It is easy to represent the ‘income-expenditure model’ in a graph. Some people find this helpful as a visual aid to understanding; others, not so much. For those who find graphs confusing, this post can safely be ignored. In terms of economic meaning, it does not add much to what has already been explained. But for those who are comfortable with graphs, they can be a handy tool for illustrating or thinking through the logic of a model....heteconomist
Short & Simple 20 – Graphing the Income-Expenditure Model
Peter Cooper
1 comment:
As Popper said, science proceeds by conjecture and refutation.
This does not happen in economics. Morgenstern reminded his fellow economists back in 1941: “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.”
Economics is a failed science because it does get neither conjecture nor refutation right. This applies obviously to Peter Cooper.
• To begin with, he does not realize that the MMT balances equations are false since Keynes.
• When given the explicit mathematical refutation* he does understand it but presents the same analytical garbage in graphical form “as if nothing had happened”.
For the record: Not only Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians violate scientific standards on a daily basis but MMTers, too.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* Rectification of MMT macro accounting
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/09/rectification-of-mmt-macro-accounting.html
Post a Comment