Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCII)

“Economists will look you dead in the face and call this science.” (Jack Meyer) Yes, this is the sorry state of economics. It's scientifically worthless — only good for inconclusive political blather. But they award themselves the EconNobel for 'economic sciences' (AXEC136j ⇓). Science is binary true/false and NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). Methodologically, economists are 2400 years behind the curve. The fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. When they've used all their arguments, the scientifically clueless hit the social media emergency brake and retreat to an etiquette class: “Personal insults are best left in the schoolyard. Nor do they contribute to the persuasiveness of your derivative arguments. You are Blocked.” (Roger Farmer, #EconBlocker) The state of economics is this: 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 got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift. The current group of academic non-scientists will not survive this.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 2, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCI)

“Do you find yourself wondering… ‘What is economics?’, ‘How did economics become language of power and its practitioners, the gatekeepers?’, ‘How do you do economics?’, ‘Can economics help serve people and planet?’” (Rethinking Economics) “Once we learn that different economic theories say different things partly because they are based on different ethical and political values, we will have the confidence to discuss economics for what it really is - a political argument – and not a 'science' in which there is clear right and wrong.” (Ha Joon Chang) Ha Joon Chang has no clue about what science is all about. He is the next political smoke-blower. “Science is binary true/false and NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The fact is that about ninety-nine per cent of people are satisfied with opinion, and only one per cent is devoted to episteme. Economists do NOT belong to the latter group. Economics is a cargo cult science, and economists are fake scientists, and the EconNobel is a fraud. The state of economics is this: 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 got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). This is why economics never rose above the level of a proto- or cargo cult science. There are the hard rocks of true or false and the swamp between them. The swamp is the natural habitat of morons, agenda pushers, confused confusers, incompetent scientists, political economists, status-quo inertionalists, commonsensers, and anti-scientists. Political economists are natural-born swampies. In marked contrast to scientists who drive the question under discussion to the point of a clear-cut decision between true or false, neither the orthodox nor the heterodox swampy has a genuine interest in a definite outcome but seeks to keep matters in the swamp of inconclusiveness. Swampiness is what Popper called an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) Therefore, the cargo cult scientist is mainly occupied with producing a methodological smoke screen that consists of vague concepts, anything-goes, pluralism of false theories, alleged complexity, ontological uncertainty, unreliable data, faux humility, the post-modern replacement of true theory by political narrative, and a veritable artillery barrage of silly excuses. The beauty of the swamp is that logical and empirical failure is inconsequential.” (AXEC) For more details, see What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure https://t.co/VoQJMa4CUZ From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principle: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. The minimum requirement in science is logical consistency. Economists never rose above confused blather. As far as an approach is formalized, economists apply the wrong math. However: “The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something ― and that is not so easy.” (Feynman) To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l). Economics does not need another smoke-blower like Ha Joon Chang.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 21, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CLXXXII)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“Critics of economists’ models and abstract theories who insist on their own, alternative explanations of economic phenomena are like Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain: instead of speaking prose without knowing it, they concoct and apply abstract economic…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) August 12, 2025

*** 

Grok summarizes: "The post critiques economics as a discipline, arguing its failure stems from foundational inconsistencies across major schools (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism), supported by the author’s blog citing Popper’s principle that inconsistent theories lack scientific validity. It references George Selgin’s analogy to Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain, suggesting critics of economic models unknowingly rely on similar abstract theories, a point reinforced by historical evidence of economists’ persistent use of unproven axioms since the 19th century. The author’s claim that economists are not scientists but political tools is backed by their analysis of flawed micro- and macrofoundations, with studies like Weintraub (1985) highlighting the reliance on untestable assumptions such as individual optimization and equilibrium." 

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCV)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

"If economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.” (George Bernard Shaw)

It is widely known that economists are illiterate and innumerate. That's why economics is a failed/fake science. Economists live in the swamp between true… pic.twitter.com/dbz4PhfoHj

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 6, 2025

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCLXXXV)

To explain how the economic system works is the task of economics. Economists have failed at this task. More specifically, both orthodox and heterodox economists have been scientifically incompetent since the time of the Founding Fathers.

