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"
Ah its a lets argue about economics post.
In one corner the socialist/communists on how their system can work if only it is done right and will not degenerate into fascism.
In the other corner the laissez-faire capitalists explaining how their system will not degenerate into feudalism.
AND GO....
From the Article:
" 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."
Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
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.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
disappointed
I always thought the best way to learn econ was countless hours of Dopewars.
Sybill Trelawney will be your teacher.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"many colleges encourage Econ 101 students to buy (or rent) expensive textbooks, which can cost up to three hundred dollars, or even more"
at the bookstore.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
All well and good but for a good economic discussion one has to understand the basics of economics. I'd also throw in a good round of statistics too.
Bing bong, carry the two trillion in cuts, multiply by dreamers... and... bang! Mexico's paying.
After this it becomes easier to separate the free loading poor scholarship graduates and pick the legacy admissions and old money descendants. Then they get a free pass to enter CXO level job streams. One can do masters in marching band after bachelors in beer appreciation, still get to be the chief of cyber security in a major company.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How much you wanna bet?
You mean you don't want to bet against me?
But... you OWE it to me! Because, you have, and I have not.
Oh I see, socialism is great when you aren't the one paying up.. I get it.
https://www.newyorker.com/news... works for me so, since I don't pay any site for anything on internet, it should work for you.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
"...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
"If you buy high and try to sell low, you'll be in a world of shit. Trust me."
It's amazing these guys are still in business at all. Golf clap?
[Golf clap].
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
I'll just stick with playing this for my kids every Christmas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Fools. Thanks for the confirmation thought, that "climate change" has zip to do with climate and everything to do with genning up another way to fleece people via taxes.
with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems.
Real-world problems eh. Wild guess as to how this will go:
- advanced countries need to import boatloads of 3rd world superstitious retards to work for shitty wages or extract benefits because it would improve GDP somehow
- how can minimum wages be real if money isn't real
- making bad workers live with good workers turns them into good workers
- country borders are a violation of human rights
- the sustainable packing of more and more people into cities
- growth can continue forever
- private ownership of capital is problematic, and how to sustainably confiscate same
- markets are bad because of pinochet
- with just a leg up, anyone can be a doctor
- apple
You don't understand...it's FREE. What could be more economically sound? Leaflets dropping from the sky?
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.
We changed some of the words but we are still teaching collectivist ideology and want you to join us on our path to hell.
Fuck off, slavers.
"...and anybody else who wants to learn about issues like inequality"
What's there to learn? Inequality has existed since King Solomon, and even before!
Science and economics both corroborate the ideas that right wing ideologies promote.
No they don't. In general, both left and right wing ideologies have contempt for both science and economics. The typical right-wing ideologue pretends to pay attention to economics, but when real economists talk, they refuse to listen. Real economists say uncomfortable things like
Trickle down economics doesn't work.
Free markets do not solve every problem
Regulations are necessary.
Lowering taxes on the rich does not lead to so much prosperity that the government will actually make money.
which can cost up to three hundred dollars, or even more
I love expressions like this. It encompasses any value from -infinity to +infinity, thus conveying absolutely no information whatsoever. It takes real skill to write something so vacuous.
Just flip a coin. No matter what position you want to take in economics some "expert" can be found to validate it.
This is not a "new way of learning economics," it's replacing it with propaganda.
Might as well replace your evolutionary biology classes with lysenkoism or creationism.
From the Article:
" 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." Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
To the contrary. For some reason, right-wingers never actually read Adam Smith; they just heard somewhere that he talked about the invisible hand, and they fail to pay attention to all of the many, many parts of Wealth of Nations in which he discusses ways that unregulated free markets fail without government intervention, and that some things can't possibly function well in the free market, so they need to be run by the government for the sake of the greater good.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
My thoughts exactly.
We need to emphasized the interconnection between the different parts like how workers wages become consumer's demand. Why inequality in income is the major reason why poor countries are poor.
Them commies can always say "China is a communist country and look at how China's economy is doing" and also "America is a capitalist country and its economy has tanked, so does the capitalistic economies of Europe" to make their case
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.
