and which is using neoclassical economics, which has no foundation in economic reality,
At which point the ‘Tater disappears into a cloud of tuberousness.
The idea that neoliberal economics might be wrong, well, perhaps. Not that I agree but it’s at least an interesting discussion to have. To claim that neoclassical economics has no foundation in economic reality is, well, it’s absurd.
What Is Neoclassical Economics?
Neoclassical economics is a broad theory that focuses on supply and demand as the driving forces behind the production, pricing, and consumption of goods and services. It emerged in around 1900 to compete with the earlier theories of classical economics.
So, that’s everything from the Marginalist Revolution onwards – including all of Keynes of course – trashed because neoclassical economics is wrong.
Even, in fact, MMT is wrong:
This paper shows that so-called modern monetary theory (MMT) lacks a sound economic foundation for its far-reaching policy recommendations. This paper’s main contribution to the literature concerns the theoretical foundation of MMT. A simple macroeconomic model shows that MMT is indistinguishable from the Keynesian cross model, as well as a neoclassical macroeconomic model, even when taking account of money in the sense of MMT.
If we do go on to say that, even so, neoclassical is wrong then we’re left with only the classical economists. Smith to Marx – which isn’t all that useful a palette to paint the current world from. There are bits that are right in both of those named, of course. But it is still trying to do things in B&W rather than colour.
The other possible explanation here is that the P³ has no friggin clue, which is always possible.