Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard
Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Jeffrey Sachs ― Green New Deal is feasible and affordable’
Blog-Reference
The axiomatically correct Profit Law for the economy as a whole is given by Q=Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) and reduces to Q=(G−T) if Yd, I, S, X, M is taken out of the picture for a moment. The reduced Profit Law says that the monetary profit of the business sector Q is equal to the deficit (G>T) of the public sector, in a nutshell: Public Deficit = Private Profit.
So, from the standpoint of plain self-interest, the one-percenters and their useful academic spokespersons should consistently argue FOR deficit spending and the ninety-nine-percenters and their academic spokespersons should consistently argue AGAINST it. Reality is different.#1, #2, #3, #4, #5
The communicative problem is this: the Oligarchy cannot argue, folks we need permanent public deficits for our economic well-being and growth of cash-backed political power, so they let their academic trolls argue, folks YOU need public deficits for YOUR social well-being and YOUR survival in view of rapidly increasing environmental hazards.#6 *
It was MMTers like Warren Mosler who took it upon them to actively promote deficit-spending/money-creation and a continuously growing public debt as a benefit for WeThePeople. This is a fraud because just the opposite is actually the case, that is, MMT benefits the Oligarchy. What can be currently observed, is that not only a growing number of economists is jumping on the MMT bandwagon but also opinion leaders of the Oligarchy like Warren Buffet.#7
It seems that virtually all economic schools are now for socially/environmentally enlightened capitalism with state-generated profits for the Oligarchy. The remaining tiny problem being those pesky rent-seekers who simply take their public-deficit free lunch without pretending that they work hard for the best of humanity: “… the GND [Green New Deal] entails using true price based on true costs, which eliminates the extraction of economic rent through socializing negative externality, the bill for which is now coming due on global society and the global economy. The system is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, while the fat cats become fatter on rent extraction. Take away the rents and ‘capitalism’ works all by itself through actual market price by preempting rent-seeking and rent extraction (as many Austrian, economists have been saying from the right and Marxist and Marxian economists from the left.” A great coalition of economic trolls is currently in the making.
Tom Hickey fails to realize or to mention that nothing has ever produced more profit = rent than the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation. Fabulous financial wealth is the mirror image of fabulous public debt ($22 trillion).#8
Since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, economists fail to tell WeThePeople where profit and financial wealth really come from. MMTers are only the last in a long series of storytelling academic trolls.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
#2 MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?
#3 MMT: academic snake oil for the people
#4 Economics as a cover for agenda pushing
#5 Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
#6 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help
#7 MMT for beginners
#8 Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy
Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Jeffrey Sachs ― Green New Deal is feasible and affordable’
Blog-Reference
The axiomatically correct Profit Law for the economy as a whole is given by Q=Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) and reduces to Q=(G−T) if Yd, I, S, X, M is taken out of the picture for a moment. The reduced Profit Law says that the monetary profit of the business sector Q is equal to the deficit (G>T) of the public sector, in a nutshell: Public Deficit = Private Profit.
So, from the standpoint of plain self-interest, the one-percenters and their useful academic spokespersons should consistently argue FOR deficit spending and the ninety-nine-percenters and their academic spokespersons should consistently argue AGAINST it. Reality is different.#1, #2, #3, #4, #5
The communicative problem is this: the Oligarchy cannot argue, folks we need permanent public deficits for our economic well-being and growth of cash-backed political power, so they let their academic trolls argue, folks YOU need public deficits for YOUR social well-being and YOUR survival in view of rapidly increasing environmental hazards.#6 *
It was MMTers like Warren Mosler who took it upon them to actively promote deficit-spending/money-creation and a continuously growing public debt as a benefit for WeThePeople. This is a fraud because just the opposite is actually the case, that is, MMT benefits the Oligarchy. What can be currently observed, is that not only a growing number of economists is jumping on the MMT bandwagon but also opinion leaders of the Oligarchy like Warren Buffet.#7
It seems that virtually all economic schools are now for socially/environmentally enlightened capitalism with state-generated profits for the Oligarchy. The remaining tiny problem being those pesky rent-seekers who simply take their public-deficit free lunch without pretending that they work hard for the best of humanity: “… the GND [Green New Deal] entails using true price based on true costs, which eliminates the extraction of economic rent through socializing negative externality, the bill for which is now coming due on global society and the global economy. The system is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, while the fat cats become fatter on rent extraction. Take away the rents and ‘capitalism’ works all by itself through actual market price by preempting rent-seeking and rent extraction (as many Austrian, economists have been saying from the right and Marxist and Marxian economists from the left.” A great coalition of economic trolls is currently in the making.