Yeah... Adam Smith. How about Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?
If economics should not be about these, then what should it be about? Genuine question.
In a true "free market" everything is free and equally available to all participants at equal cost: most importantly knowledge.
False. This assumption assumes that all goods are of equal value and availability and cost the same to make everywhere.
There are a number of conditions required by perfect competition. I don't think you've said quite what you meant to say there.
rather than have my only option be Comcast with Net Neutrality.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with broadband competition.
the problem (government interference in free market
The real solution is to build out last mile in such a way that the free market offers people the services they want, at whatever price the market will bear. I want municipal owned infrastructure
Yeah, me too. I'm a bit of a socialist, so it makes sense. What schizophrenic crack pipe did you pick up on your way home from the Church of the Free Market?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
inequality
There is an ongoing debate in macroeconomics about the role of inequality. Does inequality impact growth, and if so negatively or positively? How do we measure inequality, and more generally distribution of resources? How do economic systems, and specific policy choices, influence the distribution of income and resources?
These are fundamental aspects of economic study.
globalization
Again...what is "globalization?" How do we measure it? How has it benefited or harmed different countries and different segments of society within countries? How do we measure that? Why have these effects been visited on these particular groups? Can we build quantitative models around these ideas? Do those models have predictive power? How can we measure their predictive power? How can we establish confidence in model outputs?
Especially given that there are conflicting viewpoints across the political spectrum, it's hard to see an inherent political aim in discussing this important contemporary economic movement (e.g. there are right-wing populists and left-wing populists who write that they oppose globalization, and right- and left-wing thinkers who favor globalization, in both cases often for different reasons).
climate change
How do different climate outlooks effect economic prospects? How does the existence of these outlooks effect economic behavior of individuals, firms, and nations? How do we measure climate risk? What are the economic effects of potential mitigation efforts? What level of risk should motivate what degree of mitigation cost, given various estimates of uncertainty? How can these ideas be placed in a quantitative framework? How can model output be assessed given the scale and ongoing nature of the topic? Are there past climatic events with known economic impacts? How do we measure those impacts? How do they compare to current data? And on and on.
It only takes a moment's reflection to note the importance of these questions, and their relevance to the study of economics. That's probably why there are economists from all over the world, and from all over the political spectrum, who spend their academic (or corporate) lives on just these ideas.
.: Semper Absurda
>> Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad
Uhm ... No. let me think about it ... No. Let me read it again ... NO!
The statement does NOT, again NOT, read "Read: Karl Marx good, Adam Smith Bad". It means just what it said, that is less emphasis on free market and more emphasis on how to solve real freaking problems. Period.
I think that you and the people that modded you up are the main reason why we long lost a problem solving approach to real world issues.
Please keep your nonsensical one liners to the twitter circles where they belong. Thanks.
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Repeat as needed:
Buy -> Expand Credit -> Bubble -> Sell -> Contract Credit -> Collapse -> Buy
So many PhDs in economics didn't learn Marx. That man had an impact and did such brilliant work that it illustrates how hollow and poor an economics education has become. Marx was a genius and his work was probably mostly valid but he is forever stained with his FLAWED work which was embraced and extended into big nightmares for the world. Most our economics has been build upon ignorant beliefs about human nature, not just Marx. Today we have a lot of science on humans so informed changes to economics can happen.... but does it? most the field is to pay lip service to the status quo-- which explains why they get bye without Marx; it's not a real education... (more like a theology degree. Yeah, I think nothing of how many angles fit on the head of a pin.) So even if Marx supported all the bad things that were build upon a portion of his work-- his work still is good and as a whole his impact is far too great to ignore. If something is wrong or a dangerous position you do not censor it or slander it, you LEARN and dismantle it logically -- see the flaw and learn to not repeat the mistakes.
No, I'm not a fan, I don't know much myself; but I oppose intellectual bankruptcy and it's spread.
