RWER Value — the Bermuda triangle for economic theories. Comment on ‘Economic Value is NOT Price.’ Plus All economists together now: Solow’s Swan Song. Plus How to get out of psychology/sociology/ wish-wash.
RWER Information and ignorance. Comment on ‘Information Matters?’
RWER Keenonomics, aggregate demand/change of debt, and some misleading critique. Plus When numbers don’t add up. Plus More than two centuries of waffling in the dark. Again See * below. Plus Cross-references. Plus The trouble with counting to 3. Plus Mental messies and loose losers.
Heterodoxy at the crossroads.
RWER Totem, voodoo, and tabu. Comment on ‘Loanable funds.’
RWER Mathiness and the Ur-blunder. Comment on ‘Paul Romer on math masquerading as science.’
OS From Hilbert’s hotel to Hilbert’s method. Comment on ‘Infinite Debt, Future Generations, and Hilbert’s Hotel.’ See * below.
BB Australian upside-down economics. Comment on ‘Australia wages growth drops to a new record low.’ See * below.
EV No divide. Comment on ‘The Macroeconomic Divide.’
WCI The Humpty Dumpty methodology. Comment on ‘On defining "recession".’
OS How markets work. Comment on ‘Macroeconomic Theory and Operational Reality.’
WCI Worthwhile Canadian filibuster? Comment on ‘On defining "recession".’
EV The Hicks drive. Comment on ‘The Sad Death of Free Market Pessimism.’
BB Modern moronomic theory. Comment on ‘Saturday Quiz – August 1, 2015 – answers and discussion.’ See * below.
MM The end of storytelling. Comment on ‘The F story about the Great Inflation.’ Plus Comment on Blissex of 26th. Plus How to save the economy from storytelling economists. Plus The Phillips curve as intelligence test.
FAZ Sexit. Comment on ‘Griechenland-Krise: Deutsche Ökonomen schlagen gegen Krugman zurück.’
MM From true/false to garbage-wrestling and back.
Comment on ‘Speak for yourself, or why anti-Keynesian views survive.’
NEP Collateral damage. Comment on ‘What Is Helicopter Money, Anyway?’
UM Tricky business. Comment on ‘JKH on the Keynesian Cross and Accounting Identities.’
MM Around the world: storytelling vs. science. Comment on ‘What is it about German economics?’
RWER Profit (not mathematics) is the key. Comment on ‘The fetishism of mathematics.’
RWER Market blunder. Comment on ‘Economics and the value of art.’
RWER The Big Bang Theory of economics. Comment on ‘Why the ergodic theorem is not applicable in economics.’ Plus What economics is not about. Plus Science and travesty. Plus Physics as obsessive windmill. Plus Einstein, Mill and the Starting Problem. Plus Formal and verbal description of the evolving economy. Plus No license for drivel. Plus What scientists in all ages knew. Plus Answer to the original question. Plus If anyone has better foundational equations, please come forward.
RWER The epic ping-pong of empty problem and vacuous solution. Comment on 'Transaction Cost Confusion.’
RWER From PsySoc to SysHum. Comment on ‘Rational expectations — totally incredible bogus.’
RWER Walrasian double-blunder. Comment on ‘On the irrelevance of general equilibrium theory.’ Plus What are the alternatives? Plus Walras is long gone. Plus What are Walrasians waiting for? Plus Troubles with logic?
RWER The intelligent student's predicament. Comment on ‘Is there anything worth keeping in standard microeconomics?’
RWER MIT dilettantes II. Comment on ‘Bernanke-Summers Debate II: Savings glut, investment shortfall, or Monty Python?’
RWER MIT dilettantes. Comment on ‘The inbred Bernanke-Summers debate on secular stagnation.’
RWER Black holes and white noise. Comment on ‘What’s inside the neoliberal mind? Part 2 — Marketfundamentalist Marxism, kind of.’
RWER Forget Krugman, forget Keynes, forget economists. Comment on ‘Why Paul Krugman is no real Keynesian.’
EV An exercise in futility. Comment on ‘Stability of a Market Economy.’
