The grisly details of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi now coming out make it clear that the one thing that would really clear the air would be for 33-year old Muhammed bin Salman bin Abdulaiz al Sa'ud (MBS) to be replaced as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and to be removed from any position of authority and power that he currently possesses. Indeed, it would be wise if he were subjected to what he imposed on others whom he saw as in his way to assuming the extreme level of power he currently has in KSA, to be confined to his palace under guard or perhaps in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. To make clear his removal from power it would also be appropriate to have da Vinci's painting of Salvador Mundi taken from him, which he is reported to have purchased through intermediaries for $480 million, a sign of the degree of corruption that he has personally engaged in.
It should be clear that MBS's crimes and mistakes go far beyond this awful mmuder by members of his personal bodyguard of Khashoggi. The thousands of dead civilians in Yemen in the war there that he instigated as Defense Minister is at the top of the list. But his idiotic embargo of Qatar and his hyper-aggressive attitude towards Iran (stupidly supported by the current US administration) are also on the list, along with his broader suppression of disssidents within KSA. It may well be that a successor will continue the strongly anti-Iran policy, although some potential candidates have in the past urged negoatiating with Iran, including former ambassador to the US, Turki bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz al Sa'ud, for whom the now late Jamal Khashoggi once worked as a top staff aide. However, for a variety of reasons this 73 -year old now Chair of the powerful King Faisal Foundation is unlikely to succeed MBS.
Obviously this is not very likely, given that this would have to be done by his father, 82-year old King Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Sa'ud, who clearly strongly supports him, even as he has apparently overruled him on certain matters, most recently in insisting on the shutdown of the proposed sale of 5% of ARAMCO, a centerpiece of MBS's Vision 2030, an overly hyped economic reform plan that always had less of any significance to it than was loudly advertised in US media. Nations overwhelmingly dependent on oil exports are always talking about "getting off oil," but they rarely succeed in doing so, and there is probably no nation more stuck on oil than KSA, given the low cost of extracting oil there (second lowest after Kuwait at barely $10 per barrel) and its vast reserves.
Of course, for now MBS appears to have the personal support by President Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who may have quietly supported the coup through which he came to power. It is fairly clear that this personal support is reinforced by MBS providing substantial funding to both the Trump Organization and the business activities of Kushner, although the full details of that are not fully known.
MBS has been praised for restricting the Mutaween religious police as well as letting women drive and opening cinemas. If he were to go it is certainly possible the Mutaween might regain some of their power, but I seriously doubt any possible successor would undo the move to let women drive. Indeed,,several of his possible successors had previously shown willingness to improve the status of women in KSA in various ways.
There are several possible successors who would not be either over the hill or widly conservative. The most obvious would be the man MBS overthrew in what was essentially a coup in June, 2017 as Crown Prince, now 59-year old Muhammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz al Sa'ud. He was widely respectes, including by those in the US who dealt with him, a former Minister of the Interior. It was alleged that he had become addicted to a pain killer as a result of an assassination attempt against him, but it is unclear if this was true or not. In any case, there are others who are capable and would return KSA to its more collective form of leadership that did not engage in the sorts of barbaric activities that MBS has been doing.
A curious recent development not not widely reported out of STRATFOR is that MBS's full brother, Khalid, ambassador to the US, was recalled to Riyadh on October 15 and will not return to the US. Whether this shows MBS getting rid of yet another potential rival or is a sign that MBS himself is in trouble is too soon to know.