We do similar things with the Nazi, etc. Their positions need to be learned and destroyed in a civil way so people actually understand why it is flawed and so dangerous. But we think it's so dangerous we only slander and shun it while those who lurk in the shadows spread the ideas we do not bring to light. Finding speeches of Hitler was impossible when I was young, they were censored except by the shunned supporters. The little I remember, I can see that the real reason probably wasn't fear of their persuasion but because of how it often reminds you of politicians today...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If economics should not be about these, then what should it be about? Genuine question.
Boring things like understanding how money circulates in an economy, supply and demand, why some economies succeed and others fail, MV=PQ, "Gresham's Law" and various other well-proved economics theory. In an economics 101 class, you should present stuff that is well established.
And tbh if people would get the idea that, "money has no intrinsic value, even if that money is backed by gold" that would already make economics discussions online more interesting.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is an ongoing debate in macroeconomics about the role of inequality.
It's not much of a debate......some economists wish they could prove inequality hurts economic growth, but they've been unsuccessful. If inequality does have an impact on economic growth, it's small enough that it's really hard to measure (getting lost in the noise).
Besides, if you want to research those things, get a PhD. Economics 101 should be teaching the basics, the well-established aspects of economics.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Historical method for increasing wealth:
Buy -> Expand Credit -> Price Bubble -> Sell -> Contract Credit -> Price Collapse -> Buy and repeat
In regards to real estate it's Expand Credit + Increase Immigration. Other 'benefits' of increasing immigration are:
- More demand for jobs which results in lower wages and, thereby, higher profits.
- More people to purchase goods and services which results in higher profits.
- More people paying taxes.
My thoughts are that it is an easy, but foolish way to achieve economic growth.
Right, because absolutely none of those are economic issues.
$DIETY, where do you people come from? You're so blinded by ideology that you don't even make sense.
~X~
Yeah, I have to agree. And I think you're typically full of shit.
While economics has some overlap with these issues, economics has overlap with EVERY FUCKING ISSUE.
inequality: Inequality is a result of economics. And hey, that's a pretty straightforward
globalization: Heeeey, there are indeed a lot of economics lessons that start with explaining globaliziaton. This one fits.
the most efficient ways to tackle climate change. . . .Wut? And HERE is where they lost me. No dude. No, that's not something that belongs in economics 101.
with less emphasis on free-market doctrines and more emphasis on real-world problems.
Sweet jesus.
Wow... nasty site will of nonsense. Who today does not know that mises.org has everything you need to truly understand the economy.
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.
And just how long have those Harvard students done their case studies now? Experimental economics and simulation has been done from the 50's by now. The students still won't get away from the groups of differential equations, game theory, or history and philosophy of their discipline.
There is no science to economics. It's all propaganda devised by the economic victors to ensure their continued success. People who enroll in a college to "learn" economics are being indoctrinated to think a certain rigid inflexible way that benefits a minority.
A new way to learn economics would be to eject the money-lenders from the classroom, but good luck trying to do that. Even Jesus never fully succeeded.
Those have nothing to do with economics.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I just finished Nancy MacLean's "Democracy in Chains". (https://history.duke.edu/book/democracy-chains) I recommend it highly to anyone who thinks the "free market" is the be-all and end-all of economics and economic politics. It is a heavily researched and footnoted, yet very readable account of how the "economic freedom" crowd is incrementally taking over the USA using diabolical strategies hatched over the past 70 years or so. My reading staple lies in the genre of mysteries, horror and the like, but I will say that MacLean's book is the scariest thing I have ever seen.
Hey y'all frogs: enjoy the warm bath!
Not many right-wing people believe in absolutely free markets;
And not many left-wing people believe in absolute Marxism.
It was a straw man from the start.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The core approach isn’t particularly radical. (Students looking for expositions of Marxian economics or Modern Monetary Theory will have to look elsewhere.) But it treats perfectly competitive markets as special cases rather than the norm, trying to incorporate from the very beginning the progress economists have made during the past forty years or so in analyzing more complex situations: when firms have some monopoly power; people aren’t fully rational; a lot of key information is privately held; and the gains generated by trade, innovation, and finance are distributed very unevenly. The core curriculum also takes economic history seriously.