ES Who said what to whom — and does it matter?
Comment on ‘Keynes "hadn't got round to it".' Plus Why talk about it if it doesn't matter?
ES Sitcom economics. Comment on ‘On Missing Minsky.’
Back to Onblog
RWER Beyond methodological madness. Comment on ‘On the value of theoretical models in economics.’
RWER Principal problem solved. Comment on ‘The principal problem of Political Economy.’
RWER Economists: stop dreaming and waffling and do your scientific homework. Comment on ‘America can be a full-employment economy once again.’
RWER Complexity, scientific incompetence, and the art of asking the right questions. Comment on Peter Radford's ‘Economic Ignorance?’ See * below.
RWER Yes, Orthodoxy is incoherent but, unfortunately, Heterodoxy also. Comment on Asad Zaman on ‘A perverse intellectual hierarchy.’ See * below.
LPS Framing the economic discourse. Comment on ‘Seven principles to guard you against economics silliness.’
LPS Heterodoxy simply does not apply ergodicity. Comment on ‘Why the ergodic theorem is not applicable in economics.’
LPS Neither truth nor beauty. Comment on ‘Rational expectations — totally incredible bogus.
LPS The synthesis of institution and math. Comment on ‘Wicksell on the use of mathematics in economics.’
LPS Economists kill the economy. Comment on ‘Reality killed the Washington Consensus.’
LPS Unfit in all dimensions. Comment on ‘Models, math and macro.’ See * below.
LPS Mortifying scientific headstands. Comment on ‘The Coase Theorem.’
LPS Science or Circus Maximus? Comment on ‘Economists — arrogant and self-congratulatory autists.’
LPS Methodology — Marx, too, messed it up. Comment on ‘On dogmatism in economics.’ See * below.
LPS Bygones are bygones. Comment on ‘On the irrelevance of general equilibrium theory.’
LPS Angels-on-a-pinpoint scholasticism. Comment on ‘The Bernanke-Summers imbroglio.’
LPS No difference. Comment on ‘What’s the difference between heterodox and orthodox economics?’
LPS Lazy or stupid or both? Comment on ‘Modern macroeconomics — an intellectually lazy ideology.’
LPS Confounding the Quantity Theory and Say's Law. Comment on ‘Money hoarding — an explanation of today’s low inflation.’
LPS As Keynes and my taxi driver said: We simply do not know. Comment on ‘Jon Elster on deductivist modeling leading economics astray.’
LPS From proto-science to science. Comment on ‘What is science?’
LPS New foundations: replacing sand by granite. Comment on ‘Macroeconomic foundations made of sand.’ See * below.
LPS United in the social science delusion. Comment on ‘Microfoundations — contestable incoherence.’
LPS The real limit of Heterodoxy. Comment on 'The real limit of public debt.'
LPS How to solve almost any problem. Comment on 'Lucas’ bridge and the Ricardian equivalence fairy-tale.' See * below.
LPS Multiplying confusion. Comment on 'Abba Lerner on Functional Finance and Ricardian equivalence.'
LPS Nobody understands debt —including the shrinks. Comment on 'Debt myths debunked.' See * below.
LPS The true nature of economists' confusion. Comment on 'The true nature of public debt.'
LPS Better precisely right than roughly wrong. Comment on 'Public debt and Keynes’ paradox of thrift.'
MM Educating economists? Yes, but where is the scientific stuff?
Comment on 'Greece and educating economists.'
MM Vacuonomics. Comment on ‘Is the Walrasian Auctioneer microfounded?’
MM Methodology as Force Majeure. Comment on ‘Do not underestimate the power of microfoundations.’
MM Make no mistake: there can be only one true theory. Comment on ‘Received wisdom in macroeconomics.’
SW Vacuonomics II. Comment on ‘A Quick Point on Models.’
SW Going beyond ink-blot association. Comment on ‘Causes and Effects of Wage Growth.’
NME Kaput toys. Comment on Nick Rowe on ‘Wren-Lewis Takes a Stab at It.’
