Slashdot Mirror
A New Way to Learn Economics (newyorker.com)
John Cassidy, writing for The New Yorker: With the new school year starting, there is good news for incoming students of economics -- and anybody else who wants to learn about issues like inequality, globalization, and the most efficient ways to tackle climate change. A group of economists from both sides of the Atlantic, part of a project called CORE Econ, has put together a new introductory economics curriculum, one that is modern, comprehensive, and freely available online. In this country, many colleges encourage Econ 101 students to buy (or rent) expensive textbooks, which can cost up to three hundred dollars, or even more for some hardcover editions. The project is a collaborative effort that emerged after the world financial crisis of 2008-9, and the ensuing Great Recession, when many students (and teachers) complained that existing textbooks didn't do a good job of explaining what was happening. In many countries, groups of students demanded an overhaul in how economics was taught, with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems.
You must have missed that the "Marxist economics" reference wasn't about Marxism in the curriculum but rather the opposite.
"The core approach isn’t particularly radical. (Students looking for expositions of Marxian economics or Modern Monetary Theory will have to look elsewhere.)"
The first sign of "liberal bias" tickled your amygdala so badly you stopped actually reading and started looking for boogeymen behind everything.
Smith was quite clear on the role of government actively working in markets to ensure they remained level playing fields where monopolies and cartels wouldn't be able to close the market to new startups. Further, he talked about government management of infrastructure and education in ways which promoted commerce.
Mainly, however, it's that his emphasis was on LIMITED government, such that its actions didn't distort the market through protectionism and bias.
I know your point is "right wingers are stupid" but most of the conservatives I know are not anarchist libertarians. They're not even anti-tax; they're perfectly fine with government as long as it's limited in its role - a federal government whose primary function is the 'fair' redistribution of wealth and social justice would indeed make Smith spin in his grave.
-Styopa
The Scandinavian socialist countries (Denmark, Sweden, etc.) seem to be doing quite well for themselves. And there are plenty of capitalist countries where you wouldn't want to live there unless you were among the ruling elite.
This is false (or at least misleading) because those countries are capitalist in every sense of the word. For that sentence to make sense, you have to understand the difference between free market, welfare, and socialism.
Capitalism first and foremost means that the means of production is owned by private individuals, and they are sold on a free market.
Free market means that when you trade something, its price is determined by the forces of supply and demand, as opposed to a governing entity requiring otherwise. There are many schools of thought on just how unencumbered a market can to still be considered free, as even things like price ceilings or wage floors can still be considered free market, but that is another topic that is highly debatable with many valid arguments on all sides.
Welfare means that a governing entity is paying money to a private party on your behalf so that you can obtain something. For example in food stamps, the government is giving the merchant money so that they give you food.
Socialism means that the means of production (i.e. factories, farms, infrastructure) is owned by the government, and the people who do the producing (i.e. workers) are also employed by the government, and the government sets prices. This is also called a planned economy. If you look up the definition of socialism, you'll see exactly this, though it may also say that the means of production is communally owned, which in practice when a community sets rules and laws, the community is in fact a government.
Now, back to Scandinavian countries: They are, in fact, capitalist, with a strong welfare component, which again fits within capitalism without being socialism at all. However, just like all western countries, they do have a few socialized (read: government owned) industries. Examples include road construction, water utilities, power utilities, trash collection, etc. In some western countries (namely England) the health care industry is also government owned. In others, the health care system is still privatized but is entirely welfare driven (Australia for example.)
the gap between rich and poor is extreme
Uhhh, what? The Nordic countries are at the very top when it comes to equality and the smallest gap between rich and poor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And in regards to debt, would you care to find the numbers for the US? Hint: It's not very small at all.
Eat the rich.