William Paul Bell Queensland University Researcher

Why is mainstream economics not a social science but ideological mathematics?

Posts Tagged ‘capitalism

Termination of the history of economics courses contributing to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)

leave a comment »

Helge Nome : The key to controlling humans does not lie in building fences around them, but to steer their minds away from unwanted questions.

http://wileyeconomicsfocus.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/brainwashing1.jpgThe elimination of courses in the history of economics has contributed to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) by eroding institutional memory that allowed the dismantling of structures designed to prevent a re-occurrence of the Great Depression.  With little space in the curriculum for reflection on the past, graduate economists feed on a diet of neoclassical mathematics produces an extreme form of bounded rationality where history is both irrelevant and unknown, which makes for a very powerful ideology by steering minds away from unwanted questions. Read the rest of this entry »

Free market Fundamentalism and the US Health System

leave a comment »

President Obama’s health reforms run against a strong current of free market fundamentalism.  A fundamental belief that the free market always delivers the best results.  My article ‘The G8 protests and the logically inconsistent foundations of neoclassical economics’ discusses how there lacks a theoretical justification for the free market delivering the best results.  The empirical evidence shows that alternative systems of health provision provide better health outcomes for less cost than the US free market approach, see the CIA world factbook on ‘infant mortality rate’ and ‘life expectance at birth’.  These basic health indicators are picked deliberately as they encompass equity and disparities in health care provision.  Noting that the US health system might well provide good health care outcomes to the segments of the population who can manage to stay insured or are rich. Read the rest of this entry »

Comparing the role of government in self-control problems from behavioural and neoclassical economic perspectives

leave a comment »

In my previous post, titled ‘The G8 protests and the logically inconsistent foundations of neoclassical economics’ , I discussed how neoclassical economics is theoretically and philosophical flawed and how it has become entrenched in our political systems via university economics departments indoctrinating undergraduates with the neoclassical ideology. The current article discusses how the indoctrination produces a world view that causes confusion over the role of government and the concept of freedom of choice. Additionally, the current article provides an economic perspective on  ‘Weighing the blame for illness: biology versus personal responsibility‘ by Dena T. Smith. Read the rest of this entry »

The G8 protests and the logically inconsistent foundations of neoclassical economics

leave a comment »

Neoclassical economics is deductive, using a mathematical axiom-proof-theory format.   Arnsperger and Varoufakis (2006) list the three basic axioms of neoclassical as methodological instrumentalism, methodological individualism and methodological equilibration.   In such an approach the basic axioms have to be correct otherwise the whole framework becomes unsound.   In contrast to the deductive approach, the scientific approach is inductive, forming theories from observation and using prediction to falsify the theories (Neuman 2003, p. 51).   Neoclassical economists have become adept at avoiding empirical falsification by creating ad-hoc explanations as to why their theories fail to work when confronted with empirical evidence, for example the Efficient Market Hypothesis predicting dividend volatility in excess of price volatility but the converse is observed (Shiller 1981).   Falsification avoidance is the sign of a degenerative research program (Lakatos 1976).   So, rather than use empirical falsification, a more suitable approach to disprove deductive frameworks is to use a logical proof showing their axioms lead to an absurdity.   The Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu Theorem (Debreu 1959) proves the basic axioms of neoclassical economics are logical inconsistent.   The Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu Theorem (Debreu 1959) shows that starting with the first two axioms leads to a shapeless excess demand curve.   The shapeless excess demand curve means that there are multiple equilibria and equilibrium are unstable making the third axiom untenable.   To fix this problem, it is assumed that all goods have constant Engel curves.   A good would have a constant Engel curve if somebody spends the same proportion of their income on the good as their income grew (Keen 2001).   This is an unlikely scenario as when income grows then people consume more luxury goods and basic goods become a smaller fraction of their income.   Can you think of a good with a constant Engel curve?   Colander (2000, p. 3) equates neoclassical economics “to the celestial mechanics of a nonexistent universe” for using theory outside its domain assumption (Musgrave 1981).   That is neoclassical economics as a pursuit in pure mathematics for intellectual exercise is fine but claiming applicability to the real world is misleading. Read the rest of this entry »