I'm a graduate TA teaching a career-planning class to college freshmen who are undecided about their majors. Pretty much every student in my class thinks that the only careers that "help people" are services like nursing, social work, teaching, etc., so if you choose to do anything else, it's because you care more about lining your pockets than "helping people." Usually, the other grad student TAs and I don't get to choose what we teach, but we've been given a free day where we get to teach whatever we want, and I want to use it to totally dispel this notion that making money and/or going into business is evil, selfish, and diametrically opposed to "helping people."
I've hinted at this concept in previous classes, but every time I start to say anything that sounds even remotely like economics their eyes glaze over (these are college freshman...12 years of government schooling has utterly destroyed their minds). So I need something that a 7-year-old could understand, and a 13-year-old would be excited by.
Any suggestions for emotionally-inspiring, easy to understand, and can-be-presented-in-75-minutes-or-less arguments, quotes, videos, sound clips, etc. that I can use to make the message really stick? Any help here would be greatly appreciated!
I would start by explaining the differences between the real market and mercantilism/corporatism.
Simply say something "crazy" like "you can make tons of money and help people too!" Then go on to lay out the case for getting into business: you make money by producing goods and services that help the consumer. All exchange is voluntary, so both parties (the producer and consumer) will most likely benefit. The more money you make on the free market, the more help you're providing to people.
It's that simple.
Political Atheists Blog
Explain to them how economics applies to everybody and everything, and that if more people understood economics we would all be far better off. If people are ignorant of or apathetic towards economics your best bet to spark interest is to relate what your teaching to what's going on in the world. With the economy in a deep depression now is the time to bring on the relevance! Ask them their thoughts on why the economy is where it is, hear what they have to say. I'm sure a lot of them will give you the typical idiot response "baaah! deregulation! derivatives! greed! capitalism! wall street!" Tell them why they're wrong in great detail; this should get them riled up and interested. At least by doing this you will probably make at least one of them go home and read something.
After you've gotten their attention you can start talking more about economics in general, just make sure you keep relating it back to what's going on so they have something to follow along with. For instance, if you're discussing the failure of so many big financial companies and the GM/Chevy, etc. you can explain competition, and explain that in a free market these companies would all be bankrupt. You can discuss what the Fed has done/is doing and explain why it's wrong, and then explain why central banking (planning) can never work. Best of luck to you!
- Chris
mprimeau: Pretty much every student in my class thinks that the only careers that "help people" are services like nursing, social work, teaching, etc., so if you choose to do anything else, it's because you care more about lining your pockets than "helping people."
Pretty much every student in my class thinks that the only careers that "help people" are services like nursing, social work, teaching, etc., so if you choose to do anything else, it's because you care more about lining your pockets than "helping people."
The world would be paradise if no one and nothing built houses, cars, roads, machinery, farmed, mined, or cooked. Thank you college freshmen for letting me now that this is how the world works.... see what I did there? I just took their statement, and made an observation/logical extension of it. Keep doing that, and eventually they'll concede that they're wrong. If I were you, I'd make them feel stupid until they respected your position. It's very, very, easy to do that when you're right.
Unfortunately your task seems to be quite impossible. There's nothing inspiring about free-market capitalism, nothing heroic, no story line behind it. "Capitalism" is simply a character of the only true economic system, which has always existed, and will always exist. Socialism, on the other hand, has narratives; the working class struggle, the 'abuses' of the upper class, the morality of 'fairness,' ect., ect. Essentially, capitalism has no gimmicks, and as such, is usually dismissed/misunderstood by the naive and ignorant. People want plot lines, they want a story, and most of all, they want to get behind something emotionally.
If you want to inspire them, get them emotionally attached to the notion of freedom (equal opportunity), and talk about coercion. If they buy your argument, they will eventually find 'capitalism' on their own, and support it.
"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."
Calling and Occupation
Gary North: Making a Difference, Making a Living
How To Get Rich . . . and Why
Gary North: Making a Difference in the World
May I recommend Garet Garrett's novels?
The Mises website has them I believe.
I really think that taking the "economics lecture" approach is the wrong idea here. When it comes to things like life choices, you often have to appeal to emotion or morality. I think selective Ayn Rand would be a good way to inspire some pride (although I'm not sure how easily it could be strung together in a lecture).
For instance,
Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution - or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.
It's so easy to run to others. It's so hard to stand on one's own record. You can fake virtue for an audience. You can't fake it in your own eyes. Your ego is your strictest judge. They run from it. They spend their lives running. It's easier to donate a few thousands to charity and think oneself noble than to base self-respect on personal standards of personal achievement. It's simple to seek substitutes for competence - such easy substitutes: love, charm, kindness, charity. But there is no substitute for competence.
