In this episode of LARVOL Oncology Podcast, Bruno Larvol, along with Daniel J. and David Wilkerson, discusses the Pre-ESMO AI 2025 Insights and AI SoC mapping.

"it seems that economic science has not yet solved its first problem- what determines the price of a commodity?" - Joan Robinson (1942)

A retort: A Praxeological Critique of Profit-Led Inflation Claims A recent post by Relearning Economics argues that rising corporate profit margins (“markups”) directly drive inflation, citing Michal Kalecki’s macroeconomic identity linking profit share to the price level. The claim is that as profit share rises, the aggregate price level increases, implying that “greedflation” – firms boosting profits – is a central cause of inflation. This heterodox view aligns with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Kaleckian economics, which emphasize income distribution and cost-push factors over monetary explanations[1]. Implicitly, it challenges the Austrian School’s position that inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. From an Austrian perspective (Misesian-Rothbardian-Hoppean), such claims rest on serious epistemological, economic, and ethical fallacies. In what follows, we present a critical analysis grounded in praxeology, the problem of economic calculation, time preference theory, and libertarian property ethics. hoppeano.blogspot.com/2025/1…

market places host varied commercial systems the crucial agency market aimed production The crucial agent the capitalist Btw Class shares follow a phantom irregular time loop That at any point in its 4 phases Can face reinforcing or dampening effective demand

Nice article Ty. Very succinctly and clearly makes its points and covers off against all the usual counter arguments. I'd be interested in a follow up article on its implications for govt policy and for what is being taught at uni economics degrees.

The major cost of living changes we've been seeing in Aussie supermarkets isn't from producers, but the rapid increase of supplier deals that involve rebates and slotting arrangements. Producers pay middlemen fees to get into that system, and that has to be built into the price.

In the end, my guess is that the formula that best explains historical data and predicts new data well without overfitting is the best explanation of how prices are set. Empirical studies show how firms set prices, based on real facts rather than constant bidding against the market and competitors to clear all stocks and become monopolies. If that were true, we would have one monopoly per sector given how long capitalism has been the market system, and that’s not true. Your point based on Kalecki seems pretty solid.

When I was first shown the Quantity Theory of Money in 1964 i.e. Irving Fisher's 1911 version: M.V=P.Y. I asked why would a company, willy-nilly raise its prices because there is more money in the economy, to risk losing market share? What was the mechanism transforming money volume into higher corporate price-setting? Between 1964 through to 1969 I asked lecturers and professors at the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge and Department of Economics at Stanford the same question. None could explain the mechanism but they insisted that the QTM was the "explanation" In 1975 I happened to watch an interview of Milton Friedman when he was asked the same question and under the repetition of the question, to which he had no answer, he became somewhat irritated and blurted out, " From the data, it happens in the long run!" which, of course is not a mechanism. Having completed agriculture before economics we were required to plan operational farms using operations research algorithms where it was obvious that growth comes from price-setting and associated changes in productivity which created price-setters who could increase their market share, irrespective of market money volumes, levered by the income-price elasticity of demand. Where the productivity changes also improved product quality the effect was even more dramatic. Since this was self-evident to undergraduate agronomists in 1964/65 why did it take academic economists so long to come to grips with this?