Just curious what you guys have college credit for.
If you're a high scholl student say what courses your school offers.
I'm about 8 years removed from my first degree, where I took all my econ classes, and I can't remember my profs names, nor do I own the books anymore but from The University of Toledo I took:
Principles of Micro (100 level course)
Pinciples of Macro (100 level course)
International Trade (200 level course)
Current Topics (or som similar name, a 200 level course)
I also took a stats class if that counts.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I've taken zero economics courses, and I am gratefull that I didn't. I see every day the way they twist the thinking of people who take them. I used to think maybe these people are dummies to begin with. But then I saw cases of people taking the courses, and their minds turning to silly putty before my very eyes. You have been warned. Like Homer when he came near the Sirens, plug up your ears in them courses.
My brother took tons of them. He brought home a Samuelson text I started reading through. It made little sense then, and even less now. The difference is that back in the day I thought it must be me; now I know it's him.
I've quoted Mises as saying that economics should teach a person two things: Predict the future, and what to do about it.
I am guessing that no economics course or book brags about the correct predictions it made [unlike physics books, which are full of that kind of thing. For example, the famous prediction that there is an undiscovered planet out there, and where to look for it. And every formula in a physics book is a testable prediction, of course.].
And I further guess that courses are of two types. One type claims is it teaching you both things Mises wanted, but sadly, they fail. [Proof; they give no examples of proven predictions or policies.] The other type doesn't even bother to predict anything or suggest anything. It's full of highly theoretical "models" which make assumptions that never exist in reality.
On the basis of what do I make these guesses if I haven't taken the courses? From reading the posts of people here who have. Rachmonoos.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I was talking to a former employer about quanatative easing and she didn't seem to have any concept that an increased money supply is inflation or that it leads to an increase in prices so the whole conversation was confusing to her. She also took college economic courses.
Her recomendation was to give everyone a million dollars
@SmilingDave:
I think you just went "meta" on the thread, here you go:
http://mises.org/community/forums/p/33214/516788.aspx#516788
In 2005, most academic specialists in monetary economics would probably describe their orientation as new keynesian. Also, monetary aggregates currently play a small or nonexistent role in the monetary policy analysis of academic and central-bank economists. In terms of its underlying scientific rationale, however, today’s mainstream analysis is much closer to that of the monetarist than the Keynesian position of, for example, 1956–1978. In addition to the points noted above, current thinking clearly favors policy rules in contrast to “discretion,” however defined, and stresses the central importance of maintaining inflation at quite low rates. It is only in its emphasis on monetary aggregates that monetarism is not being widely espoused and practiced today.
From http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monetarism.html
Wheylous,
1. The article you site seems to be engaging in what I see as the common practice of focusing on the less important aspects of monetarism, in this case the importance of monetary aggregates vs. focusing on whether a central bank should target the interest rate vs. monetary aggregates is a more an aspect of monetarism than one of its more central tenants. I also agree that economists in general are focusing more upon the monetarist conception of the importance of rules. I was surprised to hear one of my liberal professors ardently defending the Taylor rule.
2. The quote contradicts itself blatantly in that today with large increases in government spending in general as well as massive amounts of discretionary government policy, it's near impossible to call anything that governments are doing monetarist in a traditional sense. There has been a large emphasis upon monetary policy, but this is because central banks are more free and don't have the crippling debt many modern governments do. Therefore I don't understand how
current thinking clearly favors policy rules in contrast to “discretion,”
and
monetarism is being widely espoused and practiced today.
Are compatible viewpoints. Furthermore the United States is almost certainly in a liquidity trap (for better or for worse, and boy do I mean that!), so I don't know how one could realistically argue that the LM curve is more inelastic than the IS curve, which I see as being a major difference between Keynesians and Monetarists, if not the main source of actual contention.
@Gravy
Herp.... In the derp....
Edit
Post 2,222!!!!
Wow, how did you use Rothbard to get through macro? In my experience intro to macro was basically inflation, bonds, and AS-AD... IDK I found that class to be a joke anyway.