The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality - the man who lives to serve others - is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Ayn Rand is a very divisive figure.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
mprimeau: Any suggestions for emotionally-inspiring, easy to understand, and can-be-presented-in-75-minutes-or-less arguments, quotes, videos, sound clips, etc. that I can use to make the message really stick? Any help here would be greatly appreciated!
To be honest, people don't do business to serve consumers with selfless dedication. Being selfish turns out to be good for everyone in a market economy. Try to put that out to your students. And only economics can make that happen.
So try making your presentation on the importance of economics rather than trying to be emotionally appealing. The appeal a Statist can generate can't be matched. All that we can do is defeat Statists through economic logic.
Hahaha using Rand and Gary North to inspire college freshmen, that's really work. Seriously, if it's like telling somebody who is decorating a synagogue to ask Hitler for help.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
If you're approaching leftists, do not use Rand. Go for Mary Ruwart or Konkin or even some of Rothbard's pieces. With conservatives go for Hoppe, Reisman, Sean Gabb or even Mises. They all have short pieces you can use and discuss (or alternatively books you can excerpt from.)
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I'd say the best way to do it is probably to ask them to write down a career they think is absolutely evil and selfish.
Then you show how each and every one of them is not evil at all. Kinda like "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. After one or two examples they should be able to do it themselve if they are not braindead.
The great thing is, that you teach them not really WHAT to think, but HOW to think. Nothing as powerful as being able to see through the fallacies on your on.
Check out some Tom Woods for ideas of how to make it entertaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91OIBnrjzLU
Why anarchy fails
Whatever you do, I would try to make it as interactive as possible. Ask the students questions. Get them involved. Get them thinking. I would suggest watching some of Jan Helfeld's videos on youtube (channel janhelfeld). He has had success with the Socratic method. Here are two I really like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8XYHXxMc0E and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu7LW6qMGxs. Maybe you could even show some of his clips in class? He also has some where he is asking Pelosi, I believe, about minimum wage laws.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I actually think Lilburne's Human Actions Comics series might be really good for something like this.
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
abskebabs:I actually think Lilburne's Human Actions Comics series might be really good for something like this.
Infinite emphasis added!
Why not a history of Classical liberal authors or their viewpoints on war or the state.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
@all, he has one day. One day to talk about Capitalism. Presumably one class length, on one day, to make a point about Capitalism.
GilesStratton: Hahaha using Rand and Gary North to inspire college freshmen, that's really work. Seriously, if it's like telling somebody who is decorating a synagogue to ask Hitler for help.
I linked to Gary North's presentation at ASC 2009, reposted at LRC. To college undergrads.
I know you commented without looking at the source material, thinking you are too smart for school (pun intended) and working from reputation, however Gary North is a LvMI contributor and speaker, and you go too far with your posts trolling the institute. Such posts will no longer be accepted.
It'd be compelling for a class to hear a lecture structured (in format and substance) like the following articles :
Review of Robert P Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
Anatomy of an Economic Ignoramus - Thomas E Woods
Each article addresses many fundamental issues most people have with Capitalism and briefly clears them up.
You'll be able to explain exactly what the free market is, how it regulates, what role profits and losses play, and much more (racial discrimination, free trade, etc) . Here is an example from each article:
Thomas E Woods Jr: Che: I love it when right wing economists talk about "market forces" and "letting the free market run our economy." They make it sound like the free market is some altruistic being that always knows exactly what to do and when to do it. For one thing, no free-market economist is dumb enough to use a phrase like "letting the free market run our economy." The free market is merely the matrix of free exchanges entered into by individuals. How can a matrix of free exchanges "run" anything? Secondly, no free-market economist thinks the market "always knows exactly what to do and when to do it." If that were the case, how could free-market economists account for firms that go out of business? The argument that free-market economists actually make is that on the free market, decisions regarding what to produce, in what quantities, using what methods, and in what locations, are made in light of satisfying the most urgent demands of consumers. Business firms find out very quickly what consumers want and what they do not want, and they adjust their production decisions accordingly. Profits indicate that a particular industry is combining factors of production in a way that pleases consumers. As a result, production in that industry tends to expand. Likewise, losses indicate that value is being reduced or destroyed, and that factors of production are being employed in lines of production that please consumers less, at the expense of other lines of production where they might have produced something consumers wanted more.
Che: I love it when right wing economists talk about "market forces" and "letting the free market run our economy." They make it sound like the free market is some altruistic being that always knows exactly what to do and when to do it.
I love it when right wing economists talk about "market forces" and "letting the free market run our economy." They make it sound like the free market is some altruistic being that always knows exactly what to do and when to do it.
Secondly, no free-market economist thinks the market "always knows exactly what to do and when to do it." If that were the case, how could free-market economists account for firms that go out of business?
