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

September 17, 2019

The dirty secret of Capitalism: Capitalists have NO idea how Capitalism works

Comment on Nick Hanauer on ‘The dirty secret of capitalism ― and a new way forward’*

Blog-Reference

Tom Hickey summarizes: “Nick Hanauer says the mainstream economists have been captured by the oligarchs. He says how the evidence shows that a pure free market suppresses wages and employment so much that the demand falls off and a viscous circle sets in ― a lack of demand means underperforming companies, which means companies employ less people and pay them less, which generally decreases the demand for goods and services, and so on. Everyone loses, except the 0.1%, the oligarchs.”

Nick Hanauer introduces himself as a successful Capitalist and asks: “How do we manage to grab an ever-increasing share of the economic pie every year?” and “So, what is society to do?” His answer is “We need a new economics” because it is painfully obvious that “The fundamental assumptions that undergird neoliberal economic theory are just objectively false.” The apex of neoliberal falsity is the behavioral assumption of homo oeconomicus. However, the key to a prosperous, complex, and sustainable economy is cooperative behavior. The selfish and greedy behavior of homo oeconomicus is not good but sociopathic.#1

This is, of course, commonsensically true except that it is NOT economics. Economics is NOT about human behavior but about the behavior of the economic system. Human Nature/motives/behavior/action is the subject matter of psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/evolution etcetera. The lethal blunder of economics is that it defines itself for 200+ years as a social science.#2, #3, #4

The methodological fact of the matter is: NO way leads from the second-guessing of Human Nature/motives/behavior/action to the understanding of how the economic system works. Behavioral microfoundations are the ultimate reason why economics is to this day proto-scientific garbage.

Nick Hanauer asserts: “Unless the laws of physics, the laws of economics are a choice. If we want a new economics all we have to do is chose to have it.” This, of course, is plain scientific incompetence. Profit for the economy as a whole, for example, does NOT depend on whether the one-percenters are sociopathic exploiters or cooperative and emphatic leaders.#5

The macroeconomic 4-sector Profit Law is objectively given by Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M). In the most elementary case of the production-consumption economy, this reduces to Q≡−S, i.e. the mirror image of household sector saving S is business sector loss (−Q). The mirror image of household sector dissaving (−S) is business sector profit (+Q). The point to grasp is that profit for the business sector as a whole depends on the deficit spending of the household sector and NOT on the behavior or achievements of Capitalists. With regard to the state, the Profit Law boils down to Q=(G−T), i.e. Public Deficit = Private Profit. And this explains why Capitalists were able “to grab an ever-increasing share of the economic pie every year.”

Public deficit-spending/money-creation is a free-lunch program for the Oligarchy. The fact is that the so-called free-market economy is on the life support of the state, and Wall Street is on the life support of the Central Bank. Macroeconomic profit is in the main produced by public deficits. Financial wealth grows in lockstep with public debt. The Oligarchy, in turn, uses the opulent free lunches to corrupt what remains of the state’s legislative, executive, and judiciary institutions.

Nick Hanauer is NOT a scientist but an agenda pusher for the Oligarchy like the rest of self-styled New Economic Thinkers.#6 What he tells the TED audience is that Neoliberalism is dead and that he and other enlightened Capitalists are working for a better social and economic order. The fact is that he has NO idea what profit is and how the economy works.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* TED
#1 Actually, this is rather old stuff “No science has been criticized by its own servants as openly and constantly as economics. The motives of dissatisfaction are many, but the most important pertains to the fiction of homo oeconomicus.” (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971)
#2 Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system
#3 Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics
#4 The happy end of the social science delusion
#5 Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation
#6 CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig


***
AXEC109i

January 8, 2025

Occasional X: Failed proof of Capitalism's superiority (I)

 


***

Twitter/X Oct 31, 2025 

March 20, 2025

Occasional X: Failed proof of Capitalism's superiority (VI)

 

July 23, 2025

Occasional X: The growth of public/private debt is the life elixir of Capitalism (VIII)

September 20, 2019

Links on “Capitalism. Time for a reset.”