One is that in today's (10/19) WaPo, the generally well-nformed David Ignatius reports that it looks like there is a serious split in the Saudi royal family. This probably is the moment to call for MBS to go. Probably he will hang on, but it looks like he has some serious opposition. The supposed most likely replacement would be one of his uncles, Ahmad bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Sa'us, born in 1942, who was briefly Interior Minister some years ago, only to bee pushed aside by Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abdulaziz, who would become Crown Prince, only to be deposed in a coup by MBS. Apparently Ahmad was a candidate and now is agaiin, although he has not held that many senior positions and holds none now, but is reportedly not corrupt and well liked. His full brother, the youngest of the sons of KSA founder Abdulaziz, is Muqrin, born in 1945, who was Crown Prince prior ro Mohammed bin Nayef, ans has held many serious senior positions, including Director of the Mukhabarat inttelligence outfit from 2005 to 2012. But, aside from having a Yemeni wife, he does not seem to be in the running, according to Ignatius, who posted a number of other sharp points. Another thing going for Ahmad is that he is the youngest of the very powerful Sudairi Seven, with the only other one of those around being the current king, Salman, MBS's father. Presumably having his last full brother step in to replace MBS might have some appleal to Salman, who really does u.timately hold the cards on this.
Curiously, Ignatius made a rare errror in his column. He siid that Ahmasd is the last of Abdulaziz's sons to survive. In fact, including the king, there are nine of them, the oldest, Bandatr, having been born in 1923. Most of them are viewed as being unacceptable for one reason or another.
A further curious and not widely reported item is that Jamal Khashoggi's paternal grandfather was Turkish. That is a Turkish last name, and the "gg" is actually pronounced, "gchi." The grandfather was the physician for old King Absulaziz, and Jamal had a wealthly and powerful uncle, Adnan Khashoggi, who was quite an operator. This adds a rather poignant touch to his being killed in Turkey while trying to marry a Turkish woman.
Reverse Alchemy: from scientific gold to political shit
Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘MBS Must Go’
The key point for understanding economics is that there are TWO versions: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The objective of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the objective of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics, anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
Theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by the agenda pushers of political economics. Political economics has NOT achieved anything of scientific value. This is the actual state of economics. Provably false:
• profit theory, for 200+ years,
• microfoundations, for 140+ years,
• macrofoundations, for 80+ years,
• the application of elementary logic and mathematics since the founding fathers.
Needless to emphasize that this was not a linear process. There were always economists who were committed to the scientific standards of material/formal consistency but in the end, political agenda pushing retained the upper hand and economics never got out of the proto-scientific swamp.
The vast majority of economists has been devoured by the swamp. Barkley Rosser is a case in point. His post ‘MBS Must Go’ has ZERO scientific content and is plain political agenda pushing.
Since the founding fathers, economics violates the first rule of science, i.e. the strict separation of science and politics.#1 As a result, economics fell prey to the Reverse Alchemy of Communication which means: If transported from the sphere of science to the sphere of politics, every scientific idea (tentative or well-established through numerous logical and empirical cross-checks), is with absolute necessity perverted/inverted in the process.
As a failed science, economics needs a paradigm shift. Paradigm shift means in methodological terms a change of foundational premises/axioms. Needless to emphasize, that economists also perverted the concept of paradigm shift. Transposed from the scientific sphere to the political sphere of agenda pushing it now means nothing else than a change of policy.
“So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that.
• You keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm.
• You keep speaking and acting, loudly and with assurance, from the new one.
• You insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power.
• You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather, you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.”#2
Of course, these tips are the basics of marketing/public relations/rhetoric/propaganda/proselytizing/agenda pushing.
To this day, economists do not understand what science and a paradigm shift is all about.#3 Since Adam Smith/Karl Marx, they never rose above the level of useful political idiots.
#1 For details of the big picture see cross-references Political Economics/Stupidity/Corruption
#2 Links to Twitter, Kate Raworth, Club of Rome
#3 The inexorable paradigm shift in economics
From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations
The new macroeconomic paradigm
Oh gag, Egmont. You have been repeatedly lectured on how totally inappropriate your complaints that sometimes people here write specifically about politics or other non-economics issues. We can and do write about what we want to and always have. There is no rule or law that says we cannot, and you declaring that we should not or cannot just mskes you look like the totslly worthless arrogant asshole that you are.
