Price theory, loanable fund theory, and indifference curves: theorizing authority through misuse of mathematics, logic and improbable assumptions

Abstract

Economist Adam Smith‘s study ( 1776 ) initially was ‘Political Economy ‘, then knowledge used for eradicating poverty, want, and unemployment and then to study inflation, stagnation, recession, etc. Thus it became the science of economics. Economist J.M. Keynes viewed  ‘ Political Economy and added three definitions a) Wealth b) Welfare and c) Scarcity in the study. But Richardo shifted from production and distribution of wealth to “ The produce of earth - all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labor, machinery, and capital. Economist T.R. Malthus ( 1820 ) joined to add one more dimension of wealth “ material(productive )  wealth and immaterial ( unproductive )  wealth “.  L. Robbins and others criticized the neglect of immaterial wealth and stressed the importance of services.  Modern economists are of the view that immaterial wealth - services are essential to increase production, productivity, and good health. Economist Alfred Marshall stated, “ Political Economy or Economics is the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and the use of the material requisites of well-being “.  Robins  ( 1931 ), defined economics based on i) Unlimited wants ii) Scarce means, and iii) Alternative uses of means. This is the historical background of definitions in Economics in general.   With utopian and illogical assumptions, passing no mathematical rigor, ignoring very vital parameters, and free use of mathematical figures as ornaments the topics of a) price theory b) loanable fund theory, and c) indifference curves have no theories, no precision but are only verbose and literary...The author feels that these topics do not deserve a place in 21st-century Economics.