NME Reduced-form bricolage and sticky brains. Comment on ‘Sticky Prices, Financial Frictions, and the Ben Bernanke Puzzle.’
SW Stylized facts and vacuous interpretations. Comment on ‘The IMF on Investment since 2008.’
RWER Questions and answers about economics. Comment on Peter Radford's ‘I am a know-nothing.’ See * below.
RWER Still in the woods. Comment on 'Money and Say’s law: on the macroeconomic models of Kalecki, Keen, and Marx.'
RWER From false to true. Comment on 'Finding equilibrium.'
RWER Economists — sloppy, stupid, or scientifically incompetent? Comment on 'Greg Mankiw on loanable funds — so wrong, so wrong.'
RWER Better take the correct formulas. Comment on 'Will the ECB push Europe over the deflation cliff?'
RWER Wanted: The true theory. Comment on 'Economics curriculum reformulation.' See * below.
RWER Lost and found. Comment on 'Brad DeLong and the true nature of neoclassical economics.' See * below.
RWER Marshall: a monument of scientific incompetence. Comment on 'Proper use of math in economics.' Plus: Marshall and some skewed arguments. Plus: From Marshall to Georgescu-Roegen. Plus: Looking through the veil of historical detail. Plus: No trouble of any sort. Plus: Prophets of Preemptive Vanitization. Plus: Self-evidence: an urgent update. Plus: What engine? Plus: Over the cliff. Plus: Who is afraid of axioms? Plus: Still in the woods. See * below.
RWER Comments on 'The failure of economics is due to the use of axiomatic method.' Plus: Eureka. Plus: Replacing the neoclassical axioms. Plus: Intermediate summary. Plus: Time to get out of limited-horizon economics. See * below.
LPS What does a market really look like? Comment on Martin Kullberg on 'Finding equilibrium.'
LPS Who rides the debt-tiger cannot dismount. Comment on 'The Hayekization of modern society.' See * below.
LPS Simply forget it. Comment on 'Finding equilibrium.'
LPS Economists — sloppy, stupid, or scientifically incompetent? Comment on 'Greg Mankiw on loanable funds — so wrong, so wrong.' See * below.
LPS Looking for suitable alternatives. Comment on 'Marginalising Heterodoxy hampers good teaching in economics.' See * below.
LPS Wanted: The true theory. Comment on 'Economics curriculum reformulation.' See * below.
LPS Naive arithmetic. Comment on Jan Milch about 'NAIRU — more religion than science.'
LPS No religion, merely incompetence. Comment on 'NAIRU — more religion than science'
LPS Substandard thinkers. Comment on 'Who is bullshiting who here?'
LPS Beauty or horseshit? Comment on 'On abstraction and idealization in economics.' See * below.
LPS Lost and found. Comment on 'Brad DeLong and the true nature of neoclassical economics.'
LPS More error than trial. Comment on '”New Keynesian” haiku economics.'
RWER The unfinished Keynes. Comment on 'The Keynes Solution.' See * below.
RWER Politics vs. Science. Comment on Peter Radford's 'Economics and civil society.'
RWER The pluralism of nonsense is still nonsense. Comment on Geoff Davies's 'Reforming economics: pluralism is not enough.' Plus: Brief answer. Plus: Only one small point. Plus: The long shadow of Bentham. Plus: Same procedure as last time?
RWER Gold-making, wine from water, M-C-M+, perpetuum mobile, free lunch, beating the stock market, and the perennial human dream. Comment on Peter Radford's 'Superior Economists.'
RWER Could economists get their economics right before philoso- phizing about uncertainty? Comment on 'The Ramsey-Keynes dispute.'
RWER Who takes Orthodoxy or Heterodoxy seriously? Comment on Merijn Knibbe’s 'The real winner: economics which takes money and debt serious.'
RWER Understanding? What understanding? Comment on Dean Baker's 'Seven years after: why this recovery is still a turkey.'
RWER Moral incompetence or scientific incompetence? Comment on 'University economics depart- ments must share the blame.'
