Victor Aguilar

Varoufakis and Arnsperger write: “Critics must find a clear definition of neoclassicism if only in order to liberate neoclassical economists from the temptation to barricade themselves behind infantile arguments viz. the non-existence of their school of thought. Then, the good debate may begin.” A good debate begins by calling people one disagrees with infantile liars??? I have written a short review of Varoufakis’ and Arnsperger’s paper to see if we can sort out who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Professor Egmont Kakarot-Handtke has criticized my Axiomatic Theory of Economics. I reply. Prerequisite is an understanding, at least in outline form, of Axiomatic Economics. I have a simplified exposition here at Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270687116_AXIOMATIC_THEORY_of_ECONOMICS

Retraction Watch is doing a good thing by notifying us of papers that have been retracted because of fraud, plagiarism and other legerdemain. But the message is that the process itself is fundamentally sound if it were not subverted by these few bad apples. I argue here that the process is unsound. Francis Bacon pulled off an advertising coup that would make Madison Avenue blush when he named his own methodology the “scientific” method, thus tacitly implying that everyone else is unscientific. In this paper I present an alternative to the scientific method.

I have written a book titled Axiomatic Theory of Economics. This book is about a new economic theory. It is not a simplified version of mainstream economics. It does not predict the future, calling neither prosperity or ruin in America. It is certainly not in the "how to be a salesman" genre, nor does it propose to tell the reader how to make money in the framework of current financial institutions. It is an abstract treatise. The purpose of this book is to give an axiomatic foundation for the theory of economics. The success of the axiomatic method employed by Euclid (in geometry), Kolmogorov (in probability), and others is well known and I claim that similar success can be realized in economics. However, by defining economics to be concerned with the creation of wealth rather than the allocation of scarce resources, I have not only solidified it but have shifted its basic paradigm. I address the issue of price and stock. Supply and demand does not work. This is a fundame...

Economics students have a rather fantastic view of the history of their science. Their professors have taught them hate for " mainstream " economics, which does not make sense. Obviously, mainstream is (by definition) what is being taught to undergraduates. The purpose of this paper is to make clear exactly what is now and has been for forty years the mainstream of economic science.

The socialists and the Austrians are at opposite ends of the spectrum of views on inevitability. Socialists believe that the government can turn on a dime, veering away from economic collapse towards a socialistic paradise simply by giving the right person the ...

1) People trade things that are of equal value. If they trade things that are not equal in value, then one of them is being cheated. ... 2) Borrowers are trading more money in the future for less money now. It follows from premise #1 that they are being cheated.

In this paper we will prove new criteria for the congruence of convex quadrilaterals in Hyperbolic geometry and consequently, display the appropriate methodological approach in teaching the same. There are seven criteria for the congruence of hyperbolic quadrilaterals, while there are five for the congruence of Euclidean quadrilaterals. Using a comparative geometric analysis of quadrilateral congruence criteria in Euclidean and Hyperbolic geometry we described all possible cases and made a methodological approach to the problem. The obtained results can influence the approaches to the study of these contents with students in the hyperbolic geometry teaching.

Economics has failed us: but where are the fresh voices? Mainstream economic models have been discredited. But why aren't political scientists and sociologists offering an alternative view? " asks Aditya Chakrabortty. Answer: because the pluralists banned the axiomatic method. The Journal of Philosophical Economics declares in their mission statement, " This journal eschews monolithic perspectives and seeks innovative work that is intellectually pluralist. " So, instead of a real, all-encompassing economic theory, we get conferences that " devote as much time to discussing the holistic massage industry ('using a Foucauldian lens') as to analyzing financiers. "

Mark Buchanan demands that "a science of markets and economics should not seek a universal theory, but rather an assortment of related models and theories attuned to specific phenomena." Towards this end, it is common for economics journals to ban the axiomatic method. For instance, the Journal of Philosophical Economics declares in their mission statement, "This journal eschews monolithic perspectives and seeks innovative work that is intellectually pluralist." I contend with this view and support my conclusions with references to famous axiomatic systems, such as the primitive equations that form the axiomatic basis for numerical weather prediction as developed by Lewis Fry Richardson.

