Here is a draft of all five chapters of 1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics. Previous chapters have been linked to here at MNE. This is the complete work.
This is a pre-publication copy. Comments and constructive criticism of the draft appreciated.
1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics
Clint Ballinger
4 comments:
Thanks Tom!
Warren Mosler once said (In an interview by Cullen Roche no less! Earlier days, lol)the following:
"Therefore, the key to understanding Modern Monetary Theory is this vertical-horizontal relationship. When one understands this, then Abba Lerner’s principles of functional finance become obvious." (Warren Mosler)
In some ways, 1000 Castaways is an attempt to express MMT to undergraduates/laypeople through this lens, Mosler's statement, even making a book length treatment of it.
Also, I plan to purposefully pitch it to undergraduate Econ101 students reading Mankiw and similar BS textbooks, telling them it is literally a corrective to what they are being brainwashed in.
I do not believe there is any use in a student or layperson learning ANYthing about the economy until they first firmly understand vertical and horizontal money, and how we manage those systems. And really, for intelligent voting and policy discussion, I think that is almost ALL they need to know.
What and where is profit?
Comment on Clint Ballinger’s ‘1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics’
Since Adam Smith/Karl Marx, economists get profit wrong: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Desai, Palgrave Online Dictionary, 2008)
Economics without a proper understanding of the concept of profit is like physics without a proper understanding of the concept of energy. This tells one that economics is to this day roughly at the level of Neanderthal science.#1, #2, #3
This is the actual state: The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.
Clint Ballinger is well aware of the dismal state of the dismal science and takes the gloves off with his new book: “Warren Mosler once said … the following: "Therefore, the key to understanding Modern Monetary Theory is this vertical-horizontal relationship. When one understands this, then Abba Lerner’s principles of functional finance become obvious." In some ways, 1000 CASTAWAYS is an attempt to express MMT to undergraduates/laypeople through this lens, Mosler’s statement, even making a book length treatment of it. Also, I plan to purposefully pitch it to undergraduate Econ101 students reading Mankiw and similar BS textbooks, telling them it is literally a corrective to what they are being brainwashed in.”
So, let us make the instant acid test and search the whole text for the word profit. Is profit anywhere properly defined? Nil return.#4 Another economic model without profit. MMTers, too, mess macroeconomics up.#5, #6
Without further ado: cast away the 1000 CASTAWAYS because Clint Ballinger, like the rest of his retarded colleagues, gets the “Fundamentals of Economics” wrong.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2511741
#2 Profit for Marxists
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2414301
#3 For details of the big picture see cross-references Profit
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/03/profit-cross-references.html
#4 How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705395
#5 Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-mmt-benefactors-of-humanity-never.html
#6 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/07/mmt-cross-references.html
Another fundamental of economics: Egmont Kakarot-Handtke is a clueless link-spamming troll.
Post a Comment