Power and Market is an appendix to MES. All it does is go over intervention.
Intro to Micro
Intro to Macro
Interm Micro
Interm Macro
Interm Macro II (400 level)
Econometrics
Industrial Organization
Money and Banking
All of these classes were under keynesian liberal professors. I definitely utilized austrian material to supplement the classes. All were fairly easy A's. I guess its somewhat beneficial to learn and understand the Keynesian/neoKeynesian/monetarist framework however much we disagree with it.
Luckily, I'll be transferring to a college with some more free market professors for the fall.
Intro micro, intro macro, and a bunch of business courses, if those count.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Smiling Dave: I've taken zero economics courses, and I am gratefull that I didn't. I see every day the way they twist the thinking of people who take them. I used to think maybe these people are dummies to begin with. But then I saw cases of people taking the courses, and their minds turning to silly putty before my very eyes. You have been warned. Like Homer when he came near the Sirens, plug up your ears in them courses.
The thing with conspiracy theories is that they always display some feature specifically conceived in order to pre-emptively disable any subsequent attempt to disprove it.
Take for instance the conspiracy theory that mainstream economics professors are evil minded and they want to inoculate innocent students with their vicious theories of state worshiping.
Since whoever get exposed to mainstream economics is supposedly brainwashed against the austrian school, this sort of accusation of course can never be verified.
I'm not saying that it's false because it's a "conspiracy theory", I'm not one of these guys that discard them right away. But it's important to not drink the kool-aid so eagerly.
By the way, Homer was just the poet, the character in the Odysseia was Ulysses (Odysseus). Well, maybe you're talking about the Simpsons…
@TA
It is not that economic professors are evil. it is that they are brainwashed. You seem to mix the two as if they are the same.
It can if you go and try to compare the theories. I did this. When I started college I read the Austrian economists alongside the textbooks from class. You can see that the difference is that neoclassical economists don't really have a capital theory. Ask them where credit comes from...Austrians can tell you where and explain the implications of it. Neoclassicals cannot. They start with the central bank as a given.
I was told that 85% of economics graduates get an internship at a FED bank (not sure if that is total or just my Univ. - it wouldn't surprise me either way). So, the brainwashing is pretty deep. having said that, I wouldn't trust SD (on somethings) anymore than I'd trust the average democratic voter.
=P
I didn't say it's a conspiracy, though it may be. I just said it happens. For example, let us agree for the moment that eating fast food makes one obese. Are we saying there is a conpiracy about to make everyone obese? No. Just that it happens. If you study mainstream econ, you are endangering your thinking abilities. May or may not be a conspiracy.
In any case, if it is a conspiracy, it can be verified just any fanatical irrational cult can be exposed [Scientology etc.], by those who were not brainwashed by the cult.
Yep, Ulysses, my bad.
I wouldn't trust SD (on somethings) anymore than I'd trust the average democratic voter.
Ha! Are you implying that I am a democratic voter? Low blow.
I'm not asking anyone to trust me about anything. I present links to the facts, and lay out my reasoning from first principles in theoretical issues.
I did say that I have noticed people forget how to think once they take a few mainstream econ courses. But you need not trust me. Go out and observe. Of course, if you have taken mainstream econ, your mind may be mush already. So go out and find an untainted mind and have him observe for you.
Of course, if you have taken mainstream econ, your mind may be mush already.
What you are saying is that any exposure to mainstream economics turns a person's mind to mush is just as cult-like as you present the contra to be. Only you and people just like you can possibly be without brainwashing...you are a weird motherfucker.
"What you are saying is that any exposure to mainstream economics turns a person's mind to mush is just as cult-like as you present the contra to be. Only you and people just like you can possibly be without brainwashing...you are a weird motherfucker."
Quoted for absolute truth. I don't know how anyone could take that point of view seriously. It's pretty much Marxist in how closed minded and simplistic it is
Love it. The hipsters just got out hipstered.
Mainstream econ? Too mainstream...