Political Theory

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Neodoxy — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:33:22 GMT

"saying markets are great and then saying markets are complete failures is wrong."

And no one is saying that they are complete failure, well at least very few are. Just because something has a problem or a shorfall in it doesn't mean that it is useless. Cars are great, computers are great, but that doesn't mean that there aren't flaws in them.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Anarcho-libertarian — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:38:40 GMT

grant.w.underwood:

what wheylous is saying that sulfuric acid cant be good to drink and be bad to drink.

Saying socialism works just as good as capitalism is impossible. One HAS to be better. Therefore one HAS to right and one has to be wrong.

saying markets are great and then saying markets are complete failures is wrong. They either work or dont.

Right. Exactly what Mises explained.

To the OP, I would recomend this article by Gary North:

How a College Student Can Safely Create Pain for a Professor Who Is Misusing His Bully Pulpit

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Rcder — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:43:49 GMT

That seems kind of bonkers.

Is the using a textbook? I can't think of any intro or intermediate macro book that teaches that way. It would be interesting to see why he deviates from the textbook's outline.

In my own experience the Philips curve was the final part of a general lesson on introductory monetary policy concepts. To be honest, I'm not sure how any of his students could understand the Philips curve if it's presented to them without any context or preface. Maybe he's not really working from a textbook?

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Student — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:03:39 GMT

Scuffle #1 happend over the "phillips curve". The very first lesson we learned was the fucking phillips curve. (which states that theres a relationship between the level of inflation and unemployment. Basicly, the higher the inflation, the lower unemployment, and vice versa.) THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST THING HE TAUGHT.

That seems kind of bonkers.

Is the using a textbook? I can't think of any intro or intermediate macro book that teaches that way. It would be interesting to see why he deviates from the textbook's outline.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Wheylous — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:15:06 GMT

Is your point that there is a lot of conflict in mainstream economic literature/lectures, that some literature presents claims that markets are generally good, while other literature presents "fatal flaws" or at least significant ones?

In my experience even pro-market people like Hayek advocate things like a basic income (and Friedman with the NIT). I mean, come on.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

grant.w.underwood — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:10:38 GMT

what wheylous is saying that sulfuric acid cant be good to drink and be bad to drink.

Saying socialism works just as good as capitalism is impossible. One HAS to be better. Therefore one HAS to right and one has to be wrong.

saying markets are great and then saying markets are complete failures is wrong. They either work or dont.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

eliotn — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:46:20 GMT

"Sure, they claim that markets generally solve, but if you take the collective body of economic literature you'll find reasons for why the market needs significant government control in every aspect!"

Is your point that there is a lot of conflict in mainstream economic literature/lectures, that some literature presents claims that markets are generally good, while other literature presents "fatal flaws" or at least significant ones?

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Wheylous — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 04:26:53 GMT

Sure, they claim that markets generally solve, but if you take the collective body of economic literature you'll find reasons for why the market needs significant government control in every aspect! Especially when you throw in general concepts like asymmetric information and monopoly - at that point, government suddenly becomes unable to do any harm whatsoever and economists throw the calculation debate out of the window.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Neodoxy — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 04:02:18 GMT

Wheylous.... Wheylous... Either acid is good or it's not, pick one. Just because something is good in some ways does not mean that it is not without flaws. I know that especially in our positions it can seem as though there must be a single correct solution, one blanket fact like "markets are always good" or "markets require constant maintenance", but this is not so. There is a lot of grey area.

Also I'd really disagree that it's all been about how markets fail. I'd argue that the only era where that was really the case was from the 30's to the 70's. From 1870 to 1930 marginalist theory, market structures, and the nature of the interest rate was really well examined, indeed most of the major concerns of AE rest on theories developed around this time and which was the center of mainstream attention at the time. From the 40's to 70's market failure and "macro economics", I.E Keynesian stimulus economics really developed, even the concept of collective goods was fleshed out.

From the 70's till now free market economics, supply side and monetarist, started to take off as well as RBCT, although that's a more recent developments. Furthermore in recent years the idea of self-regulated markets returned and the efficient markets hypothesis became popular (and was just as stupid when conceived as it is now). Most importantly the idea of government failure has come into its own, and public choice economics has finally been criticizing the very structure of government in the mainstream through economic methods.

This trend may well be coming to an end, however, with the most recent developments are increasingly anti-free market, as the most recent recession was caused by "free markets". Keynesianism is on the rise, and hopefully Austrianism will be too, and I consider that a very real possibility.

/Rant

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

eliotn — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 02:14:51 GMT

"Either markets are generally good solutions or they're not - pick one."

Sorry to nitpick Waylous, but it is a false dichotemy to assume that something is a good solution or it is not, can't something be a good solution in particular circumstances. I think the general mainstream view is that markets work in many scenarios, but there are some scenarios that they feel are flawed, hence the use of government to try to fix these flaws. Maybe there is some hypocracy, but I don't know.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Wheylous — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:13:42 GMT

I think it's important to note that most ideas which make up modern economics have been around since 1840 with the classical economists.

And most work since has been "and this is how markets fail," it appears from my experience with school.

I don't get it. You start Econ 101 learning that "markets are good solutions to economic problems" and then you spend 10 years afterwards learning how markets fail - asymmetric info, monopolies, frice fixing, unused capital, unstable financial sectors, powerful corporations, etc.

Either markets are generally good solutions or they're not - pick one. If markets fail so much then don't teach Econ 101 students that markets are good solutions.

Re: I MAY ENACT VIOLENCE ON MY ECONOMICS TEACHER

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:38:40 GMT

Since 1974 seven Nobel Prizes have been given for work critical of the Phillips curve.

This is reassuring.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:37:23 GMT

I wish I found the Austrian school as a freshman/sophomore.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

ThatOldGuy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 22:35:41 GMT

Sometimes I wish I had never stumbled upon the mises institute. It would have saved me a huge amount of frustration. I could just sit in my chair and zone out like all the rest of the students, and regurritate information for the tests.

Hahaha. You're not alone. Parallels have been drawn to finding the Austrian school and the Matrix (specifically, in whether one should choose the red pill or the blue pill). You're not alone.

Anyway, I've respectfully challenged him on quite a few things so far, and intend to do so more in the future.

This is what I did. I asked critical questions carefully, without too many loaded words, and politely and (even though my teacher and I didn't resolve all of our arguments in agreement) I feel that I earned his respect and I didn't make an "enemy." I was always careful to not persist in an argument for too long (otherwise, one can appear as "that guy") and make a nuisance of myself in class- I always "chose" my battles (this way, whenever another student felt uncertain in a particular lesson, they would approach me for clarification of what the teacher said and would feel comfortable when I offer my perspective when they seemed interested in it).

I know exactly what you mean when you mention the dilemmas of tests and "not knowing" how to answer a question. Some memborable disputes include the ordinal nature of marginal utility (seriously, utils? even the textbook we used said that utils are made up immeasurable things), indifference curves, the cardinal nature of consumer/producer surplus presented in class, as well as the high prices of gas. Fun times.

Re: ECONOMICS TEACHER

Neodoxy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:48:00 GMT

@David B

That's more or less Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

EDIT

On Milton Friedman, I think it's important to note that most ideas which make up modern economics have been around since 1840 with the classical economists.

Friedman did a lot of stuff with monetary theory, an idea of stable currency, and most importantly he was the first to really map out and identify government spending and the crowding out effect.