Back in junior high school, I was a bit of a geek. A clever geek, somewhat of a mischief maker, but a geek. And in the course of taking geometry in 8th grade, my fondness for mischief and geekiness came together to create two proofs, with rather profound implications for mathematics. Now, I know most readers are not fond of formal mathematics, so I will try to get this over quickly, but please bear with me, as there is a point.

My first theorem goes as follows: Infinity minus any finite number, must equal infinity. And I proved it as follows: Suppose infinity, minus a finite number, say A, does not equal infinity. Then infinity minus A must equal a finite number B. But then finite number A plus finite number B must equal infinity. But two finite numbers cannot equal infinity. Thus, infinity minus any number must equal infinity.

Using that theorem I created the following proof. Let us assume we have two numbers, A and B, such that A is greater than B. infinity minus A equals infinity, and infinity minus B equals infinity. Thus infinity minus A equals infinity minus B, which means minus A equals minus B, which means A equals B. Thus a number is equal to a number greater than itself, or, more plainly, all numbers are equal.

Of course the proof is nonsense. It amused my friends and took in a few less mathematically literate people, but the whole thing is gibberish. Why? Because infinity is not a number. Infinity cannot be used in arithmetic, as it is really a huge set of possible infinite series. However, as we generally have a single symbol for that set it is easy to take the uninitiated and trick them into thinking that it really is a single number, like 2 or 15. And so I could create a pair of proofs that seemed to plausibly prove all number equal.

Why do I mention this? Other than to show that I was a clever geek in 8th grade? Because I see the same thing in much of mathematical economics. Most of Keynesian theory, and the theories grown from Keynesianism, seem to be quite plausible, have extensive mathematical proofs, but they are still wrong.

How can that be? Simple. Just as with my theorems, the premises themselves are wrong. As I slipped in wrong assumptions by treating infinity as a number, Keynes managed to slip in many false assumptions, both through aggregating numbers, confusing monetary and real values, disregarding inflation, redefining terms in the middle of proofs, and so on. Going through his theories with a critical eye, it becomes obvious rather quickly that not only does his tendency to aggregate obscure may significant details, but he often defines terms in not just two, but sometimes three or more ways, and then fails to use the terms consistently even within the same proof.

But to those who have not read Keynes, or even to those who have, but who are not careful, or who lack the economic foundation to be careful, his theorems appear quite plausible. And, sadly, many politicians, as well as most journalists, fall into this category. And so, despite the generally shoddy theoretical underpinnings of most modern "macroeconomics", we still end up with countless laws based upon absurdities such as the Phillips curve, the multiplier effect, and other nonsense that would not pass muster in a sophomore logic class.

If I were to make one suggestion to reform government, and could not limit the power of the state in a more general way, I think much good could be done through a simple reform. Any law, before it could take force, must be explained by its author to a group of random citizens, who would each need to then recite their understanding of the law. If they could not agree with one another about why the law was needed and how it would work, it could not be passed.

If such a system were enacted, would even 10% of our present laws exist?

POSTSCRIPT

As I mentioned Keynes' deceptive proofs before, in "The Rubber Yardstick", I feel I should properly address the specifics in the near future. I could just send readers to Hazlitt's The Failure of the "New Economics", as it does a more thorough job than I ever could, tearing Keynes apart chapter by chapter, but I doubt even 1 in 10 would ever read it. So, this week some time, I will bite the bullet and finally lay down the most egregious of his deceptive arguments. Doubtless I will end up drawing heavily on Hazlitt, but I admit as much, and it may be useful for readers without access to Hazlitt's book. And who knows? Maybe I will add a few observations of my own as well.

POSTSCRIPT II

Some of my arguments against Keynes can be found in "The Limits of Technocracy", "Spend for the Fatherland, Citizen!", "War Stimulates the Economy? Let's Nuke San Francisco!","Protectionism Right and Left", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?", "Proof Keynes (and Krugman) Are Insane", "Shopaholic Government" and ""Fair Trade" ". There are others, but those cover Keynes, and protectionism, which forms half of his theory, in more detail than most. To understand why the monetary aspects of his theory are so wrong, I would also suggest "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II", and "Why Gold?".