Monday, November 19, 2018

Why is macroeconomics so hard to teach?


Doesn't seem hard to me you just choose which Theory you fancy and then just teach that Theory.... MMT or otherwise... then let the dialectical process sort it out... Art Degree methodology 101...

What is so hard about that?  I don't see it..




26 comments:

AXEC / E.K-H said...

#DrainTheScientificSwamp

Macro is hard to teach because it is failed/fake science. Nick Rowe, according to The Economist “a master of the craft”, realized nothing during his whole career. Too bad for his poor students. For details see:

The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-miracle-cure-of-economists-micro.html

Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/fact-of-life-your-econ-prof-is.html

From false microfoundations to true macrofoundations
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2018/02/from-false-microfoundations-to-true.html

The new macroeconomic paradigm
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/09/the-new-macroeconomic-paradigm.html

Is Nick Rowe stupid or corrupt or both?
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-nick-rowe-stupid-or-corrupt-or-both.html

Cryptoeconomics ― the best of Nick Rowe’s spam folder
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/01/cryptoeconomics-best-of-nick-rowes-spam.html

“I never learned maths, so I had to think” ― another False-Hero-Memorial
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/08/i-never-learned-maths-so-i-had-to-think.html

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Matt Franko said...

“Fact of life: your econ prof is scientifically incompetent”

They have never been trained in Science so you should not be surprised...

Matt Franko said...

What you are saying is effectively “hey! These people who’ve never been trained in Science are not good at science!”

Duh...

Konrad said...

As an electrician, I twisted wires together so that light bulbs, hair driers, and sex toys would function. This makes me a scientist. Therefore I am the only individual in this blog who is qualified to discuss economics, or any other topic.

Art major!
None of you are qualified!
All of you are biased against war!

As you can see, I have no clue how pathetic I appear.

Someone please help me.

Andrew Anderson said...

Macro is hard to teach because it is failed/fake science. AXEC / E.K-H

It should not be surprising that a credit system with sham liabilities should be unjust nor that a system with sham negative feedback should be unstable/unpredictable.

Until recently, most economists ignored banking because they believed in "loanable funds" or perhaps because they are paid to look the other way wrt to banking. Either way, it's a fatal error wrt understanding/prediction.

Matt Franko said...

“qualified to discuss economics, or any other topic.”

I’m qualified to discus any Discipline in a Science method context...

Probably not in a Art method context but I am at least aware of the 2 different methodologies and their inequivalence...

S400 said...

You think you are but you’re not. You haven’t figure out that distinction yet.

Matt Franko said...

You guys don’t have the applicable training...

Noah Way said...

You need a bachelors degree in electrical engineering to understand macroeconomics.

FRANKO™
Providing daily demonstrations of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Matt Franko said...

You need at least any rigorous technical training under an applied scientific methodology....

Otherwise it’s like we can observe you have a bunch of people instead trained under a liberal arts methodology just arguing for their associated Thesis vs other Art people anti Thesis until at some point a synthesis is established and the process begins again .. ie ‘deficit dove’ , neoclassical synthesis, etc...,

This is how MMT is operating iow MMT is their associated “thesis’ and they are in a competitive process with new Keynesian, Austrian, etc...

This is not the science methodology where you have to be seen making accurate predictions and if you miss then you have to adjust your hypothesis, etc...

So you can see MMT be wrong for 10 years predicting an imminent financial crisis which never comes and instead of re-examining they just keep saying the same thing...

This is similar to what Einstein is often credit with saying is a definition of insanity... ie doing the same thing and expecting a different result...

AXEC / E.K-H said...

#DrainTheScientificSwamp

Both Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are materially and formally inconsistent, that is, scientifically worthless. In order to advance from brain-dead storytelling to science, economics needs a paradigm shift from provably false Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT to true macrofoundations.#1, #2

Economics is a failed/fake science and MMTers are part of it.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 New Economic Thinking: The 10 crucial points
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/07/new-economic-thinking-10-crucial-points.html

#2 If it isn’t macro-axiomatized, it isn’t economics
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/02/if-it-isnt-macro-axiomatized-it-isnt.html

Matt Franko said...

"Economics is a failed/fake science and MMTers are part of it."

There is no such thing as a "failed science"... science is a process...

I suppose you could "fail" in application of the scientific methodology but there is no such thing as a "failed science"...

Economics is 99.999% taught not under a science method but rather under a (liberal) art methodology so in this respect it logically cannot be a "failed science"...

The different "schools" each teach their own "Thesis" or "Theory" whether Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT, etc... probably many others..

I dont see why this person would say this is "hard to teach"... seems easy to me anyway...

you never have to be correct in your predictions and never have to adjust your thinking in the face of a failed prediction.. once the Theory of choice is set in stone in your brain...

Seems a lot easier than Science where you have to keep "going back to the drawing board" (FD figurative language here for you Art Degree morons out there... means having to constantly make adjustments to your functional hypothesis)


AXEC / E.K-H said...

#DrainTheScientificSwamp

Science is well-defined: “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)

Often, research comes to the conclusion that a theory is materially/formally inconsistent. In this case, one has a failed theory. The Flat Earth Theory is a case in point. This theory is NO longer part of the scientific process.