What is really funny is that you turn this into a total Catch-22 that means we should not write about anything at all, indeed, should probably just shut down this blog entirely, which, of course, would deprive you of one of your favorite outlets. Don't worry, Egmont, we shall not do that even if that is the logical outcome of your demands and silly speeches. Because, after all, while we are not supposed to talk about non-economics, we are also not supposed to talk about economics because we are cargo cultist non-scientists because we think your profit rate theory is a worthless vacuity.
Regarding this particular post, it is mostly politics, but there is some economics in regard to MBS's desired economic policy and its apparent failure, along with some facts about the Saudi oil industry, a matter of considerable interest to many paying attention to the world economy, whose performance is influenced by what the Saudis do with oil production.
On the strictly political side, the hard fact is, Egmont, that I am extremely well informed. I personally know some of the people I write about and know details of Saudi history and politics known by very few, including to the point that I note errors in Wikipedia articles on matters about KSA. You have occasionally sneered at my "gossip" about the Saudi royal family, but I note that every single thing I have posted about them has proven true, and that these matters od their internal affairs are important to outsiders, again if for no other reason the important role the Saudis play in the world economy. Lots of people learn from my posts things they would not find anywhere else and which are true.
So, sorry, Egmont, I shall continue to post on such matters in spite of your admonitions that I am not allowed to and how awful it is. Grow up and deal with it (and let me hope that you do not suffer the fated of Jamal Khashoggi, although, frankly I think MBS should experience his own medicine, the disgusting murderer).
Oh, I also could have gone on at great length about several other possible successors to MBS (the seniors might yet get it together to push him out), but that would have gotten eyes-glazingly boring.
Why do you waste your God given talents trying to change these people?
Would any scientist waste his energy trying to convince a potato farmer that E=mc2?
Who is your real audience? Surely it is not those who frequent these blogs, for what power do any of us have to change anything? Wouldn't it be better to teach those who can actually do something with what you know?
My my, Egmont, looks like you have a fan.
I do not know if you are or have been a regular reader of this blog, EC, but if you are or have been you would know two things. The first is that Egmont is almost completely unable to publish any of the papers he links to that he has written (most of which contain large portions that virtually repeat large portions he has in most of his other papers and which he almost always puts into posts he puts up here). He managed to publish one paper, as near as I can tell, in an obscure journal that was not an actual economics journal. Now he will tell you, and you may agree with him, that this is due to an awful conspiracy by the entire economics profession against him, which is certainly his line. I happen to think it is that his profit theory is a vacuous pile of crap. He is a crank, endlessly posting and writing the same things over and over even as they have been shown to have extremely serious problems.
The second reason is that he has been banned from most other economics blogs, and there are some here who would like to ban him as well, but I, at least, tolerate his posting, although his time I blew up at his ridiculous demand (made many times previously) that none of us are supposed to comment on anything that is not strictly "economic science" as he defines it, which is a peculiarity unto itself. These other blogs tired of his incessant repetitions of the same tired garbage and more importantly his tendency to make personal attacks on both the bloggers and their commenters. I personally have a thick skin, so am willing to tolerate being repeatedly dismissed in nearly identical language from one tiresome post to another.
Now, EC, if you have never been here before or perhaps only occasionally wander in here and look at his screed and think, "Wow, a lot of his critique of economics looks pretty reasonable to me; these people here are clearly a bunch of narrow-minded orthodox economists defending a flawed economics establishment," let me let you know that is not who we are. Pretty much all of us are pretty widely viewed as being heterodox economists of one sort or another, although Egmont includes pretty much all the heterodox schools of economics in his list of not good economics, along with the neoclassical Walrasian establishment. So, in fact, EC, most of us, and certainly me, agree with much of his list of criticisms of much of economic theory, and that point has been repeatedly made here, although I am not going to drag through all the gory details.
