Harvard Econ Student Walk Out to Protest Propaganda Approach to Econ 101

Is it really possible to teach economics without bias?

 

absolutely, however it is up to the teacher/professor to be able to explain where there are inherent moral flaws in particular economic principle.

 

I'd also like to note that Mankiw is not a free-market guy. His books all fall into the mold of the incentive-based, credit-based, government-policy controlled economy. The guy is definitely not pushing for "deregulation." Honestly, go take a look at his blog.

 

They have a Econ program at Liberty University, you are free to enroll in.


Enthusiastically we support the goals of the university, as stated on page 7 of the university catalogue, encouraging an understanding of our system of democratic capitalism, a system of free-markets and limited government, the finest system in the world, but always as undergirded by our cherished Judeo-Christian values. Job opportunities abound in business, government and teaching.


http://www.liberty.edu/academics/business/economics/

 

No, because there are fundamental differences in the different economic schools of thought.

 

Econ 101 is usually micro. Inflationary monetary policy has nothing to do with it..

And herein lies the crux of the stupid that underlies most debates. An inefficient unregulated "free" market is necessary to avoid slavery, no matter waht, even if everybody is worse off and no matter what the evidence is.

Please turn to page 2 in your textbook next time.

 

They paid a pretty penny for that education (or will pay for 10 years after they graduate), so I suppose it's their right to walk out on it. But, I suppose college kids at Harvard are as naive and ignorant as college kids other places, it's just their grammar is better and the egos bigger.

There's no reason to expect an 'unbiased' (whatever that would mean) class in college, especially at an elite university. Nor is there any reason to want one. It just seems incredibly disrespectful (of the professor and your fellow student) to pay to take a guy's class and then object to what he teaches you.

 

Keynesian approach of government is absolutely atrocious

 

Which is why I didn't single out Econ 101. My statement applies to the entire curriculum of university economics.

I love how your responses to me always amount to, "[Ignore what Johndoe804 actually said, build up straw-man, attack straw-man, tell Johndoe804 he's stupid.]"

In other words, I don't think I ever said that the government should have no role in markets, nor did I ever suggest that economic policy should ignore the welfare of the masses in favor of absolute freedom (to paraphrase your suggestion).

 

You said that a Keynsian economics isn't "free market' economics. It absolutely is in any meaningful sense of the term. But by excluding it you're of course sending it down the ol' road to serfdom. Boring and lame.

 

It isn't. Price controls, capital controls, and an incentive-based approach to economic policy does not make free markets. Price controls and capital controls, especially, are not features of a market economy. The incentives, I can live with. Incentives, after all, aren't forcing anybody to do anything.

Of course, I'm struggling to see how your response is at all relevant to my response to you. My statement that Keynesian policy is not a free-market approach isn't contrary to my previous response to you. If you think Keynesian economic policy is free market policy, then I'm not sure why I'm bothering to make it clear for you, because clearly you know nothing about economics.

 

It's not called Socialism 101 anymore, it's called Reality 101.

 

I wonder how their probably more rich than not parents feel about them making a statement like this in their first economics class there.

 

You send your kids to Harvard to learn how to think, not what to think.

 

I always thought econ 101 was macro, at least that's how it was for me.

It wasn't until I declared econ as a major that micro was offered. Then, micro was the first class and used as a weed out class.

 

I sympathize with the students. The way economics is taught now has a lot of neoclassical micro models in the early stages, which makes sense for building a foundation for further economic study, but a lot of things are glossed over, which does make it seem very "everything the government does is wrong" kind of thing.

However, I always thought Mankiw ran a balenced boat, as I parse through his blog sometimes. He actually has a very good post on this topic---

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

A perfect example here is that most intro-level courses focus almost exclusivly about the dead-weight loss of taxes. My micro/macro classes almost delved into a death spiral of discussing dead-weight loss of quota, taxes, any government action etc.

So I can see why people who are only exposed to the intro-level material (as EC 10 and other classes of the like are ,to my understanding, a prereq for many social policy/politics/sociology/development classes etc.) would be upset.

 

I apologize in advance for leading with this - but you're a complete idiot. Not only did Keynes not endorse price controls, he openly opposed them during WWII.


Was this econ degree you speak of from Texas Technological? I'm guessing Y?

 

Except when the central bank sets a price control on the interest rate, of course.