Inaugural post

This blog will be a record of my journey to build a scientific economic paradigm from the ground up. The journey is to build a scientific foundation for economics so that we can head in a demonstrably correct direction. Along the way the journey will provide many powerful and useful insights to help to make a better world. There can be no preconceived bias as to where this journey will lead in terms of destinations or conclusions. The only objective of this journey is the true path.

Clearly, the implication of this blog is that the true path for economics has not yet been taken or discovered. Given the continual economic strife around the world, evident to many people, the falseness of economics is self-evident, but to many others, the premise of false economics appears outrageous, since many recognizably great economists have contributed to the subject. An important start for this project is to pinpoint precisely the fallacies and deficiencies, why and how they have occurred, and what need to be done to either fix or avoid those deficiencies.

For the time being, comments are not permitted, until sufficient material has been posted to make the nature of the project clear and to make the modus operandi understandable. Thank you for your patience.

This entry was posted in Paradigm. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Inaugural post

  1. John says:

    Readers of this blog might be interested in the two following articles:

    From the Guardian: “After the crash, we need a revolution in the way we teach economics” Ha-Joon Chang and Jonathan Aldred

    From the Age: “The problem with the way we educate economists” Tim Thornton

    Those with a more practical bent and concern with income inequality might like to see:


  2. admin says:

    John, Welcome to this blogs. Thank you for your links.

    While basic economic textbooks need to be rewritten, I doubt whether pluralism is the answer, given the expectations and time limitations of basic courses. It would be a great achievement for a basic course to teach students a clear understanding basic concepts, the problems of economics and a framework for defining the economic concerns of our age. Pluralism represents dead economic religions, whereas new thinking is required for a new age.

    Your last link shows one of the many aspects of kleptocracy, which is largely responsible for wealth inequality we observe, not the entrepreneurial capitalism of Schumpeter. Piketty's solution of new wealth taxation is distracting from the real problem of collecting the wealth tax already owing. More or a higher tax is not a cure for the disease of kleptocracy.

    • John says:

      Partly agree. I am delighted that the students are organizing for a more relevant education in economics. That is certainly inclusive of any 'new thinking'. On wealth inequality I was struck by a statement by a former Professor of economics that has gone over to the dark side:

      “The richest 50 people in Australia have more wealth than the bottom two million. The richest three people in Australia have more wealth than the bottom one million. Cumulatively, the increase in inequality over the past three decades represents a $365 billion shift from the bottom 99 per cent to the top 1 per cent. Most Australians are worried about inequality. When asked their views about wealth distribution, the vast majority have a preference for a more egalitarian society than we have today”.

      Source: Andrew Leigh, “Gap between haves and have nots must be narrowed”, The Australian, April 21, 2014.


  3. admin says:

    It's good that Andrew Leigh can throw some light on the dark side and hopefully do something serious (rather than just talking) about the source of inequality. The coalition's proposed "deficit levy" as a tax on the "rich" is such an illusion. I wonder how much it will actually collect (given the Age article you had linked).

Leave a Reply