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.
This should be titled "Free Leftist Indoctrination"
I always thought the best way to learn econ was countless hours of Dopewars.
"...who wants to learn about issues like inequality, globalization, and the most efficient ways to tackle climate change..."
That's not a list of economics subjects, that's a political agenda.
-Styopa
The very fact that the first line of this article reads like the beginning of a manifesto for far left causes was the first warning sign. The fact that this tripe goes out of it's way to mention Marxist economics pretty much closes the case. Given the fact that Marxism is probably the worst way to run an economy and society that the human species has yet come up with.
Perhaps most damning is the very fact they spend more time in this article talking about how they're going to influence people than the pros and cons of this new teaching methodology. Good ideas don't need PR nearly as much as starting with your best ideas first than prove that they work with imperial evidence.
Science and economics both corroborate the ideas that right wing ideologies promote. That's why leftists constantly require "safe spaces" to hide from reality in, especially at academic institutions. Their leftist beliefs don't hold up in reality, and that's why they must censor any ideas that don't conform to their faulty narrative. Those on the right don't need "safe spaces" or censorship because they know their ideas hold up perfectly well to extreme scrutiny and analysis, as these ideas are based in fact and and on observation, rather than being derived from feelings and ignorance like the beliefs of leftists are.
Just flip a coin. No matter what position you want to take in economics some "expert" can be found to validate it.
What a bunch of drivel. We need more emphasis on free-market doctrines and how/why the system we have currently isn't. The more we try to add Marxist ideology to today's society, the more problems we introduce.
Allow me to point out some of the issues that make show how problematic the free-market ideology really is.
I'm not touting marxism, I'm just pointing out that capitalism isn't good everywhere like you seem to think it is.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
can't be taught it. If you haven't learned fundamental things like "there's no free lunch" by the time you turn 15, you're hopeless.
Not at all. Karl Marx and Adam Smith were both writing from the perspective of liberalism, i.e. the Enlightenment. Both failed because both are predicated on the belief of the tabula rasa myth, i.e. that all humans are rational and equally capable. Today, we know that ability is entirely genetic and that it follows a bell curve distribution. The minimum required intelligence to be a productive member of society continues to move to the right, while the overall intelligence distribution mean declines due to technology removing many selective pressures.
Most likely, this article is not about that subject however. In the West, nothing is more taboo. But elsewhere, this is not the case, especially with China.
It is understandable this is a problem in the West however, given the association with National Socialism in the Third Reich.
What are the solutions? I am not entirely sure.
While I agree that Marxism does not work, neither does the free market. The test of any economic system if it meets the needs of its people. Marxism or at least the communist versions of Marxism failed. Under these systems there were shortages of basic goods such as food and clothes.
Under the U.S. system, while we have plenty of food and clothes many people struggle to make ends meet. Our health care system is a failure with millions of people uninsured and many people with insurance who cannot afford medical care because of deductibles or copays. College is also unaffordable for many. So while we have plenty of food and clothes, many people cannot afford to meet their basic needs, especially when it comes to health care and education.
The systems that seem to work best are the hybrid systems that combine the free market and socialism, such as the Scandinavian. They use the free market where appropriate and they use socialism where appropriate thereby meeting the needs of all or almost all of their citizens.