Hi my name is Mike and I'm a prep school student from Canada. I've been reading Mises.org for a year now and have been a strong supporter of Austrian Economics for a long time. I'm interested in taking an econ course for grade 12 next semester. The course will give me a solid run down on the role of prices, supply and demand, markets, game theory (very important IMO), and competition. The textbook that I've had a chance to look over, evidently supports mixed economy, government intervention to prevent market malpractices and various Keynesian prescriptions on economic policy. Sometimes I feel that I will be taught fallacies about topics such as macroeconomics, monopolies and the role of aggregate demand. Though the likes of Marx, Schumpeter, Keynes, and Friedman receive their own bio pages, there isn't a single word about either Mises, Menger or Hayek. I wouldn't say that the book is biased or ideologically preachy. I's just that these ideas are so ingrained, that they are really accepted as academic norm. The textbook, far from advocating socialism by a long stretch, is just thoroughly mainstream as could be expected from a school resource.
On one hand I'm strongly considering taking this course to learn about the principles of economic language, which I think are not too different from those of Austrians. But on the other hand, I don't think I will be enjoying the Keynesian/mixed economy leaning analysis presented within that is taken as a given.
Some of you might immediately say, pfft, forget it. Why not just read books from Mises.org instead? Well first of all, I do. However, there is something in a textbook which an ordinary text lacks. Easily detailed instructions, maps, tables, charts, questions and concrete descriptions of concepts, etc. Many Mises.org works on the other hand, especially those written by the man himself, take certain concepts as a given which can make it very difficult for an entry reader such as myself to understand from the beginning. I'm assuming Mises wrote for a well educated audience who was at least familiar with economic principles. Another problem I've noticed is the frequent use of ideologically attached, loaded language which does nothing to explain the root of the problem for someone who is not familiar or inclined towards libertarian principles. I found this kind of problem with Hazlitt's Econ in One Lesson, which is without doubt an excellent treatise on proper economic thinking. However, it assumes certain basic things from a laissez faire libertarian point of view, and fails to go through with the logic explaining the rationale behind these assumptions. Though many of his explanations clearly smash the opposing position, they are often made from a clear bias towards the author's political ideology. This is not a problem by itself, because I agree with most of what Hazlitt says simply by virtue of sharing his ideological viewpoint. But if I were to be asked to provide logical or practical evidence why I agree with this and that, I would not be able to answer simply by looking in the book. I'd need to research a longer text providing more detailed explanations for each topic.
This is why at the moment I need an educational text which provides a broad overview of economics, and does not necessarily criticize opposing view points from given ideological positions, but rather portrays a general picture of how economics works from the very bottom. Normally, I'd prefer such information to come from academic course material. Unfortunately, mainstream economic texts are laced with fundamental falsehoods which they don't bother to address. This is why I have decided to come here to ask for advice. Is it worth taking such a course to understand the elementary definitions of economics, even in a mainstream sense? Or does Mises.org offer a better opportunity?
I don't want to become a professional economist or business consultant. In fact, I'm set up for a physical science program in university. Right now, I'm thinking about taking this econ course as an arbitrary credit - to get a better understanding of the way society works, as well as to learn about the basic principles of commerce structure that would help me in the future when I have to manage my own finances. If I can be really convinced that the grade 12 course will not be a worthwhile option for me in the long run, then I'll take something enjoyable, like art instead.
If you already know that what they are teaching you are fallacies and you already know why they are fallacies, there is nothing that taking such a class can do for you.
I only realized those were fallacies after I finished my economics classes.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Yes, absolutely take the course, why not? You've got to take an elective anyway, right? Don't be one of those Austrians who think they already know everything about mainstream economics and why it's all nonsense. There is more than just Keynesianism.
What is the textbook?
If you have nothing better to do then take the course, there is no reason to refuse to take mainstream economics courses on the basis of believing that they are fallacious before even taking them.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Understanding Economics by Mark Lovewell.
I've heard that name before somewhere. Does it ring a bell?
The reason why I don't like this textbook is because of things like:
"Schelling called this solution an enforceable social contract and saw it as legitimate in cases where individiual self interest works against the incentive that people may have to co-operate with one another for the common good. As a result he helped economists better understand exactly when and where government involvement in the economy can contribute to our collective welfare" (regarding Thomas C. Schelling's argument that electricity should be rationed)
Thisprogramhasnotbeenrated:"Schelling called this solution an enforceable social contract and saw it as legitimate in cases where individiual self interest works against the incentive that people may have to co-operate with one another for the common good. As a result he helped economists better understand exactly when and where government involvement in the economy can contribute to our collective welfare" (regarding Thomas C. Schelling's argument that electricity should be rationed)
You should definitely take the course, at least in my opinion. You can't understand why someone is wrong if you don't understand their position. Keynes, Marx, Friedman, and Fisher were all extremely intelligent men; they failed as economists because they merely misunderstood or ignored the contributions made by the Viennese school.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Thisprogramhasnotbeenrated: Understanding Economics by Mark Lovewell. I've heard that name before somewhere. Does it ring a bell?
I'm not familiar with that book, I see it specializes in Canada. I assume it is not an AP course then. An AP course would be preferable I think, because then you'd be getting standard college-level intro economics. Otherwise you're most likely getting a dumbed-down version of the same material, but i guess you probably don't have a choice.
Yes, take the course. Austrian economics is economics, after all.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Alright you've sold me. There are only 2-3 chapters that I really find a problem with, and those are on monetary and fiscal policy. The rest is mostly basic stuff.
I'm not taking economics in university, I just want to finish this course so that it would be easier for me to understand Mises.org literature.