Low-IQ economists are unable to realize…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) September 4, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLV)

“Nice definition of the exceedingly narrow scope in which Economists might have any expertise. What Economists have is a great narrative with extremely limited real world application.” (Richard Field)

Economics is failed/fake science. Economists do not understand profit; by…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) February 16, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXIV)

“You open by quoting Klant on scientific standards and then immediately declare that Austrian economics 'has been proven to be logically inconsistent' because we 'get profit wrong.' This is still just an assertion.” (Yang)

Austrians never had any idea of science, and Yang is no… pic.twitter.com/8Z3K575hyX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) May 9, 2026

Related: 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'The curious non-existence of profit in economics' and 'Profit: after 200+ years still elusive' and 'The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo' and 'Clueless economists / Science (CCXCXIII)'

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCVI)

“The Nobel Prize is not an exact science.” (The Nobel Prize) Economics is failed/fake science, and the EconNobel delivers the positive feedback loop. Therefore, economics cannot get out of the proto-scientific garbage trap. Microfoundations was dead from the start. It is the unassailable proof that the history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian 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) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshippers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. ⇓ It means, second, to move forward and make the inevitable Paradigm Shift.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 14, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (CXLXVII)

“How Michael Woodford made modern macro relevant to central bankers.” (FT Economics) The problem with 'modern macro' is that it is axiomatically false. Therefore, central banking has no scientifically valid foundations. Economics is failed/fake science. Microfoundations was dead from the start. The Founding Fathers defined economics as a social science, and accordingly, it has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This has been the methodological ur-mistake. For example, here are the Walrasian 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) The methodological mistake is that economists put the behavioral assumption of constrained optimization and equilibrium into the premises. This is a petitio principii, but economists do not know what this means. Stupidity makes faithful worshipers: “And so — faithful to the theory's conceptual cornerstones and hoping against all hope that the unthinkable may still be achieved (i.e., a satisfactory theory of the price mechanism) — the tormented upholders of the validity of the paradigmatic core of economic equilibrium theory appear singularly reluctant to face the problem of comparing expectations and results and assessing the consistency of the theory.” (Ingrao et al, 1990, p. 346) Although microfoundations is methodologically a false concept, economists repeat it nonetheless: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern, 1941, pp. 369-370) The way forward is to reconstruct economics entirely without the concepts of constrained optimization, rational expectations, equilibrium, and other NONENTITIES. In methodology, this is called a Paradigm Shift: “There is another alternative: to formulate a completely new research program and conceptual approach. As we have seen, this is often spoken of, but there is still no indication of what it might mean.” (Ingrao et al., 1990, p. 362) It means, first, that legacy economics goes down the scientific drain for good. It means, secondly, to go forward and perform the Paradigm Shift (⇓ AXEC113i) For the axiomatically correct approach to monetary theory, see the working paper ⇒ The Dark-Matter Theory of Fiat Money https://t.co/0QSqFFrVUX

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) October 13, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Money (XXX)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“What we call 'the economy' is so important to us that economists have become the high priests of our society. Yet, oddly, there is absolutely no consensus among economists about what money really is.” (David Graeber)

True until now ⇒
The…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) July 18, 2025

Occasional Tweets: Clueless economists / Profit (I)

 

#Economics#FailedScience

You NEVER understood #Profit ― the foundational concept of #Economics.

The 3-sector #ProfitLaw Q≡(G−T)+(I−S)+Yd implies #PublicDeficitIsPrivateProfit. From more #DeficitSpendingMoneyCreation results a #ProfitExplosion. ⇒https://t.co/ABFUc41eMs

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) February 7, 2021

Profit

• Profit
• Understanding socialism presupposes understanding profit
• Marx and Marxists ― too stupid for the elementary algebra of profit
• Trump and MMT: Make profits great again
• Profit analysis ― another exercise in economic deception
• Profit and Distribution Theory is false for 200+ years
• The Levy/Kalecki Profit Equation is false
• Mad but true: 200+ years after Adam Smith economists still have no idea what profit is
• The public-debt and private-profit pushers
• How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it
• Dear idiots, Marx got profit and exploitation wrong
• Understanding public deficits, money, and profit
• What and where is profit?
• Profit and macrofoundations
• Deficit-spending, public debt, and macroeconomic profit/loss
• Keynes, Kalecki, MMT, and the accidental invention of the perpetual profit machine
• #PublicDeficitIsPrivateProfit #MMT #JustAnotherFraud
• Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit
• Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law
• Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years
• Profit: after 200+ years, economists are still in the woods
• The profit theory is false since Adam Smith
• Cross-references Profit/Distribution

Graphic AXEC109i

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (LXXXVII)

 

#Economics#FailedFakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

Since the founding fathers, #Economists have claimed to be doing science but they did NOT. What they really did was to disguise political #AgendaPushing as #Science or #EnlightenedPhilosophy or #Moralizing.

Adam…

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) May 6, 2024

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CLVIII)

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“In October 1932, Keynes and several Cambridge economists sent a letter to the London Times encouraging public investment to fight the depression. Robbins, Hayek, and other LSE economists fired back a response that supported balanced budget… pic.twitter.com/tFxFZK4SpU

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) April 2, 2025

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCLXXXVI)

Economists and scientists have only a superficial resemblance. Neither mainstream nor heterodox economists ever had any idea what science is all about. They still are cargo cult scientists (Feynman's term).

Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has… pic.twitter.com/RfzgJoabhe

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) March 24, 2026

Occasional Xs: Clueless economists / Phillips Curve (IX)

 

#Economics

Due to the lack of correct #MacroFoundations, #Samuelson / #Solow messed up the original #PhillipsCurve. Being scientifically incompetent, #Economists have not realized anything since then.

NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculiahttps://t.co/qDrdo8Hdey pic.twitter.com/SaEsEVWXW3

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 23, 2024

#Econ

Due to the lack of correct #MacroFoundations, #Samuelson / #Solow messed up the original #PhillipsCurve. Being scientifically incompetent, #Economists have not realized anything since then.

NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculiahttps://t.co/qDrdo8Hdey pic.twitter.com/bPm77fmu6Q

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 23, 2024

#Economics#FailedFakeScience

Yes, the bastard #PhillipsCurve is a rather idiotic construct. It was Samuelson/Solow who messed the original relationship up. For details see links ⇒https://t.co/0yuibAGZDZ

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 24, 2024

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (XCVI)

 

#Economics

“Economists are quick to speak of ‘market failure’, …, but a greater threat comes from ‘government failure‘.”

The greatest threat, though, comes from their own #ScienceFailure.

Economics claims to be science but is NOT. #Economists NEVER understood what #Profit is… pic.twitter.com/Mbc1benuxs

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) July 23, 2024

Occasional X: Clueless economists / Science (CCCXCIV)

“In his 1957 essay In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’, Murray Rothbard embraces and defends Ludwig von Mises's methodology of praxeology against critics who claimed its rejection of empirical testing was too extreme. Rothbard argues that economics is fundamentally different from the natural sciences; rather than relying on testing hypotheses against external facts, economic theory is built on absolutely true axioms derived from the indisputable reality of human action.” (Google AI) “Psychic profit is the gain an actor obtains by achieving his most valued end instead of the most valued end he had to give up (this gain is intensive, not extensive, because value is ordinal and not cardinal). … This is a description of how people really act, not a fiction.” (Martin Gamazo) “In the definition which we have attempted to frame of the science of Political Economy, we have characterized it as essentially an abstract science, and its method as the method à priori.” (J. S. Mill) Science is binary true/false and nothing in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion). The state of economics is this: 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 got out of political economics. In other words, theoretical economics (= science) ultimately could not emancipate itself from political economics (= agenda-pushing). From the beginning, economics has not been a science but silly political agenda pushing. There has not been genuine scientific progress since the Enlightenment, only changes in propaganda. Watch the sorry contemporary academic discussion. They're just turning over the proto-scientific dung heap without ever arriving at a result that satisfies the most elementary scientific principles. “Research is, in fact, a continuous discussion of the consistency of theories: formal consistency insofar as the discussion relates to the logical cohesion of what is asserted in joint theories; material consistency insofar as the agreement of observations with theories is concerned.” (Klant) Economics has defined itself as a social science and accordingly has been based on subjective/behavioral assumptions/axioms. This is the methodological ur-mistake. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. Actually, economics is about how the economy works. It is a genuine systems science. Von Mises's Action Axiom refers to human behavior; therefore, it is unsuitable as a starting point. With his Extreme Apriorism, Murray Rothbard echoes Aristotle: “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, Analytica) What Murray Rothbard, as an incompetent scientist, overlooked is that behavioral premises are neither 'certain, true, nor primary'. Methodologically, the Action Axiom is the wrong starting point. To finally become a science, economics needs a Paradigm Shift from false behavioral microfoundations and false Keynesian macrofoundations to true macrofoundations (⇓ AXEC121l) No Austrian will survive the Paradigm Shift intellectually. Austrianism is not Extreme Apriorism but Extreme Stupidity.

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) November 5, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / War (VII)

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, …” (Calum Douglas)

To this day, economists have not solved the profession's age-old core question.

How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists…

— AXEC (@EgmontHandtke) February 2, 2026

Occasional X: Clueless economists / War (VI)

 

#Economics#AllYouNeedToKnow

“There’s Much to Say About Economics of War, But Most Economists Won’t Address It” (truthout)

Not quite correct, see ⇒
How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economistshttps://t.co/A9RP6CFRDi

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) January 15, 2025

Occasional Tweets: Clueless economists / Phillips Curve (II)

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience#Economists#StupidOrCorruptOrBoth

The #PhillipsCurve is obsolete since Samuelson messed it up. It is a fact that economists still haven’t noticed this.

Reading the correct Phillips Curve correctlyhttps://t.co/AxQ7QBvLP0

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) June 5, 2021

Go to Phillips Curve (I).