The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Is economics ultimately a collection of just-so stories? Do we like the paradox of thrift because it is consistent with solidarity politics?
I think economics, done properly (rare, I know), lends itself more to our way of thinking than is commonly thought because of what passes for economics on television.
What it should be is a combination of sociology, political science, logic, and statistics. What it winds up being in too many cases is mathematics' retarded brother.
Simon Johnson's blog had a post up on this the other day that made a point I've -- clumsily -- tried to make in the past, noting differences in opinion between PhD economists and undergraduates (the former being quite a bit more liberal than the latter): Studying economics as an undergraduate tends to correlate with becoming a Republican, but going on to a PhD tends to swing the person back to the left.
A little bit of economics can be a dangerous thing.
You have to get fairly deep into the subject, or you wind up believing crazy shit because your Macro 101 textbook had a pretty graph and your professor was more interested in writing papers than teaching properly. You get people believing that RATEX is actually true rather than simply a tool for isolating other variables, which leads to all kinds of other absurdities.
Part of it is a time problem, I think. It's difficult to fit the basic concepts of the different areas into a semester, let alone really dig into information asymmetries, price and wage adjustment, etc. At best they'll tend to be covered to some extent in the intermediate-level classes. And I'd guess most students aren't really interested in diving that deep into the field. They just want the degree. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
A little bit of economics can be a dangerous thing. You have to get fairly deep into the subject, or you wind up believing crazy shit because your Macro 101 textbook had a pretty graph and your professor was more interested in writing papers than teaching properly. You get people believing that RATEX is actually true rather than simply a tool for isolating other variables, which leads to all kinds of other absurdities.
If you only take a first-year physics course you may end up believing in a clockwork universe, but at least planets and billiard balls and boxes on slopes will behave as advertised in your textbook... And any misconceptions you may take away don't have toxic sociopolitical consequences. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
I'm sure it's always been that way to some extent, but it used to be that Samuelson's textbook was quite common.
Although Krugman's intro texts are gaining some steam, as I understand it. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
This is rather more expensive than producing a textbook, but it would be very much more effective.
Bureaucrats work better if the believe in their organizations cause, and multi-nationals are no exception. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 16
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 10
by gmoke - Feb 13 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Feb 19
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 18
by Oui - Feb 171 comment
by Oui - Feb 1610 comments
by Oui - Feb 168 comments
by Oui - Feb 15
by Oui - Feb 143 comments
by Oui - Feb 144 comments
by gmoke - Feb 131 comment
by Oui - Feb 132 comments
by Oui - Feb 134 comments
by Oui - Feb 126 comments
by Oui - Feb 115 comments
by Oui - Feb 11
by Oui - Feb 9
by Oui - Feb 7