Tom Hickey fails to realize or to mention that nothing has ever produced more profit = rent than the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation. Fabulous financial wealth is the mirror image of fabulous public debt ($22 trillion).#8
Since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, economists fail to tell WeThePeople where profit and financial wealth really come from. MMTers are only the last in a long series of storytelling academic trolls.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
#2 MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?
#3 MMT: academic snake oil for the people
#4 Economics as a cover for agenda pushing
#5 Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
#6 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help
#7 MMT for beginners
#8 Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy
***
Source: Twitter
Source: Twitter
February 23, 2019
Dear idiots, time to get saving and investment straight (I)
Comment on Charlie Price on ‘Would Attempts to Increase Saving Damage Recovery?’
Blog-Reference (Twitter link)
Murray Rothbard argued: “In short, what can help a depression is not more consumption, but, on the contrary, less consumption and more savings (and, concomitantly, more investment).”
Charlie Price argues: “… you can’t create investment by saving. In fact, attempts at saving will reduce investment.”
Keynes argued: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, p. 63).
Here is the short proof that economists are to this day too stupid to put 2 and 2 together.
(i) The elementary production-consumption economy is given by three macroeconomic axioms:(A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.
(ii) The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e. X=O.
(iii) The monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw,
(iv) The monetary saving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C.
(v) Ergo Q+S=0 or Q=−S.
The balances add up to zero. The counterpart of household sector saving S is business sector loss −Q. The counterpart of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Both Q and S are measurable with the precision of two decimal places.
From (v) follows immediately that saving is NEVER equal to investment.#1, #2
For the elementary investment economy holds Q=I−S. From this follows that (1) saving and investment are causally independent and NEVER equal, (2) all I=S/IS-LM models are false, (3) Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, New Keynesianism are scientifically worthless (4) Murray Rothbard and Charlie Price, too, are brain dead blatherers.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Settling the Theory of Saving
#2 Squaring the Investment Cycle
Related '“But economics is not pure mathematics or logic” No, it is pure blather' and 'Why is 0!=1? And why is I≠S? And why economics teaching is rotten'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Refutation of I=S.
Comment on Charlie Price on ‘Would Attempts to Increase Saving Damage Recovery?’
Blog-Reference (Twitter link)
Murray Rothbard argued: “In short, what can help a depression is not more consumption, but, on the contrary, less consumption and more savings (and, concomitantly, more investment).”
Charlie Price argues: “… you can’t create investment by saving. In fact, attempts at saving will reduce investment.”
Keynes argued: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (GT, p. 63).
Here is the short proof that economists are to this day too stupid to put 2 and 2 together.
(i) The elementary production-consumption economy is given by three macroeconomic axioms:(A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.
(ii) The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e. X=O.
(iii) The monetary profit of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw,
(iv) The monetary saving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C.
(v) Ergo Q+S=0 or Q=−S.
The balances add up to zero. The counterpart of household sector saving S is business sector loss −Q. The counterpart of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Both Q and S are measurable with the precision of two decimal places.
From (v) follows immediately that saving is NEVER equal to investment.#1, #2
For the elementary investment economy holds Q=I−S. From this follows that (1) saving and investment are causally independent and NEVER equal, (2) all I=S/IS-LM models are false, (3) Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, New Keynesianism are scientifically worthless (4) Murray Rothbard and Charlie Price, too, are brain dead blatherers.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 Settling the Theory of Saving
#2 Squaring the Investment Cycle
Related '“But economics is not pure mathematics or logic” No, it is pure blather' and 'Why is 0!=1? And why is I≠S? And why economics teaching is rotten'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Refutation of I=S.
Posted by AXEC /
0 comments:
Post a Comment