The problem, aside from him simply condemning everything from Marxist to Austrian economics and everything in between in broad brush strokes, is his solution. It all gets back to his profit theory, which he considers to be the most important idea ever put forward in the history of all economics. Now maybe you agree with him, and you are certainly free to. If you edit an economics outlet, you should invite him to send you some of his many unpublished papers so they can get properly published. However, most of us find his profit theory to be tautological and vacuous and totally worthless, and I have explained that at great length many times here, but now.
Anyway, EC, the bottom line is that much of his critique of much of economics is agreed to by many here. It is when he puts forth his supposed solution that he falls flat on his face, only to incessantly repeat it and repeat it even after it has been repeatedly shown to be completely useless and of no intellectual interest whatsoever.
After trying a couple of times to understand Egmont, I realized that such an understanding was impossible and have never tried again. The writing makes no sense to me and the writer either has no interest in making sense to me or does not know how or the joined words have no coherence.
Also, since the tone of the writing, which I do understand, is so angry, I have no wish to try another entry.
I do not wish this in any mean way, but if I am right and your writing is incoherent, counseling might help solve the problem.
If you want to see the most thorough discussion and debate about Egmont's theory, mostly between me and him,, but with others popping in and out, see http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/06/comments-on-profit-and-capital.html . This was posted on June 28, 2017, and has 68 comments. It was originally about my own published views on the matter with no reference to Egmont's theory, but, of course he jumped in and as usual hijacked the discussion to focus on this frequently repeated theory. It is where he got the most complete airing of his views here with full feedback. Since then, I do not see any point in wasting peoples' time in repeating the many points made there, not a single one of which Egmont has recognized. Anyway, if you really want to know what has been going on here rather than just sort of mindlessly spouting out support for Egmont's screed, I strongly urge you to read the whole exchange.
And again, if you really like his theory and have any input anywhere in terms of publishing things, even on blogs, Egmont would very much appreciate more outlets. I at times admire his persistence, and he does know quite a lot of economics, even if he becomes too repetitive, not to say inappropriately insulting to too many people.
As for the original essay by Barkley Rosser, I appreciated the essay though I find no chance of a change in government at this point since MBS has so completely taken control of the government.
Probably not, but there is suddenly rumors of a split in the royal family ,and I am not the only one calling for him to go. I am about to add further info to the original message as addenda.
Helpful addition to the essay, my rough argument is that I think MBS had already cemented control of the government before the killing and a change in control at this point will only come violently. MBS must know the personal danger of losing control at this point.
This to me is a sort of Macbeth, replacing MBS will not likely be a gentle operation. Also, MBS may have support beyond Saudi Arabia.
David Ignatius essentially writes on behalf of the government of Saudi Arabia, and as with others so tied, I expect they will accept the story invented by those about MBS and especially with the president we now have there will be a continuation of policy however unfortunate.
The sense I now have is that MBS has arrested a group of accidental killers, who will be investigated and the case resolved with whoever was responsible for the accident being properly blamed. MBS will also "restructure" the intelligence service to limit the publicity from all future accidents.
What a dangerous government, not Iran, but Saudi Arabia.
Again, I do appreciate this essay. Notice however that MBS has been and is in control and support will be echoed through the Saudi based and beholden media. The destruction of Yemen will continue, with British and American support. Iran will continue to be threatened...
I apologize if anyone was insulted by my post, that was not my intention.
I am not a fan of Egmont just like I am not a fan of any economist or of any theory for that matter, but I do follow him (by follow I mean I take note of what he is posting and writing and use it to compile evidence etc - I do not mean follow to mean that I worship him or anything) as well as many other economists, and I follow these economists because these particular economists share something in common which is important for my purposes.
Many years ago I discovered what I believe could reduce crime, homelessness, unemployment, and poverty (what I refer to as the CHUP sector), without it costing tax-payers a single cent and without it causing economic loss to anyone. My discovery came from studying law, history, and may other subjects, including economics, and as a result I quickly discovered a small group of economists with insights which reflected what I was seeing.
