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.
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
I would say indoctrination in the sense that economics is supposed to be about understanding how the economy works. Free market simply references the market forces of supply and demand, how they impact prices, and things that may (or may not) cause them to change, and why. Issues like inequality and climate change, while related to economics, are orthogonal issues. It sounds like they're trying to change a subject that focuses on a mixture of mathematics, politics, and psychology to that of a humanities class.
They do have a point about not adequately explaining the cause of the great recession, but that is a failure on the part of whoever is teaching the macroeconomics courses at the schools in question, and not necessarily the study of economics as a whole. One of the major failures of colleges these days is that while they are good at giving you knowledge, they totally fail at teaching you how to think. Muddying these two topics would only make that worse, as it teaches against examining topics from an "all other things being equal" perspective, which it just so happens is critical to economics.
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
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.
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.
Marxism is more specific than 'Socialist'. If 'The means of production' are in private hands, it's not Marxist.
The scandinavian countries are, generally speaking 'capitalist welfare states'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.