The argument that free-market economists actually make is that on the free market, decisions regarding what to produce, in what quantities, using what methods, and in what locations, are made in light of satisfying the most urgent demands of consumers. Business firms find out very quickly what consumers want and what they do not want, and they adjust their production decisions accordingly.
Profits indicate that a particular industry is combining factors of production in a way that pleases consumers. As a result, production in that industry tends to expand. Likewise, losses indicate that value is being reduced or destroyed, and that factors of production are being employed in lines of production that please consumers less, at the expense of other lines of production where they might have produced something consumers wanted more.
David Gordon: how...can one justify enormous severance packages to CEOs who fail? Surely one cannot here appeal to market efficiency. Murphy accepts the challenge: Robert P Murphy: Unlike routine managerial work, the task of a CEO often involves bold innovation. If the steps necessary to turn a particular company around and earn millions were "obvious," the company wouldn't be in trouble in the first place. When a new CEO comes in with ambitious plans, he knows that failure is entirely possible. If the shareholders said, "We'll pay you $20 million if you succeed, but nothing if you fail," it wouldn't be a very attractive offer at all. This is because the type of person who gets picked to head a major corporation could easily make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for certain by consulting or offering other services less glamorous than being CEOs. (p. 21)
how...can one justify enormous severance packages to CEOs who fail? Surely one cannot here appeal to market efficiency. Murphy accepts the challenge:
Robert P Murphy: Unlike routine managerial work, the task of a CEO often involves bold innovation. If the steps necessary to turn a particular company around and earn millions were "obvious," the company wouldn't be in trouble in the first place. When a new CEO comes in with ambitious plans, he knows that failure is entirely possible. If the shareholders said, "We'll pay you $20 million if you succeed, but nothing if you fail," it wouldn't be a very attractive offer at all. This is because the type of person who gets picked to head a major corporation could easily make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for certain by consulting or offering other services less glamorous than being CEOs. (p. 21)
Unlike routine managerial work, the task of a CEO often involves bold innovation. If the steps necessary to turn a particular company around and earn millions were "obvious," the company wouldn't be in trouble in the first place. When a new CEO comes in with ambitious plans, he knows that failure is entirely possible. If the shareholders said, "We'll pay you $20 million if you succeed, but nothing if you fail," it wouldn't be a very attractive offer at all. This is because the type of person who gets picked to head a major corporation could easily make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for certain by consulting or offering other services less glamorous than being CEOs. (p. 21)
First and foremost, they need to understand that they should go after a career that is either directly or indirectly related to what they have a passion for.
Money, prestige, social-consciousness, etc. all sound fine and dandy, but if you hate what you do you will be miserable. You'll produce far more as a happy, productive worker or business person than an unhappy, nonproductive person.
They need to re-evaluate what the term "helping" really means. As some have pointed out, even the most ruthless, self-serving person in a free market economy turns out to benefit other people. This is because the free market exchange and the priciple of subjective value of human action makes the exchange of goods and services mutually beneficial. So you can do it for yourself and line your pockets with money all while you help people - some even providing goods and services that we might deem critical.
As far as an impact presentation, you have your work cut out for you. You are going against 12 years of government eductation, at least that much or more in religious belief that tends to lean towards altruism, and most probably an entire life with uninformed parental upbringing, peer pressure and media bias. The only way to crack that is to ignite a spark within them to seek out information on their own.
I might start off by saying that...
"Most likely everything you have been told about economics is either completely wrong or incomplete. That, while you might not be interested in philosophical discussions concerning economics, your very lives may depend on it. Most of you probably don't know what you want to do. That's an ordinary position at this stage in life. Some of you may have every step of your life planned out. If that's true, why are you in this class? So, since you'll admit that you don't know what you want to do, would you like to find or develop the tools to help you in your journey toward a happy and fulfilling life? Let us begin by throwing overboard the baggage of useless information that up to this point you thought or were told was essential..."
While you can state it any way you like, if you don't have their full attention within the first few minutes then you aren't likely to convince them of anything. They have to know that you don't have all of the answers, but you can point them in the right direction. For the greatest impact, you have to find the major misconceptions that they have, one of which is this notion that only certain careers "help people", and totally and unmercifully destroy them. Even better would be to show how their misconceived "good" is actually an indefensible evil. The effects of wealth redistribution, price controls, minimum wage laws, rent controls, etc. are evil despite the good intentions. Most people don't realize the consequences of these types of policies, focusing only on the intentions. The slide show on the effects of Rent Control versus War is a very eye-openning experience for even those who support Austrian Economics.
For awe-inspiring stuff, I do not think you can go past Leonard Read's "I, Pencil".