What has disillusioned me no end however has been that all the economists I have been following (Egmont included) share certain insights which if directed toward the right people could significantly reduce the CHUP sector without the need for politics or political debate...i.e. the CHUP sector could be reduced based on educating a certain group of people, particularly human rights advocates and activists, as opposed to trying to reduce them through political debating etc. However, these economists choose not to direct their energies and education toward those who could make these changes but instead either profit from it or fulfill some other 'personal' agenda.
The GFC was an excellent case in point. Many economists with particular insights and understandings predicted the GFC (I know this because I was there at the time and I was watching these people) which as we all know caused a massive increase in the size of the CHUP sector. Yet, all of these economists bar none took their knowledge and insights and instead wrote and sold books about it or otherwise put a premium on their time and/or theories and formulas and sold it to the higher bidder. One economist I follow is very passionate (or at least comes across this way) about reducing the CHUP sector and yet he spends most of his time trying to convince politicians of his theories. It makes no sense to convince people whose main concern is securing their own pensions of any theories that might reduce the CHUP sector.
I am not for one moment suggesting that because a scientist makes a discovery he has a duty to share this discovery with the whole world for free. But economists in particular place a lot of value on their theories based on claims that their theories in particular can reduce the CHUP sector. If economists are going to make these claims, then I want to know why then do they not direct their education toward those who actually care about reducing the CHUP sector such as human rights activists and others sharing a similar passion, instead of (in Egmonts case) arguing with other economists, or in other cases, trying to convince heartless politicians or selling books etc?
An example of my frustration was I wrote to one economist asking an important question regarding a certain claim his group makes, and I wanted the answer so that I could put it in a report I was writing to the human rights commission and he told me I had to buy his book! Again, I am not saying this is wrong, that is his right, and he is entitled to treat his knowledge as private property and to materially benefit from it. But it is becoming increasingly obvious to me (and this is a claim I do not make lightly), that many economists are like politicians and lawyers who actually do not want the CHUP sector to be reduced, because that might actually mean there is less need for them in society - just like we would have no need for doctors or medicine if we discovered a cure for all diseases. I even set up the economists challenge on my website and invited economists to take the challenge (to prove my model wrong), and every single one has declined - one even telling me that he was too busy writing his next book!
If I can find that one or two economists who actually want to use their peculiar insights to educate the right people and not be looking to profit from it, and I can connect these people, then I will fulfill the task that I was sent to fulfill. I can't do it alone because I am not an economist, I have no letters after my name, so ultimately, what I say has no importance to the people who can make the difference. But some of these economists have respect in their fields and my purpose in life is to find that one or two who wants to use his knowledge for purposes other than politics or money.
Oh, as an aside, you may be asking, why did I ask him the question on someone's blog, why not simply write to him and ask him? But Egmont does not allow posts on his website and has never once answered any email I have sent to him (even emails asking him about his particular theories).
The Economists Challenge
Economics is about how the economy works. Scientists, by consequence, focus their communication strictly on the diverse aspects that constitute the economy. Incompetents scientists, though, do not talk about the economy but about what Walras or Keynes has written in their books or told their students as oral tradition of their Alma Mater or that Walras was not a Neoliberal but had socialist leanings or that Keynes was bisexual, and all this other irrelevant gossip. In one word, incompetent scientists do not stick to the subject-matter but get almost immediately lost in meta-communication = storytelling = empty blather = propaganda = agenda pushing (e.g. Barkley Rosser’s MBS Must Go).
This explains why economists never got to the bottom of their subject matter, i.e. to the foundational concept profit. Historical fact is that economists are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting. Because of this, one can safely forget all the rest from supply-demand-equilibrium to DSGE and New Keynesianism.
In the end, meta-communication boils down to motive-speculation/imputation. Schumpeter has said all about this nuisance: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”
The only content of a scientific debate is: Is the statement S about how the economy works true or false? With truth well-defined since 2000+ years.
