PLEASE NOTE: If you see this text, it means that certain resources could not be loaded and the website is not displayed correctly. This can happen when browsing on Apple devices (iPhone, iPad etc.) due to a bug in their software. Try the refresh button to reload this website, or use a different device not running Apple's iOS. Stop using Apple products.
Type what you’re looking for and press Enter.

Economics is Pseudoscience; Economists are Stupid People

I’ve always hated economics and related subjects in school. I couldn’t explain exactly why back then, but it all seemed like worthless crap to me. Of course, like every other kid my age growing up in an authoritarian society, I had little choice but to sit through the lessons and try to get good enough grades (I used to barely pass those exams) so that I could please everyone else but myself.

It turns out that my intuition and feelings towards economics back then were correct and now I can explain it and back it up with facts.

First let me bring the following quote by Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek to your attention, taken from his lecture “The Pretense of Knowledge” which can be found in the book “The Essential: F. A. Hayek” (free download):

On the other hand, the economists are at this moment called upon to say how to extricate the free world from the serious threat of accelerating inflation which, it must be admitted, has been brought about by policies which the majority of economists recommended and even urged governments to pursue. We have indeed at the moment little cause for pride: as a profession we have made a mess of things.

It seems to me that this failure of the economists to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences—an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude—an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, “is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.” I want today to begin by explaining how some of the gravest errors of recent economic policy are a direct consequence of this scientistic error.

And there you have it. Hayek basically admits that economics is pseudoscience — a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. In other words, economics is fucking bullshit.

Not only that, but Hayek also admits that economists with their “pretense of knowledge” have made a “mess of things” due to “grave errors.” So when you hear the news every day about economic crises, bubbles and inflation everywhere around the world, you now know where that comes form. You’ll then also hear all kinds of “expert” economists in the news commenting on how to fix that mess (with more of the same bullshit policies, of course) when they’re the ones causing all of those problems in the first place. They’ll use complicated words to make it seem to the general public like they’re highly educated and knowledgeable, when in fact most of what they’re saying is fucking bullshit.

I do admire Hayek’s honesty in this case, and fortunately he’s not the only one who’s courageous and honest enough to face the truth. Economic and social theorist Jeremy Rifkin published an excellent book recently titled “The Zero Marginal Cost Society” (highly recommended) where he mentions the following:

I understand that this seems utterly incredible to most people, so conditioned have we become to the belief that capitalism is as indispensable to our well-being as the air we breathe. But despite the best efforts of philosophers and economists over the centuries to attribute their operating assumptions to the same laws that govern nature, economic paradigms are just human constructs, not natural phenomena.

Yes, current economic paradigms are human constructs and have no basis in the universal order. However, this didn’t stop economists from trying to legitimize their fucking bullshit pseudoscience by making it look like it was in fact rooted in natural law. Rifkin mentions in his book how they first misused Newtonian physics to do so:

The First and Second Industrial Revolutions brought with them an all-encompassing world view that legitimized the economic system by suggesting that its workings are a reflection of the way nature itself is organized and, therefore, unimpeachable. […] In his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, posits that the market operates in much the same way as the laws governing gravity, as discovered by Isaac Newton. […] The French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Baptiste Say, another early architect of classical economic theory, added a second assumption, again borrowing a metaphor from Newtonian physics.

The profession’s glaring misunderstanding of its own subject is what’s forcing a rethinking of the paradigm by academics coming from other disciplines across the natural and social sciences. I dealt with this in more detail in my previous book, The Third Industrial Revolution, in a chapter entitled “Retiring Adam Smith.”

Even Darwin’s theories of evolution were fair game to the fucking moronic economists, as Rifkin also mentions:

The misuse of Darwin’s theory to jack up the utility theory of property had some measurable effect. However, far more egregious and impactful was the wholesale expropriation of Darwin’s theory of natural selection by the sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer to advance what would later be called Social Darwinism—an ideologically inspired movement designed to justify the worst excesses of a rampant capitalism in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Spencer seized on Darwin’s description of natural selection to justify his own theory of economic evolution. Spencer wrote that “this survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection, or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.’” While Darwin is widely credited with coining the term survival of the fittest, it was actually conceived by Spencer after reading Darwin’s work.

Darwin later went to great lengths to distance himself from the term survival of the fittest, even apologizing for using it, but to no avail. The term stuck in the public consciousness and came to define Darwin’s theory in the minds of successive generations.

The above misuse of Darwin’s theory is what actually gives the elite in societies around the world the justification for benefitting from the economic exploitation and enslavement of the middle and lower class. To them it’s totally acceptable, you see, because it’s the way nature supposedly works. They’re apparently more fit and deserve to survive at the expense of others.

Economists are some of the most stupid people living on this planet today. Due to the Global Brain it’s going to become increasingly more difficult for these fuckwads to make their bullshit fly and they’re beginning to recognize this fact themselves. As Rifkin mentions:

The most intriguing passage in Summers and DeLong’s paper on the contradictions and challenges facing capitalist theory and practice in the unfolding Information Age is their comment that they “do not yet know what the right replacement paradigm will be.” The fact that they were even alluding to the likelihood of a new replacement paradigm is suggestive of the anomalies that are building up and casting a dark shadow on the long-term viability of the existing economic regime.

Like I’ve already told many people in the past, don’t waste your time studying economics or any related fields and subjects (such as accounting, business management etc.). Don’t willingly let people dumb you down; don’t make yourself stupid. These fields are all a huge waste of time, fucking worthless, and are going to be obsolete in the very near future.

