemployment. Period.” Agree, but that is not the point at issue. There can be a Job Guarantee with a balanced budget and then the profit effect is ZERO. Or, there can be a Job Guarantee with deficit spending. In this case, the Profit Law tells us that Public Deficit = Private Profit#5, and therefore the Oligarchy benefits biggly from the Job Guarantee. This is a bit ‘irrational’ for a social policy measure.

I have no qualms with the Job Guarantee. This is a political decision of the Legitimate Sovereign, which the economist as a scientist does NOT comment on but simply takes as a datum. My point is that the Job Guarantee is abused by MMTers to push the agenda of the Oligarchy. There are distributionally neutral ways to achieve full employment.#6

The fraud of MMTers consists of promising social benefits and hiding the fact that WeThePeople themselves pay in real terms for every single benefit, either through open or stealth taxation, and by hiding the fact that deficit-spending/money-creation feeds the Oligarchy.

The social policy of MMT is a fraud. I am NOT arguing against the goals of social policy but against the fraud.#7 Whoever claims that Warren Mosler is a guy WeThePeople can love or that MMT policy benefits WeThePeople is either stupid or corrupt, or both.

#1 Austerity and the idiocy of political economists

#2 MMT-Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?

#3 Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit

#4 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit

#5 The profit effect of a Job Guarantee

#6 Full employment through the price mechanism

#7 For details of the big picture, see cross-references MMT

Political fraud and the silence of academia

Comment on Dirk Ehnts on ‘Happy 25th birthday, Modern Money Theory!’

Blog-Reference

COV19 is the best thing that could happen to Modern Monetary Theory/MMT. In the current emergency, almost everybody agrees that public deficit spending is the right thing to do and that all concerns about the permanent ― and now accelerated ― growth of public debt is far down on the priority list. This is a triumph for MMT because they are for a long time now the outspoken proponents of deficit-spending/money-creation as the solution to most economic problems.

MMTers have built a huge analytical/rhetorical superstructure around the benefits of public deficit-spending and the evils of austerity/neoliberalism and the wickedness of budget-balancers. So, with some justification they can say ‘We told you so’.#1

The problem with the increasing acceptance of MMT is that it does NOT prove that MMT is scientifically valid but that it has been heavily pushed through all media channels lately.#2

It has been proved that (i) MMT is scientifically worthless#3-#5 and (ii) a political fraud for the advantage of the Oligarchy and the disadvantage of WeThePeople.#6-#15

So, it has been established that MMT has nothing to do with science but is a plain political deception of WeThePeople.

Economics claims to be science and MMT is one of the major approaches. So, the question is, does the rest of academic economics not realize that MMT is materially/formally inconsistent, or do they realize it but help to cover the failure/fraud? In brief: are academic economists stupid or corrupt or both?

This question has to be answered for every single economist and this is going to take time. What can be said with certainty at this point is that the major approaches — Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT — are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong.#16-#20

So, the preliminary answer to the question of why academic economists do not refute MMT and ring the alarm of political fraud is that they themselves have never understood how the economy works. It holds for all of them: economists are not scientists but brain-dead agenda pushers in the political Circus Maximus.

As a consequence, Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians, and MMTers have to be expelled from the sciences.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 MMT ― now official doctrine

#2 MMT pushes the Oligarchy's agenda ― and they push MMT

#3 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?

#4 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (I)

#5 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)

#6 MMT is refuted on all counts

#7 MMT ― zero credibility

#8 Q: How are you going to pay for it? MMT: By stealth taxation!

#9 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

#10 MMT's true program

#11 How MMT serves the rich (III)

#12 How MMT serves the rich (II)

#13 MMTers hide macroeconomic profit in order to deceive WeThePeople

#14 MMTers are false Progressives and false Friends-of-the-People

#15 MMT undermines democracy

#16 The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists

#17 A new episode of one of the worst blunders of economics

#18 The apocalypse of stupidity

#19 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking

#20 Economics, MMT, and the corruption of science

***

AXEC142b

Occasional Tweets: Academia and Science is NOT the same thing ― in economics, they are opposites

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

“Masonomics is … founded in principles that stress the value of free markets in promoting peace and prosperity.”

Masonomics is proto-scientific garbage. GMU economists are NOT #Scientists but #UsefulIdiots in the political #CircusMaximus. pic.twitter.com/ORqil0bLIh

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) December 1, 2021

For more about science see AXECquery. 

Occasional Tweets: The percentage of #EconBlockers in academia is sky-high

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#EconBlocker#Economists are NOT #Scientists but #AgendaPushers / #UsefulIdiots / #Clowns in the political #CircusMaximus. Accordingly, the percentage of stupid/corrupt #EconBlockers in #Academia is sky-high.⇒https://t.co/HxRRSoiWJi

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 10, 2022