tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post1958167430439039265..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: CORE and Periphery in the Reform of Econ 101Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-50456535418508620782019-06-13T11:46:49.742-04:002019-06-13T11:46:49.742-04:00Cross-posting
Are economics professors really tha...Cross-posting<br /><br />Are economics professors really that incompetent? Yes!<br />Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Wren-Lewis vs MMT’<br /><br />With regard to the ongoing Neoliberalism vs MMT slapstick#1 Lars Syll maintains: “In Wren-Lewis world we don’t need fiscal policy other than when interest rates hit their lower bound (ZLB). In normal times monetary policy suffices. … What Wren-Lewis and other mainstream economists have in mind when they argue this way, is nothing but a version of Say’s law, basically saying that savings have to equal investments and that if the state increases investments, then private investments have to come down (‘crowding out’). As an accounting identity, there is, of course, nothing to say about the law, but as such, it is also totally uninteresting from an economic point of view. What happens when ex-ante savings and investments differ, is that we basically get output adjustments. GDP changes and so makes saving and investments equal ex-post. And this, nota bene, says nothing at all about the success or failure of fiscal policies!”<br /><br />There is NO such thing as an accounting identity of savings and investments. This erroneous notion is simply due to the fact that economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting.#2, #3 Accordingly, neither the Swedish professor, nor Post-Keynesians, nor New Keynesians, nor MMTers, nor Anti-Keynesians have realized it to this day.#4, #5<br /><br />The scientific incompetence can be traced back to the General Theory: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)<br /><br />This two-liner is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes NEVER came to grips with profit.<br /><br />“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.)<br /><br />Let this sink in, the economist Keynes NEVER understood profit, i.e. the fundamental concept of economics. So, Keynes’ I=S is false and by consequence the multiplier and all I=S/IS-LM models. Instead, Q=I−S is true with Q as macroeconomic profit. The ex-ante/ex-post blather is absolutely beside the point.<br /><br />Because the profit theory is false the whole analytical superstructure of economics is false. Because economics is proto-scientific garbage, economic policy guidance of both Neoliberals and MMTers is nothing but brain-dead agenda pushing.#6, #7<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 The not so funny MMT vs Neoliberalism slapstick<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-not-so-funny-mmt-vs-neoliberalism.html<br /><br />#2 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (I)<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/11/wikipedia-and-promotion-of-economists.html<br /><br />#3 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/wikipedia-and-promotion-of-economists.html<br /><br />#4 Keynesians ― terminally stupid or worse?<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/keynesians-terminally-stupid-or-worse.html<br /><br />#5 I is never equal S and even Nick Rowe will eventually grasp it<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-is-never-equal-s-and-even-nick-rowe.html<br /><br />#6 MMT’s true program<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/06/mmts-true-program.html<br /><br />#7 Economics as a cover for agenda pushing<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/economics-as-cover-for-agenda-pushing.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-48549362219894115392019-06-13T05:04:09.221-04:002019-06-13T05:04:09.221-04:00Owen Paine
You say “And yes the core text is a bi...Owen Paine<br /><br />You say “And yes the core text is a big step.”<br /><br />NO. In the section ‘9.6 Wages, profits, and unemployment in the whole economy’ the determination of macroeconomic profit is provably false. The axiomatically correct macroeconomic Profit Law reads Q=Yd+I−S+(G−T)+(X−M).<br /><br />Because the foundational concept of economics, i.e. profit, is ill-defined the CORE textbook is scientifically worthless.#1<br /><br />That the whole thing is not more than proto-scientific garbage, storytelling, gossip, and name-dropping may be gleaned from such references as:<br /><br />“Arguably the most famous scientific controversy of all time was between Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz over who invented calculus.<br /><br />Newton first used calculus methods in a manuscript published in 1666. The methods were used in his book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, which was published in 1687. He completed his book on calculus, Method of Fluxions, in 1671, but did not publish it until 1736.<br /><br />Newton’s supporters accused Leibniz of plagiarism in his work on calculus. By the time of his death, his reputation was in decline and he died in poverty. His reputation has subsequently been rebuilt by both mathematicians and philosophers.<br /><br />Modern historians accept that Newton and Leibniz invented calculus independently, at about the same time. Therefore, to decide whom to name the calculus supplements after, we tossed a coin. Leibniz won.”<br /><br />Fact is that modern historians have found out that Newton was a fraudster.#2<br /><br />More exercises in the erection of False-Hero-Monuments can be found in the section Great economists.#3<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/09/core-more-lipstick-on-dead-economics-pig.html<br /><br />#2 Kollerstrom, N. (2018). The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science’s Greatest Fraud? Pen and Sword Books.<br /><br />#3 For details see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/11/failedfake-scientists-cross-references.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-26764342065045266642019-06-12T07:39:19.600-04:002019-06-12T07:39:19.600-04:00And yes the core text is a big step
But
Where...And yes the core text is a big step <br />But <br />Where's profit carefully discussed <br />Perhaps instant put to fine a point on <br />Class based <br /> interests aims and projects <br /><br />One might not for example <br /> Frame up <br />The ever wider and deeper socialization of surplus value<br />As a class aim <br />Or call real and positive <br />interest rates exploitation <br />Or class rents <br /><br />But <br /><br />Owen Painehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13675803406994867138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-40586812450850625782019-06-10T06:27:12.998-04:002019-06-10T06:27:12.998-04:00Economics textbooks ― tombstones at the Flat-Earth...Economics textbooks ― tombstones at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery<br />Links on Peter Dorman on ‘CORE and Periphery in the Reform of Econ 101’<br /><br />CORE: more lipstick on the dead economics pig<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/09/core-more-lipstick-on-dead-economics-pig.html<br /><br />To this day, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/03/to-this-day-economists-have-produced.html<br /><br />Refuting MMT’s new Macroeconomics Textbook<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/03/refuting-mmts-new-macroeconomics.html<br /><br />Economists have no brain<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/10/economists-have-no-brains.html<br /><br />False on principle<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/08/false-on-principle.html<br /><br />Where economics went wrong (II)<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/10/where-economics-went-wrong.html<br /><br />The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-father-of-modern-economics-and-his.html<br /><br />For details of the big picture see cross-references Econ 101/Old Curriculum/New Curriculum<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/11/cross-references-econ-101.html<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-90684123044367523692019-06-08T00:12:47.150-04:002019-06-08T00:12:47.150-04:00Clint,
You should understand that you are not the...Clint,<br /><br />You should understand that you are not the only one to have a new alternative intro econ textbook. Peter D. does so also, although he is not pushing it specifically in this post. rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-12614548217365898242019-06-07T03:10:18.274-04:002019-06-07T03:10:18.274-04:00The entire pathway into Econ needs to be re-though...The entire pathway into Econ needs to be re-thought. Starting with supply and demand diagrams and working forwards leads (not incidentally) to neoclassical thought. <br />The basics of supply and demand are intuitive and deserve little attention. The organizational needs of the private sector and public sector are what matter in economics, and are the best intro to meaningful economics. I have written a short intro book using this approach. Everything a first semester Econ student should learn is included, with further econ delving into the details of good fiscal policy. <br /><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0648390616" rel="nofollow">1000 Castaways: Fundamentals of Economics</a><br />Clint Ballingerhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0648390616noreply@blogger.com