Comment on the new FT campaign*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Right policy depends on true theory. The reset of economic policy presupposes the reset of economic theory because 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. Economics is a failed/fake/cargo-cult science to this day. The reset of economics requires a new set of axioms, i.e., the replacement of false Walrasian microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations by true macrofoundations. Methodologically, this reset is called a Paradigm Shift. The FT is a bit late. The reset has already happened some time ago. See

 True macrofoundations: the reset of economics

For more details, see:

► The real trouble with Capitalism: stupid/corrupt economists
► The dirty secret of Capitalism: Economists have NO idea how Capitalism works
► Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times
► The only thing we can learn from economic models is what proto-scientific garbage looks like
► Macroeconomics: Economists are too stupid for science
► After 200+ years even economics becomes a science
► From false micro to true macro: the new economic Paradigm
► The new macroeconomic Paradigm
► The canonical macroeconomic model
► If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Twitter, Laurie Mcfarlane, FT, The times they are a changin’
and campaign The Financial Times “The new agenda” by The Brooklyn Brothers

Related 'No future for Socialism and Capitalism' and 'Who is really a scientist?' and 'Profit and the Private-Property-Irrelevance Theorem' and 'MMTers make Capitalism work' and 'Economics: failure, fake, fraud' and 'Show first your economic axioms or get out of the discussion'.

***
REPLY to S400 on Sep 22

You say: “State planning in China. Seem to work much better than the USAs planning.”

The USA needs no planning because MMTers keep Capitalism going with deficit-spending/ money-creation.

► MMTers make Capitalism work

***
Graphic AXEC121f


***
#PointOfProof
Sep 20

October 8, 2025

Occasional X: Failed proof of Capitalism's superiority (IX)

May 2, 2018

Note on ‘Duncan Foley On Socialist Alternatives to Capitalism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Marx never came to grips with profit and After-Marxians did not spot and rectify his blunders in the last 130+ years. See
Economics is a lost field. Because the foundational concept of profit is false the whole analytical superstructure is false: Walrasianism, DSGE, Keynesianism, Post Keynesianism, MMT, Marxianism, Austrianism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. Duncan Foley, as well as Barkley Rosser, ultimately leaves us hanging on what is the most promising alternative to failed economics.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***

REPLY to Barkley Rosser on May 3

You say: “One can argue with Marx’s theory of profit, but it is a deep and serious theory.”

The fact is that the philosopher/agenda pusher/fake scientist Marx had no idea what profit is.#1 And because the foundational concept is false the whole analytical superstructure is false.

Marx’s Capital is NOT a piece of materially/formally consistent science but sociological/ philosophical/political BS or what Feynman called cargo cult science.

This is obvious to anybody with a modicum of scientific competence which a priori excludes you. The deep and serious question is why economists tirelessly recycle long-dead proto-scientific stuff.


#1 Profit for Marxists

Immediately following Profit and the Private-Property-Irrelevance Theorem.

June 30, 2022

Occasional Tweets: Because they never understood what profit is, economists never understood how capitalism works

 


For details of the big picture see cross-references Profit/Distribution

January 18, 2025

Occasional X: Failed proof of Capitalism's superiority (II)

 

June 3, 2021

Occasional Tweets: The life formula of Capitalism

 

For more about the Profit Law see AXECquery.
For more about Debt see AXECquery.
For more about Capitalism see AXECquery.

February 1, 2025

Occasional X: Failed proof of Capitalism's superiority (IV)

 

April 7, 2018

Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation

Comment on David Ruccio on ‘“Capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor”’
(A symbol has been changed in the meantime, i.e., C and Ec are interchangeable)

Blog-Reference

Since Adam Smith and Karl Marx, economists have not figured out how the price and profit mechanism works. For this reason, they do not understand to this day the relationship between discrimination, profit, exploitation, and poverty. #1

Because economics is a failed science, economists can neither solve economic nor social problems. Economic debate always and everywhere degenerates within a split second into political rhetoric, moralizing, scapegoating, mutual motive speculation, and sitcom blather.

So, what first of all has to be done is to rise above the proto-scientific level of political economics. The utter failure of economics is due to microfoundations. Economics has to be based on macrofoundations.