So, all you (or Barkley Rosser, for that matter) say about yourself or this guy Egmont is plain talk-show BS and has NOTHING to do with the subject-matter of economics. If you think the macrofounded Profit or Employment Law is false, do what a scientist is supposed to do: demonstrate that it is materially/formally inconsistent.#1 Science is about proof, politics exhausts itself in brain-dead blather and self-stylisation as savior of the nation/world/universe.
The only thing you (or Barkley Rosser, for that matter) can do for the progress of science and the welfare of humanity is to take a shovel and to bury yourself at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery.
#1 Go! ― test the Profit and Employment Law
"Economics is about how the economy works."
Tell me then, tell me just a little, tell me a very little about how a particular economy works. I try reading you and understand nothing beyond the ceaseless insults. Tell me somethings about how the economy works, otherwise this writing is all madness.
"Many years ago I discovered what I believe could reduce crime, homelessness, unemployment, and poverty (what I refer to as the CHUP sector), without it costing tax-payers a single cent and without it causing economic loss to anyone. My discovery came from studying law, history, and may other subjects, including economics, and as a result I quickly discovered a small group of economists with insights which reflected what I was seeing...."
Well, tell us what you discovered. I am waiting, because so far I have no idea at all what you are writing about.
"If you think the macrofounded Profit or Employment Law is false"
I did not say it is false. What I want to know is why do you try to convince people like me and others on blogs like this of your discoveries - what are we supposed to do with them? I have read just about everything you have written and if what you say is correct (I can't say whether it is correct or not because I am not qualified to) and full employment can be achieved through the techniques you mention, then why have you not brought together a meeting between the central bank, the department for human services, and possibly the attorney-general and in that meeting make sure you include the human rights commissioner, and make sure you also included the top representatives of any foundations whose main purpose is to alleviate the suffering of those from within the CHUP sector, and tell THESE people?
you'll have to go to my website..I can't explain it on this blog in such a short space
Your original comment here seemed to suggest that Egmont is a scientist while those of us at Econospeak (and presumably especially me) are "potato farmers." Swell, no insult there at all.
You seem to have some strange idea that sufficiently well-informed human rights activists can somehoe reduce the CHUP sector without engaging in politics. I hate to tell you, but those politicans control what policies are, not human rights activists, and certainly no economist, even one as scientific as Egmont, can order a meeting of the Fed and various government agencies. This is beyond fantasy.
For the record, I and some others either currently or previously associated with this blog or its predecessor, Maxspeak, which would include Dean Baker, long warned about the housing bubble and the dangers of an impending crash. I recently posted here bragging about how I was among the few to very closely call the crash and what might happen. I did not make any money out of doing so. And, frankly, I viewed and continue to view, this blog as my best chance of influencing people who might be able to do things about these matters, not just fellow economists.
Oh, and if you think Egmonst's theory has any chance of aiding in reducing unemployment or anything else in the actual real economy, you are sorely mistaken. His big insight is that one should emphasize the importance of retained earnings when looking at profit. The only thing of any importance related to that is that doing so does help one better model capital investment, although that has long been known well before Egmont came along. It is of no use in explaining anything having to do with the CHUP sector, so, sorry, you have been wasting your time trying to communicate with him. And, again, I suggest you go look at that old thread I put up where his theory got its most thorough airing and debating that has ever happened.
"Your original comment here seemed to suggest that Egmont is a scientist while those of us at Econospeak (and presumably especially me) are "potato farmers." Swell, no insult there at all."
My reference to potato farmers was indicative of how Egmont views everyone else (and was not indicative of how I view you or others), which makes me question why Egmont wants to waste his time trying to convince people, who he has no respect for, of anything. Why you have taken my posts as some attack on you is bewildering to me - but if this is how blogs like this work then I shall say no more and end it here (obviously any ideas I might have mean nothing)..I apologize for wasting yours and others time.
Economics is dead. Supply-demand-equilibrium, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, DSGE, New Keynesianism, etcetera is provably false.
Economics needs a paradigm shift from microfoundations to macrofoundations.