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Right wingers never get into colleges, due to inbreeding. Good eye faggot.
surest ways to get the wackos to exhibit themselves. This topic included. From the free lunch crowd to the conspiracy theorists it's guaranteed clickbait. Love the idea of making them pay $300 for textbooks though. How many will learn that lesson?
"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"
Climate change and inequality has ZERO to do with economics, I might look at it just for a good laugh.... before I realize that people will take it seriously.
The site is www.core-econ.org. I don't know how a story gets written about a cool new free online economics course which you can do right now for free online... and doesn't provide a link to the course.
Microeconomics, the study of individual and business choices to optimize the use of scarce resources (i.e. all resources), the role of supply and demand in setting prices.
Macroeconomics, the study of the performance, structure, behavior, and decision-making of an economy as a whole. (wikipedia).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Those 3 issues are primarily political, and until a person has spent at least a year studying economics, he's not knowledgeable enough to make sense of the economic aspects of those issues. If they're introduced before the student is capable of handling them mathematically, we can be reasonably sure that they will be introduced in a manner that elicits an emotional response.
Oh, the poor! Economics must do something for them. (Or economics must prove that they're victims)
Oh, globalization! Unfair competition (or send all your money to poor countries)
Oh, climate change! Economics must prove that a strong economy will drown us all which will cause a weak economy and everyone will starve
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So, if we can agree that LIMITED government is good, can we also acknowledge that LIMITED "free" markets are also good. :)
You let the market forces run amok, you get just as much potential damage, greed and corruption as you do with an over-powering government.
What this means, is that "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" are neither wrong nor right, simply misguided in their absolutisms.
Who would thunk that the middle road would be the best way?
No no no.
The definition of economics is "the knowledge of handling scarce resources". To replace right wing politics with left wing politics does not move anything forward.
What they should be teaching is that we need to care about all of it. Economists who disregard climate are just plain wrong. But so are anyone who thinks climate is the only thing that should be considered.
I don't agree capitalism is an 'economic system'.
It's what happens when people have economic freedom.
Which means people are allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.
So they will invest in productivity, which they need capital for.
Improving productivity is how we improve our quality of life.
The system they're talking about includes government meddling, which always ends badly.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Your environment variable failed to expand since it is misspelt.
Has there ever been a slashdot discussion with a high SNR?
...it's a game. It always has been, always will be. Most it is common sense math. If you want to get more advanced, read about Economic Game Theory. There are winners and losers. It's not a non-zero sum game. The winners are the ones who know best how to play the game to their advantage much like the old game of Monopoly. If you don't try to win, you're guaranteed to lose.
Life has always been a game of competition. Competition for resources, competition for mates and now with free market economics, it's competition for resources in the form of monetary value. Same as it always was.
We'll make great pets
But 97 out of 100 economists agree ... it's settled science.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Nearly EVERY issue is ultimately an economic one. You have no credible argument there.
If you believe that the coverage of these issues by this textbook is going to be simply descriptive and objective, instead of subjective and prescriptive, I have some land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
To suggest that these items need to be covered in the BASICS (this is Econ 101, remember) and to have all these mentioned together explains quite clearly that the authors are going to have a 'stance' presented on each of these issues. I'm not blinded by ideology, you're simply either being naive or disingenuous.
-Styopa
Anyone commenting here on the value of this book actually reading it ? I've read through the first four chapters, and have an old MA in political economics. I'm finding this to be excellent, and a decent intro to general economics. Excellent work.
"Nearly EVERY issue is ultimately an economic one. "
Fuck you.
That, in a nutshell, is why our society sucks.
The veil is directly tied to economics
The fuel monopolists have managed to hide hundreds of billions per year of subsidies in tax laws as in "3 wars for oil in 70 years" each costing trillions has never been reflected directly in oil prices
This ECONOMIC effect is why there is global warming, as efficiency and alternative energy have been forced to compete with the entire tax based war machine.
Your first point is almost a good one, but the last three lines give away the game - you're the politician here.
Real incomes in the US have matched their 1999 levels only this year. That fact represents a radical departure from all postindustrial economic behavior, but to you if students or professors want to talk about why that is - from any perspective - they're already too "political" and should be silenced. Be serious.
.: Semper Absurda