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
This was a commencement speech delivered by P.J. O'Rourke. While I don't agree with everything he says, it's definitely leaning in the right direction.
Well, here you are at your college graduation. And I know what you're thinking: "Gimme the sheepskin and get me outta here!" But not so fast. First you have to listen to a commencement speech.
Don't moan. I'm not going to "pass the wisdom of one generation down to the next." I'm a member of the 1960s generation. We didn't have any wisdom.
We were the moron generation. We were the generation that believed we could stop the Vietnam War by growing our hair long and dressing like circus clowns. We believed drugs would change everything -- which they did, for John Belushi. We believed in free love. Yes, the love was free, but we paid a high price for the sex.
My generation spoiled everything for you. It has always been the special prerogative of young people to look and act weird and shock grown-ups. But my generation exhausted the Earth's resources of the weird. Weird clothes -- we wore them. Weird beards -- we grew them. Weird words and phrases -- we said them. So, when it came your turn to be original and look and act weird, all you had left was to tattoo your faces and pierce your tongues. Ouch. That must have hurt. I apologize.
So now, it's my job to give you advice. But I'm thinking: You're finishing 16 years of education, and you've heard all the conventional good advice you can stand. So, let me offer some relief:
1. Go out and make a bunch of money!
Here we are living in the world's most prosperous country, surrounded by all the comforts, conveniences and security that money can provide. Yet no American political, intellectual or cultural leader ever says to young people, "Go out and make a bunch of money." Instead, they tell you that money can't buy happiness. Maybe, but money can rent it.
There's nothing the matter with honest moneymaking. Wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino's box. In a free society, with the rule of law and property rights, no one loses when someone else gets rich.
2. Don't be an idealist!
Don't chain yourself to a redwood tree. Instead, be a corporate lawyer and make $500,000 a year. No matter how much you cheat the IRS, you'll still end up paying $100,000 in property, sales and excise taxes. That's $100,000 to schools, sewers, roads, firefighters and police. You'll be doing good for society. Does chaining yourself to a redwood tree do society $100,000 worth of good?
Idealists are also bullies. The idealist says, "I care more about the redwood trees than you do. I care so much I can't eat. I can't sleep. It broke up my marriage. And because I care more than you do, I'm a better person. And because I'm the better person, I have the right to boss you around."
Get a pair of bolt cutters and liberate that tree.
Who does more for the redwoods and society anyway -- the guy chained to a tree or the guy who founds the "Green Travel Redwood Tree-Hug Tour Company" and makes a million by turning redwoods into a tourist destination, a valuable resource that people will pay just to go look at?
So make your contribution by getting rich. Don't be an idealist.
3. Get politically uninvolved!
All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I'd be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I've got three kids and three dogs in my family. We'd be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.
But let me make a distinction between politics and politicians. Some people are under the misapprehension that all politicians stink. Impeach George W. Bush, and everything will be fine. Nab Ted Kennedy on a DUI, and the nation's problems will be solved.
But the problem isn't politicians -- it's politics. Politics won't allow for the truth. And we can't blame the politicians for that. Imagine what even a little truth would sound like on today's campaign trail:
"No, I can't fix public education. The problem isn't the teachers unions or a lack of funding for salaries, vouchers or more computer equipment The problem is your kids!"
4. Forget about fairness!
We all get confused about the contradictory messages that life and politics send.
Life sends the message, "I'd better not be poor. I'd better get rich. I'd better make more money than other people." Meanwhile, politics sends us the message, "Some people make more money than others. Some are rich while others are poor. We'd better close that 'income disparity gap.' It's not fair!"
Well, I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you." What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.
5. Be a religious extremist!
So, avoid politics if you can. But if you absolutely cannot resist, read the Bible for political advice -- even if you're a Buddhist, atheist or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people who believes that God is involved in politics. On the contrary. Observe politics in this country. Observe politics around the world. Observe politics through history. Does it look like God's involved?
The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there's the tenth: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
Here are God's basic rules about how we should live, a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts. And, right at the end of it we read, "Don't envy your buddy because he has an ox or a donkey." Why did that make the top 10? Why would God, with just 10 things to tell Moses, include jealousy about livestock?
Well, think about how important this commandment is to a community, to a nation, to a democracy. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't whine about what the people across the street have. Get rich and get your own.
Now, one last thing:
6. Don't listen to your elders!
After all, if the old person standing up here actually knew anything worth telling, he'd be charging you for it.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
I would personally try, although it can be difficult, to avoid bringing up politics, ideology, or anti-state stuff. Just talk about markets and how well they work. As soon as you take an ideological stance they will become critical, think of you as a crack-pot and switch off. If you can convince some of the utility of markets, they will find a political position later on themselves.