The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics mission statement (Block, Hoppe & Salerno 1998) claims that “This forum is open... to articles expressing cogent criticisms of Austrian economics that are useful in provoking a rethinking and clarification of critical points of its theory, policy, or method. As was the case during our tenure with the Review of Austrian Economics, we will not shy away from controversy, regardless of whose oxen are gored.”

The purpose of this paper is to provoke a rethinking of Austrian economics and perhaps to gore a few oxen. I have tried to be cogent.

Retraction Watch is doing a good thing by notifying us of papers that have been retracted because of fraud, plagiarism and other legerdemain.  But the message is that the process itself is fundamentally sound if it were not subverted by these few bad apples.

I argue here that the process is unsound.  Francis Bacon pulled off an advertising coup that would make Madison Avenue blush when he named his own methodology the “scientific” method, thus tacitly implying that everyone else is unscientific.  In this paper I present an alternative to the scientific method.

Varoufakis and Arnsperger write:

“Critics must find a clear definition of neoclassicism if only in order to liberate neoclassical economists from the temptation to barricade themselves behind infantile arguments viz. the non-existence of their school of thought.  Then, the good debate may begin.”

A good debate begins by calling people one disagrees with infantile liars???  I have written a short review of Varoufakis’ and Arnsperger’s paper to see if we can sort out who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Mark Buchanan demands that “a science of markets and economics should not seek a universal theory, but rather an assortment of related models and theories attuned to specific phenomena.” Towards this end, it is common for economics journals to ban the axiomatic method. For instance, the Journal of Philosophical Economics declares in their mission statement, “This journal eschews monolithic perspectives and seeks innovative work that is intellectually pluralist.” I contend with this view and support my conclusions with references to famous axiomatic systems, such as the primitive equations that form the axiomatic basis for numerical weather prediction as developed by Lewis Fry Richardson.

Economics students have a rather fantastic view of the history of their science. Their professors have taught them hate for “mainstream” economics, which does not make sense. Obviously, mainstream is (by definition) what is being taught to undergraduates. The purpose of this paper is to make clear exactly what is now and has been for forty years the mainstream of economic science.

“Economics has failed us: but where are the fresh voices? Mainstream economic models have been discredited. But why aren't political scientists and sociologists offering an alternative view?” asks Aditya Chakrabortty. Answer: because the pluralists banned the axiomatic method. The Journal of Philosophical Economics declares in their mission statement, “This journal eschews monolithic perspectives and seeks innovative work that is intellectually pluralist.” So, instead of a real, all-encompassing economic theory, we get conferences that “devote as much time to discussing the holistic massage industry (‘using a Foucauldian lens’) as to analyzing financiers.”

This is a textbook about plane geometry. It will be divided into two volumes, Geometry without Multiplication: White through Red Belt and Geometry with Multiplication: Blue through Black Belt. The white- and yellow-belt chapters are absolute geometry; the remainder of Volume One and all of Volume Two is Euclidean geometry. It is primarily intended to train mathletes for competition, but it also provides geometry needed by engineers and military officers; the discussion of machine gun emplacement is of interest to most boys, even if they do not plan to enlist. The early chapters prepare students for jobs in construction, architecture, surveying and graphic arts.

It is now September, 2022 and I have decided to post the complete manuscript of my 1999 book, published by Nova Science. The Simplified Exposition originally came at the beginning of this book, but it was posted on the internet years ago, including here at Academia.

It is now September, 2022 and I have decided to post the complete manuscript of my 1999 book, published by Nova Science. The Simplified Exposition originally came at the beginning of this book, but it was posted on the internet years ago, including here at Academia.

It is now September, 2022 and I have decided to post the complete manuscript of my 1999 book, published by Nova Science. The Simplified Exposition originally came at the beginning of this book, but it was posted on the internet years ago, including here at Academia.

It is now September, 2022 and I have decided to post the complete manuscript of my 1999 book, published by Nova Science. The Simplified Exposition originally came at the beginning of this book, but it was posted on the internet years ago, including here at Academia.