LPS Of birds and worms. Comment on '”New Keynesianism” — neat, plausible and wrong.' See * below.
LPS Economists for all seasons or just confused confusers?
Comment on 'Krugman & Wren-Lewis flim-flamming on heterodox assaults on mainstream economics.' See * below.
LPS Groundhog Day (economics).
Comment on 'Extraordinarily absurd things called ‘Keynesian’'
LPS The Profit Law. Comment on 'Ditch marginal productivity theory once and for all.' See * below.
RWER A failure of reason. Comment on 'Filtering nonsense economics.'
RWER From anything goes to nothing goes right. Comment on Lars Syll's 'Mainstream macroeconomics distorts our understanding of economic reality.' Plus: Scientific thinking: Aristotle is right, Leijon- hufvud is wrong. Plus: How to look at reality. Plus: Glory. Plus: The happy end of distortion. Plus: The way ahead. Addendum. Plus: Manifest distortions. Plus: Intuition. Plus: Economics is different from psychology / sociology/philosophy. Plus: Science is about facts. Plus:
Economics — an intelligence test? Plus: The scientist and the minister: an intelligent answer to a silly question. Plus: A simple question. Plus: The end is nigh. Plus: Yeah, it makes sense. Plus: Going beyond error and distortion. Plus: No choice. Plus: Think faster. Plus: Corrobo-ration and falsification. Plus: No clue. Plus: Update 1. Plus: Methodology. Plus: Axiomatization. Plus: Axiomatization and testing. Plus: Summary. Plus: Philosophical consolation. Plus: Update 2. Plus: What economics is all about. Plus: Towards the new economic paradigm. Plus: Entertainment vs. science. See * below.
RWER Nonentity: The emptiness of economic thinking. Comment on 'Still dead after all these years — general equilibrium theory.'
RWER Funny folks in the big omnibus. Comment on 'Macro- economic aspirations.'
RWER One thing economists must desperately do: their homework. Comment on Richard Parker's 'Seven things that economists could usefully do or call for over the next several years.'
LPS Total scientific Dadaism.
Comment on 'Axiomatic economics - total horseshit.' Plus: From obscurity to enlightenment.
LPS What is the core problem of economics? Comment on 'Economics without aspirations.'
LPS Humbleness does not help, but scientific imagination could. Comment on 'The hubris of economics.'
LPS What the 20 top heterodox economists say.
LPS Objection, your Honour! There is objective truth in economics. Granted. Comment on J.B.'s 'Understanding capitalism.'
LPS From anything goes to nothing goes right. Comment on 'Mainstream macroeconomics distorts our understanding of economic reality.' See * below.
LPS Lacking the Midas touch of science. Comment on Paul Pfleiderer's ‘Real world filters and economic models.’
LPS What economists need now — the correct theory. Comment on Paul Davidson.
LPS No idealization, only mis-understanding and misconstrual. Comment on Jeff Madrick’s ‘The Invisible Hand — a brilliant idealization proved wrong by reality.’
LPS Economists do not solve problems, they are the problem. Comment on Roger Farmer's 'Economists — not mathematics — solve economic problems.'
LPS Economic theory — as false as ever. Comment on Peter Temin and David Vines's 'Keynes — more important than ever.' See * below.
LPS The axiomatic method is impeccable. Comment on Alan Kirman's 'Debreu and the Bourbaki delusion of deductive-axiomatic economics.'
LPS You have the data, here is the employment formula. Comment on Marc Lavoie and Engelbert Stockhammer’s ‘Wage-led growth.’
Plus : One big sweep.
LPS The man who missed it by a hair’s breadth. Comment on ‘Kalecki on wage-led growth.’
RWER Throwing soap bubbles at time wasters. Comment on 'Microfounded DSGE models — a total waste of time!'
RWER Between the devil and the deep blue sea: On framing false alternatives. Comment on Merijn Knibbe’s ‘The DSGE emperor has no clothes.’
LPS Kalecki got it wrong, Allais got it right. Comment on 'Kalecki and the loanable funds doctrine.'