In economics, things are special insofar as the four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― and all variants thereof are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit ― the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― wrong.

By consequence, economics is a failed/fake science or what Feynman called a cargo cult science.#1

Your assertion: “There is no such thing as a ‘failed science’... science is a process...” proves that you are so far behind the curve that it is worse than comical.#2

The point is that economists in their utter scientific corruption simply sweep clear cut refutation under the carpet: “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)

Take notice that MMT has been refuted. To “continue to write about it as if nothing had happened” is an act of plain scientific corruption.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 What is so great about cargo cult science? or, How economists learned to stop worrying about failure
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-is-so-great-about-cargo-cult.html

#2 Economists cannot do the simple math of profit — better keep them out of politics
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/01/economists-cannot-do-simple-math-of.html

S400 said...

Take notice that EHK has been refuted. To “continue to write about it as if nothing had happened” is an act of plain scientific corruption.
Troll go away!

Noah Way said...

Economics is fake science because it is not science at all.

science noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

FRANKO™
Putting the "I" in idiot.

Matt Franko said...

“sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.“

You are authorized to return to your finger painting...

Noah Way said...

And now we get the the heart of the problem: morons who think that the principles of science can be applied to an abstract, artificial construct.

Aside from the fact that you have not refuted my previous comment. Another example of the Dunning Kruger Effect: you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

S400

The Economist summarizes: “Macroeconomic theorists disagree on almost everything. That is one of the reasons it is such a hard subject to teach.”

In other words, after 200+ years there is still no such thing as macroeconomics. And microeconomics is known to be a bad joke. So, there is NO economics.

Peirce said: “That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.”

Economists never got out of the swamp of worthless opinions and never reached the firm ground of scientific knowledge.

The intelligent layman can refute every supply-demand-equilibrium teacher.#1 Economics students, though, swallow this proto-scientific garbage hook, line, and sinker for generations.

MMT, too, is provably false. You neither understand the proof nor its far-reaching implications.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 How the intelligent non-economist can refute every economist hands down
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-intelligent-non-economist-can.html

S400 said...

Troll! Leave!

AXEC / E.K-H said...

S400

Science is about true/false and nothing else. So, tell the blog audience which of the two macroeconomic relations is true/false:
(i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
(ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0

Nick Rowe, who is regarded among his silly academic peers as ‘master of the craft’, could not do it.#1, #2

“That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition.” (Peirce)

So, this is the big chance of your sorry troll existence, settle the pivotal question of macroeconomics.

Perhaps one of the MMT geniuses, Mitchell, Mosler, Kelton, Tcherneva, Wray, Fullwiler, Forstater, Kaboub, Pettifor, Keen, Tymoigne, Willingham, Grumbine, Murphy, etcetera, can help you.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 It has been said before but economists still don’t get it
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/06/it-has-been-said-before-but-economists.html

#2 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/wikipedia-and-promotion-of-economists.html

Matt Franko said...

"the principles of science can be applied to an abstract, artificial construct. "

Hey douche (figurative language), people earn Science Degrees in Accounting, Economics (albeit rarely), Math, etc ALL THE TIME...

They are trained to apply Science methods PROPERLY which includes functional abstraction techniques...

YOU are the ones who end up improperly objectifying everything... because you have never been adequately trained in applying the techniques of abstraction in your Art Degree programs...

Matt Franko said...

S,

AX can do his own Accounting if he wants to... perhaps it would reveal some financial detail that is missing in the standard National Accounting...

Its not like the people using the standard National Accounting are getting ideal results from the policies they are deriving from it...




Matt Franko said...

"the principles of science can be applied to an abstract, artificial construct. "

Should be "the principles of science can be applied using abstract constructs to achieve optimum real results"...

Go back to finger painting (figurative language)...

Matt Franko said...

Naoh douche (figurative language),

How do you explain the Art Degree Monetarist economorons who said that the QE was going to cause "hyper inflation!" then prices were observed to collapse, now we see those same Art Degree people saying that the removal of the QE is going to slow things down yet GDP growth rate is increasing as US removes QE?

How do YOU explain that?

Noah Way said...

Once again, FRANKO™ (The poster boy for mental retardation) fails to address the issue - economics is not science. Applying scientific principles to an abstract artificial construct is an exercise in stupidity. Choking on his spittle of indignation, he froths at the mouth about art degrees while remaining utterly oblivious to intelligence, logic, sanity, and even basic knowledge.

Giving a monkey a keyboard doesn't make him any smarter - to the contrary it only allows him to broadcast his ignorance.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Matt Franko, S400, Andrew Anderson, Konrad, Noah Way

The question of this thread is: “Why is macroeconomics so hard to teach?”

The answer is: “Because there is NO valid macroeconomics.

Why?

Because economists in general, and MMTers in particular, cannot answer the simple question which of the two macroeconomic relations is true/false:
(i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
(ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0.#1

After having flunked the intelligence test at the entry level, the MMT promotion team should focus on what they are really good at. As Matt Franko said: “You are authorized to return to your finger painting...”

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 MMT is idiocy and fraud
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/03/mmt-is-idiocy-and-fraud.html