The elementary production-consumption economy


The macrofoundations approach starts with objective-systemic axioms that define the elementary production-consumption economy: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector, which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Yw in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1), i.e., the market-clearing price is equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand. It translates into W/P=R (2), i.e., the real wage is equal to the productivity. For the graphical representation, see at Graphic. #2

Monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Qm≡C−Yw, and monetary saving of the household sector is defined as Sm≡Yw−C. It always holds Qm≡−Sm, in other words, the business sector’s surplus = profit equals the household sector’s deficit = dissaving. Vice versa, the business sector’s deficit = loss equals the household sector’s surplus = saving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law. Under the condition of budget-balancing, C=Yw total monetary profit is zero.

Macroeconomic profit depends, in the most elementary case, solely on deficit spending, that is, on the increase of the household sector’s debt. It does NOT depend on labor time, or wages, or productivity, or risk-taking, or monopoly power, or exploitation, or greedy capitalist. #3, #4

In the elementary production-consumption economy, the wage rate for all employees (employees = labor = working-class = blue-collar workers + white-collar workers + management + executives) is equal, labor gets the whole product according to (2), and profit for the business sector as a whole is zero because of C=Yw.

Obviously, there is NO antagonism of wages and profits in the elementary production-consumption economy. If the wage rate W goes up, the market-clearing price goes up according to (1) and the real wage remains unchanged according to (2).

All changes in the system are reflected by the market-clearing price. As a matter of principle, the elementary production-consumption economy can go on indefinitely at any level of employment L.

The living standard of the employees is, with equal labor time per person, alone defined by the productivity. So, poverty in one production-consumption economy is due to the lower productivity compared to the other economy.

Social discrimination


Now the employees are arbitrarily split into two groups of equal size. The wage rate of group 1 is then increased by the factor 1.5, and the wage rate of group 2 is halved, thus that the total wage income Yw=WL=W1L1+W2L2 remains unchanged. All other things, i.e., output O, consumption expenditures C, and the market-clearing price P, remain unchanged.

Accordingly, the real wage of group 1, i.e., W1/P, increases 1.5-fold, and the real wage of group 2 halves. The macroeconomic profit is still zero because of C=Yw. The unchanged real product O is redistributed among the employees; that is, group 1 is better off at the expense of group 2. The relative poverty of group 2 is due to social discrimination among the employees and has nothing to do with capitalism, here defined as ownership of the business sector/firms.

The profit of the business sector is zero without discrimination and with discrimination. So, it is NOT the case that the capitalist class exploits group 2, but that group 1 of the working class exploits group 2 of the working class. Exploitation and poverty are ultimately an issue WITHIN the working class and NOT between the working class and the capitalist class.

Cross-over exploitation


The business sector is now split into two identical firms, and firm 1 is supposed to cut the wage rate W1 arbitrarily by half. From this follows that the market-clearing price P declines if all other variables are unchanged. Firm 2 is affected because total income Yw falls, and with it consumption expenditures C and the market-clearing price P.

The reduction of the wage rate W1 increases the profit of firm 1 and produces a loss in firm 2. When we look alone at firm 1, we see what Smith, Mill, Ricardo, and Marx have seen before, to wit, wages down ― profit up. This fits the time-honored stereotype of wages and profits as antagonists.

The error/mistake/blunder of economists since the Classicals has been to generalize what is true for a single firm, and this is known as the Fallacy of Composition.

If profits have been zero in the initial period because of budget-balancing C=Yw, then firm 2 makes a loss that is exactly equal to firm 1’s profit. Hence, the arbitrary wage rate cut of firm 1 does NOT increase the profit of the business sector as a whole but only REDISTRIBUTES profit/loss between the firms that constitute the business sector.

Seen from the perspective of a single firm, the antagonism of wages and profits is absolutely real. This, though, is parochial realism. The complete picture reveals that firm 1 is better off at the disadvantage of firm 2, and the workers of firm 2 are better off at the disadvantage of the workers of firm 1, because at a lower market-clearing price, they absorb a bigger share of output O with their unaltered income. The situation of the business sector as a whole is unchanged, and the same is true for the household sector as a whole. If there is exploitation, it happens within the sectors. A partial wage rate change leads only to a redistribution of profits between the firms and of output between the workers. A global wage rate change leads under the condition of budget balancing and market clearing only to a price change in the same direction.