LPS Kalecki’s definition of profit and income. Comment on Jan Milch’s ‘Great Thinkers in Economics.’
LPS The methodological Keynes. Comment on Victoria Chick and Geoff Tily’s ‘Whose Keynes? Keynes’s Keynes!’
LPS Nonentity: The emptiness of economic thinking. Comment on ‘The concept of long-run equilibrium — a slippery eel.’
LPS It's all in the structural employment equation — end of discussion. Comment on 'The low wages fallacy.' See * below.
LPS NAIRU, wage-led growth, and Samuelson's Dyscalculia. Comment on Roger Farmer's 'NAIRU theory — closer to religion than science.'
TNA Growing debt is bad, but shrinking debt is worse. Comment on 'The first of the great powers to reduce private debt will be the world's next hegemon.' Multiple posts.
RWER Shocking: Methodology is a tricky business. Comment on Peter Radford’s ‘Study the shocks.’
Plus: Scrap the lot and start again (Joan Robinson).
RWER The profit theory is false since Adam Smith. What can you expect from distribution theory? Comment on RWER #69.
RWER Out of the box. Summary comment on RWER #69.
RWER Riddle solved; RWER-Bloggers ahead of the crowd. Comment on Nassim Taleb's 'The riddle of induction.' Plus Common sense is worse than misleading. Plus: Why J. S. Mill had no friendly word for the bigots and votaries of common sense. Plus: Why Feynman, too, had no friendly word for commonsensers. Plus: Conclusion.
LPS NAIRU. Comment on ‘Jämviktsarbetslöshet en ‘bra tankeram’? No way!’
LPS The profit theory is false since Adam Smith. What can you expect from distribution theory? Comment on 'Thomas Piketty, Anwar Shaikh and Heather Boushey at The New School.'
LPS Phony riddle solved already by J. S. Mill. Comment on Nassim Taleb's 'The riddle of induction.'
LPS Economics and the roadrunner effect: The show must go on — who stops is done. Comment on 'Piketty and the non-existence of economic science.'
LPS A perfect scientific vacuum. Comment on Jonathan Schlefer's 'Inequality and the culprit economists over-look — their own wage theory.'
LPS Balderdash or discourse? Comment on 'Lies that economics is built on.'
LPS Where is Sam L. Savage at home? Addendum to the comment on 'Lies that economics is built on.'
LPS Out of the box. Comment on Nick Bunker's 'What’s behind rising wealth inequality?'
LPS Let Post-Keynesianism rest in peace. Comment on 'Post-Keynesian economics — an introduction.'
LPS A particularly silly critique. Comment on Nick Bunker's 'Piketty and the elasticity of substitution.'
Plus The one and only Profit Law and the multitude of unique historical circumstances.
RWER-Thread Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor.
TSW From opinion recycling to real scientific progress. A general comment on the blog's content. See * below.
TSW The profit theory is false since Adam Smith and this includes Marx's profit theory. Comment on 'The Puzzle of Profits.'
EconoPhysics-Discussion The Path Core as economic Schrödinger equation. Comment on James J. Wayne's 'Fundamental Equation of Economics.' Plus: Toolism — a strange déjà vu of the third kind. Plus: Directed randomness instead of indeterminism.
EconoPhysics-Discussion The Canonical Model and good advice from behind the curve.
economics e-journal Comment on Marcel R. de la Fonteijne's 'An Inconsistency in Using Stock Flow Consistency in Modelling the Monetary Profit Paradox.'
RWER Dr. X — conspiracy or failure of reason?
RWER Keynesianism — where are the non-Euclidean axioms?
WER-Debate Neoclassics and the zero point of scientific progress.
WER-Debate The emergence of profit in the monetary circuit.
WER-Debate Utility, mathematical spaces, and Barzilai's unanswered challenge.
WER-Debate Mathematics and the Cambridge tradition of loose verbal reasoning.
... flatlined communication
All links have been initially checked. In case of a missing link the essential content is easily regained from other parts of this site. See also: Lost and Found
End of Archive, back to Onblog