You may find it interesting to know that at least one person in the recent past was already very aware of all of the above, and had ignored much of the economic bullshit theories in favor of theories that were more consistent with nature. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Here’s what Hitler had to say about economics and economists, as published in the book “Hitler’s Table Talk / 1941–1944 / His Private Conversations”:

All these things are simple and natural. The only thing is, one mustn’t let the Jew stick his nose in. The basis of Jewish commercial policy is to make matters incomprehensible for a normal brain. People go into ecstasies of confidence before the science of the great economists. Anyone who doesn’t understand is taxed with ignorance! At bottom, the only object of all these notions is to throw everything into confusion.

The very simple ideas that happen to be mine have nowadays penetrated into the flesh and blood of millions. Only the professors don’t understand that the value of money depends on the goods behind that money. One day I received some workers in the great hall at Obersalzberg, to give them an informal lecture on money. The good chaps understood me very well, and rewarded me with a storm of applause.

To give people money is solely a problem of making paper. The whole question is to know whether the workers are producing goods to match the paper that’s made. If work does not increase, so that production remains at the same level, the extra money they get won’t enable them to buy more things than they bought before with less money.

Obviously, that theory couldn’t have provided the material for a learned dissertation. For a distinguished economist, the thing is, no matter what you’re talking about, to pour out ideas in complicated meanderings and to use terms of Sibylline incomprehensibility.

Sound familiar? Note how Hitler also knew exactly where the economic pseudoscience came from — the international financial elite (the Zionist central bankers) who, at the time, were mostly “Jewish.”

Here’s more from Hitler:

It is the custom in Germany for students to pass from one university to another during the course of their studies—a custom, incidentally, which no other country has. But it would be false to assume that this variety in instruction is a safeguard against uniformity of outlook, for although the professors of the various universities fight among themselves, they are all, fundamentally and at heart, in complete agreement. I came to realize this clearly through my contacts with the economists. This must have been about 1929. At that time we published a paper on certain aspects of the economic problem. Immediately a whole company of national economists of all sorts, and from a variety of universities, joined forces and signed a circular in which they unanimously condemned our economic proposals. I made one attempt to have a serious discussion with one of the most renowned of them, and one who was regarded by his colleagues as a revolutionary in economic thought—Zwiedineck. The results were disastrous!

At the time the State had floated a loan of two million seven hundred thousand marks for the construction of a road. I told Zwiedineck that I regarded this way of financing a project as foolish in the extreme. The life of the road in question would be some fifteen years; but the amortization of the capital involved would continue for eighty years. What the Government was really doing was to evade an immediate financial obligation by transferring the charges to the men of the next generation and, indeed, of the generation after. I insisted that nothing could be more unsound, and that what the Government should really do was to take radical steps to reduce the rate of interest and thus to render capital more fluid.

I next argued that the gold standard, the fixing of rates of exchange and so forth were shibboleths which I had never regarded and never would regard as weighty and immutable principles of economy. Money, to me, was simply a token of exchange for work done, and its value depended absolutely on the value of the work accomplished. Where money did not represent services rendered, I insisted, it had no value at all.

Zwiedineck was horrified and very excited. Such ideas, he declared, would upset the accepted economic principles of the entire world, and the putting of them into practice would cause a breakdown of the world’s political economy.

When, later, after our assumption of power, I put my theories into practice, the economists were not in the least discountenanced, but calmly set to work to prove by scientific argument that my theories were, indeed, sound economy!

Yes, the fact that Hitler ignored much of the economic bullshit put forth by the moronic economists back then ultimately paid off handsomely for the Germans. In my post “Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER Told” I had already mentioned some of the reasons why Hitler was so successful (and why consequently, the elite had to get rid of him). There I mentioned the book by Gottfried Feder titled “Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest Slavery” (1919) where you’ll find the following in the introduction:

Adolf Hitler’s economic system – heavily influenced by the genius of Gottfried Feder – was unlike anything the world had ever seen, and it worked better than anyone predicted at the time. […] Some authors and Nazi sympathizers have even suggested that if Germany’s brilliant economic ideas had spread to other nations, this would soon lead to the end of endless profits and power for the banksters, and hence the need for the Allied powers to bring Germany to her knees.

In “Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People” (1984), Sheldon Emry wrote: “Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today.”

Economists today are struggling to find ways of how to reduce unemployment, when years ago Hitler had managed to almost completely eliminate unemployment in Germany:

It is true that unemployment figures tumbled. In 1932, in the dying days of the Weimar Republic, 5.6 million people were unemployed – many of whom gave their support to the Nazi Party as the only party that offered them hope. By 1934, this figure had fallen to 2.7 million – a seemingly impossible decrease. By 1936, only 1.6 million people were unemployed and by 1938 the figure was 0.4 million. Therefore in five years, unemployment had fallen by 5.4 million – 96%. No other west European country came anywhere near this figure – hence why it was labelled a “miracle”.

Miracles apparently can happen when you ignore the fucking bullshit pseudoscience that is perpetuated by a small elite in order to keep the masses dumb, ignorant and/or confused, and makes it easy for them to be exploited like slaves. We’re all, in fact, slaves in the current economic system, and I go into more details on that in my post “Statism: A System for your Enslavement.”

The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is the one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. John Kenneth Galbraith

It’s too bad that I didn’t know all of this back when I was forced to learn this fucking bullshit at school, because I would have raised some serious hell if I did.

Additional Notes


  1. Karel Donk's Blog » Ronald Bernard Exposes the Zionist Financial (Banking) Elite (03/05/2017)
  2. Karel Donk's Blog » On money, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general (12/12/2017)


There are 15 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.