For the economy as a whole, the antagonism of wages and profits is an optical illusion. The concept of exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class has to be replaced by the concept of cross-over exploitation WITHIN the classes. This makes the idea of class struggle obsolete.

When Capitalism is roughly defined as ownership of the firms that make up the business sector by profit-seeking capitalists, then the capitalists taken as a whole cannot increase overall profit by discrimination among the workers according to race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other social criterion. Only the individual capitalist can increase his profit through discrimination at the expense of the other capitalists. The individual capitalist’s pursuit of profit does NOT increase the profit of capitalists as a whole. The inner contradictions of capitalism lie within the classes and not between them. In the strict sense, classes ― defined by a common class interest ― do not exist.

Overall monetary profit cannot be increased by social discrimination among the employees, but is given by the macroeconomic Profit Law Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M). So, exploitation or other social pathologies are NOT a feature of the capitalist economy per se, but of pathological individuals. The major defects of the market system lie elsewhere. #5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Ricardo and the invention of class war
#2 Graphic AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy

***

Graphic AXEC221a

July 10, 2017

Zero-sum capitalism

Comment on Chris Dillow on ‘The crisis of positive-sum capitalism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

You say: “Is capitalism a positive-sum or zero-sum game? The answer is both: Smith and Marx both had a point.”

False answer. The correct answer is NEITHER because the profit theory is provably false since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. #1 And this 200+ years old blunder makes that economics will not even appear in a footnote of the history of sciences, or at best as a cautionary example.

In order to see this, one has to go back to the most elementary economic configuration, that is, the pure production-consumption economy, which consists only of the household and the business sector.

The elementary production-consumption economy is, for a start, defined by three macro axioms (Yw=WL, O=RL, C=PX), two conditions (X=O, C=Yw), and two definitions (Qm≡C−Yw, Sm≡Yw−C), and from this follows IMMEDIATELY that Qm≡−Sm. #2

This equation says that the business sector’s deficit (surplus) equals the household sector’s surplus (deficit). Put bluntly, monetary loss is the counterpart of monetary saving, and monetary profit is the counterpart of monetary dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law. The elementary production-consumption economy clearly is a zero-sum system, i.e., Qm+Sm=0, but NOT a zero-profit game.

Profit for the economy as a WHOLE has NOTHING to do with productivity, the wage rate, the working hours, exploitation, competition, innovation, capital, power, monopoly, monopsony, waiting, risk, greed, the smartness/stupidity of capitalists, or any other subjective factors. Total profit/loss is, in the most elementary case, objectively determined with the precision of two decimal places by the change of the household sector’s debt.

The balances of the business sector, the household sector, the government sector, and the foreign trade sector are interrelated as follows: Qm≡−Sm+I+Yd+(G−T)+(X−M), and this is the Profit Law for an open economy (X−M) with a government sector (G−T) and with business investment I and distributed profit Yd.

Let Yd, I, X, M be zero for the moment, so Qm−Sm+(G−T). Then, the counterpart of an increased public deficit (G−T) is either increased saving of the household sector, Sm or increased profit of the business sector Qm or some combination of the two. In the past decades, the US households increased their debt, that is, they were dissaving, i.e., Sm was negative (−(−Sm) gives +). So, BOTH the private and public households ran deficits. From the equation above follows that this boosted monetary profit Qm TWICE. And this is exactly what has been observed and criticized as a catastrophic deterioration of the income distribution.

When the pivotal concept of profit is not properly understood, the rest of the analytical superstructure of economics falls apart, and there is NO USE AT ALL to stumble and mumble about capitalism as a zero-sum game. #3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith and Profit for Marxists
#2 For the complete verbal and graphics-supported description of the elementary production-consumption economy, see How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down
#3 For the far-reaching implications of systemic zero-sum, see Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism.

Related 'Profit theory in less than 5 minutes' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Profit and stupidity' and cross-references Profit

***
COMMENT on Tom Hickey, peterc on Jul 10

Note that capitalism breaks down ― NOT for social reasons but for mathematical reasons. #1


#1 Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism

October 1, 2024

Occasional X: The Profit Law holds for Capitalism and Communism and everything in-between (II)

 

May 28, 2021