There is one elementary question for every economist to answer: which of the two macroeconomic balances equations is true
You have exactly one character for an answer. To recall: “No one ignorant of elementary mathematics and true macrofoundations can be admitted to economics.”
Apology accepted. However, I suggest that you go look at what you wrote. I would suggest that it is very easy to read it as you approving of Egmont's view. That was indeed how I read it.
As it is, Egmont has laid his cards on the table. The only question of any importance in all economics involves the two equations shows above. Note that distinguishing between them is of utterly no use whatsoever for understanding what determines the size of the CHUP sectorm much less offering any ideas on how to reduce it, none.
Regarding the two equarions, Egmont is wrong. Both are correct. They simply differ by bboth being accounting identities of no empirical significance, true by definition, but merely fossing on slightly different aspects of the same thing. The big difference is that terribly important matter, retained earnings, which national income and product accountants already know all about. Egmont has a big fat zero of anything new or useful to offer with his glorious "most important" theory of economics.
You cannot answer an elementary economic question. “Both are correct” is the false answer because eq. 2 represents a zero-profit economy. There NEVER has been a zero-profit economy in the history of the world.
If simplified, eq. 2 boils down to the Keynesian I=S and this tells everyone that macroeconomics is provably false for 80+ years and that economists ― both orthodox and heterodox economists ― are too stupid for elementary mathematics.
In your bottomless scientific incompetence you have, of course, realized nothing in your whole academic career.
You started this thread with “MBS Must Go”. You produced NOT one scientifically valid sentence during the whole debate. So, it is the fake scientist Barkley Rosser who must go.
Take a shovel, go to the Flat-Earth-Cemetery, bury yourself and deliver us from your brain-dead blather.
Well, Egmont, you hijacked this thread by saying that I should not be posting anything other than about "scientific economics," specifically your pathetic theory, although when I do so you dismiss my arguments with insults and demands I go bury mysaelf.
I would note that on the original topic and in my addenda I provided information that is scientifically correct and that corrected an error made by one of the most knowledgeable public figures around regarding the Middle East, namely columnist David Ignatius, whom I happen to have met. He erroneously claimed that the possible candidate he heard about to replace MBS is the "last surviving son of Absulaziz," which is simply false. What is true is that he is the last surviving full brother of the current king, they being the last two surviving sons of Abdulaziz's favorite wife, Asa as Sudiairi, with her sons being the very powerful Sudairi Seven. It is the fact that Ahmad bin Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Sa'ud is his full brother that makes it possible that King Salman bin Absulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Sa'ud might possibly conceivably be convinced to replace his son, the notorious MBS, with his full brother.
Much of this latter is speculation, and much you may dismiss as "gossip," although the information about who is the son of whom and how many are alive are hard facts, which the usually well informed Ignatius messed up on. And this stuff is important for the world economy, and I am a serious expert on this stuff, which is of interest to a lot of people, and you know nothing about it, but would prefer to say nothing about it while repeating your worthless dreck yet again about your profit theory.
Oh, and how about you tell Economists Challenge what good your theory is for his concern about reducing the CHUP sector. Go ahead, Egmont, I dare you. Or is this that low life "political economy" you disdain?
I always acknowledged your superior knowledge of the family tree of the House of Sa’ud.
Jul 13, 2017: “Your true competence has always been insightful comments on the sex life of the House of Sa’ud and other celebrities as demonstrated in two recent pieces:
• Muhammed Bin Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Al Sa’ud Confined To His Palace
• Was Thomas Jefferson A Monstrous Rapist?
Economics has never been your thing. Good for society to learn that you have left profit, capital, equilibrium, and other nonentities behind for good and dedicate your talent now fully to Sexual Research.”#1
Sep 28, 2017: “During his whole professional life as a cargo cult economist, Barkley Rosser never realized that there is something fundamentally wrong with both Walrasianism and Keynesianism. Neither did he resolve any contradictions nor rectify anything, except perhaps the family tree of the House of Sa’ud.”#2
Jun 1, 2018: “You have not realized either that your academic colleagues, the MMT money printers and deficit spenders, are deceiving the general public by obfuscating the profit effect of public deficit spending.
Macroeconomics is provably false since Keynes, academic economists push the agenda of Wall Street by telling people that public debt does not matter, and Barkley Rosser, an economist who never understood what profit is, entertains the audience with the Happiness Curve, how the Saudi crown prince tortures fellow princes, with the assassination of MLK and JFK, the death of Yeshua bin Yusuf, and the infighting of the Bolsheviks back in the 1920s.
Whatever you are doing, it is NOT economics and NOT science.”#3
#1 Economists: scientists or political clowns?
#2 Setting the history of economic non-thought right
#3 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
To Economists Chsllenge,
You have exactly the answer I forecast you would get: proof that Egmont's theory is utterly useless to your interest in studying how to lower the CHUP sector of the economy. He has been specifically challenged to show how his profit theory might serves such a purpose, and you see what he has come up with, just a personal attack on me without a shred of discussion of how his profit theory might serve in any way to understand anything about the CHUP sector of the economy. This is because it is utterly useless for anything at all.
Sorry that you have wasted your time trying to get anything of any use out of him. It is hopeless.
You never understood what profit is, so all you ever said about economics is senseless blather/political agenda pushing.
You are the perfect example for the representative economist. Just like your academic colleagues you have never produced anything of scientific value. You cannot even answer which of the two macroeconomic balances equations is true: 1 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−Sm)−(Qm−Yd)=0 or 2 (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0.
The answers to the questions of The Economists Challenge cannot be found in the heap of proto-scientific garbage called Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy but only in macrofounded Constructive Heterodoxy. See cross-references
If The Economists Challenge was a serious researcher he had easily found this out for himself. Obviously, he is as fake as Anonymous and the rest of Barkley Rosser’s troll circus at EconoSpeak.
There you have it even more, Economists Challenge. You sought advice from Egmont, and what you get for your efforts is to be labeled a "fake" and part of our "troll circus" here. Welcome to the club, and sorry about that.
People who managed to take advantage of the mistakes that he did, and will try again to perform in a different way
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
You are whining: “There you have it even more, Economists Challenge. You sought advice from Egmont, and what you get for your efforts is to be labeled a ‘fake’ and part of our ‘troll circus’ here.”
You and The Economists Challenge could have easily avoided any effort/pain if your capability of reading/understanding was only slightly above absolute zero.
Take notice of this disclaimer: “This site does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup, to get out of national/global depression, or how to save humankind or a subgroup thereof. The effective solution of economic problems and the attainment of worthwhile goals presupposes the correct economic theory, which in turn presupposes the correct axiom set, which becomes the ultimate source of accountable advice. Because of this, this site is strictly about axiomatization. Economic advice of any sort is an entirely separate matter.”#1
You have NO correct Profit Theory but pester the world with your advice, I have the axiomatically correct Profit Theory but give NO advice to a random imbecile who calls himself The Economists Challenge.
This exactly is the difference between a soapbox economist and a scientist.
#1 AXEC, Disclaimer (III)
Well, folks, it looks like MBS is indeed likely to stick around, even as the US CIA chief ha apparently now heard the recording the Turks have of the murder of Khashoggi. In yesterday's WaPo David Ignatius reported on an interview with Khashoggi's former boss and mentor, Prince Turki bin Faisal, former ambassador to the US and longtime Saudi intelligence chief. While clearly unhappy about what happened to Khashoggi, Prince Turki reports that the foreign criticism of MBS has been interpreted in KSA as criticism of the nation itself, even as I think this is due to media control there by MBS. But in any case, supposedly the royal family has engaged in a "circling of the wagons," with this implying iit likely that MBS will survive. And, of course, he got a standing ovation at his "Davos in the Desert" conference.
Post a Comment