Studying Economics

[Brian]

The videos on the website:  http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/events/our-events/91-2/ also deserve a mention for those socialists who may need some direct quotes on the current thinking on the subject in academia.

[LBird]

A Response… wrote:

What we are instead looking for is to establish a reality based (inductively taught), pluralistic economics, particularly at undergraduate level. We want economists to acknowledge where there are competing theories which explain certain phenomena, and to draw attention to the pros and cons of the relevant theories. This is critical pluralism, not an “anything goes” smorgasbord of dead economists.

[my bold]http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/a-response-to-commentary-on-the-post-crash-economics-society/You're on seriously bad philosophical and methodological ground here, PCES.'Induction' pretends to be based upon 'reality', without questioning how it accesses 'reality'. As a result, it takes 'reality' to be what 'common sense' tells us it is, and so is an essentially conservative method. It starts from 'what exists', rather than critically examining where 'reality' come from, and who constructed our understanding of it. A historical method is opposed to an inductive method.I recommend that you begin your 'critical pluralism' with a discussion about philosophy and method, and ensure that any teacher/researcher/student exposes their ideology before you start to examine 'reality'.Anyone who says they don't have an 'ideology' is either lying or ignorant. In my experience with academics, it's the latter.

PCES wrote:

– We agree economics isn't a separate field and one of the key things we want is context (political, historical, ethical). Having said that, sometimes you have to compromise and go for the catchiest name.

Does 'catchy' mean what 'exists', what is 'common sense', what is the 'reality' of it now, what 'everybody understands'? IMO, if you continue to use 'economics' in your name, you're already on the slippery ideological slope back to whence you came! Beware!Have fun!

[ALB]

Thanks but I must confess I had to look up DSGE and IS-LM, but I did understand straightaway headless chicken economics:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqYlI agree with this comment you referred to:

Quote:

“Sixth, I am happy to discuss and debate Marx and variants of Marxism with you. Historically he is a great and important thinker. However, he is less relevant to modern societies and economies as we have abandoned command economies for the very simple reason that they do not work. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to North Korea. Take a trip to Cuba (I have). While his ideas are intellectually appealing but Marxist theories have not found success in practice.”The intentions behind the letter are good, but common, saying this, really ? Usually it is the habit of people who have no clue about Marx to reply “North Korea” as soon as they see “Marx” written somewhere (I am not saying it is the case of this Professor, but he uses the same rhetoric). It is indeed another reason to teach more of Marx economics.

Not so sure about this one, though:

Quote:

Suffice to say that Marxism is really just a tool for understanding capitalism, rather than a blueprint for alternative societies.

but as you say:

Quote:

To start, it bears repeating that as a society we do not have political aims. We are not lobbying to get rid of central banks, overthrow capitalism, save the planet or what have you. We are not merely pushing to have “Marx and Keynes”, or any other thinker in economics, taught simply because we happen to like them.

Fair enough.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

but as you say:

Quote:

To start, it bears repeating that as a society we do not have political aims. We are not lobbying to get rid of central banks, overthrow capitalism, save the planet or what have you. We are not merely pushing to have “Marx and Keynes”, or any other thinker in economics, taught simply because we happen to like them.

Fair enough.

Oh no, not the eternal myth of the unbiased observer!Theory (and ideology) determine 'what we observe'. There is no privileged position in either the universe or society, for physics or economics.All university societies 'have political aims'. To deny this is already a political position. A conservative one.Not 'fair enough', ALB!

[ALB]

I wasn't agreeing with them, but if you read on you'll come across something more to your liking:

Quote:

Economists seem wont to believe that their “thinking like an economist” mindset is merely a technocratic, ideologically neutral one, but in fact it often comes with a whole lot of baggage. For example: an insistence on quantifying things that may not be quantifiable, and comparing incommensurate concepts (cost-benefit analysis for environmental catastrophe); the idea that people are mostly driven by incentives (see Freakonomics); a use of particular criteria – such as Pareto Efficiency and GDP – to judge the economy/society. We are not claiming that this mindset is ‘wrong’ per se, but that all too often it is taught to students as if it is unquestionable and scientific, rather than simply one of many lenses through which to view the world.

No?

[PCES]

When we say 'political', we generally mean 'pushing for particular policies'. We don't think we, economics education or anything can be inherently unbiased.Also, you have a point about induction. Obviously just observing statistics and not talking about where they come from or what they 'mean' is fruitless, and probably somewhat conservative. However, what we mean is that the facts should be taught (eg the history of financial crises), followed by the theories which plasubiyl interpret this reality. Right now a particular theory is drummed into students, which then might be shown to be consistent with a few stylised facts at the end of the module. The result is that the student thinks first in terms of theory and then in terms of the real world when it should surely be the other way around.But obviously all of this requries a grounding in ethics, philosophy and so forth. In fact, we believe economcis should start with the study of value.

[LBird]

PCES wrote:

Also, you have a point about induction. Obviously just observing statistics and not talking about where they come from or what they 'mean' is fruitless, and probably somewhat conservative. However, what we mean is that the facts should be taught…

But… the claim that 'facts should be taught' is induction.Do the 'facts' present themselves to the PCES, completely unbidden? The problem here is that 'facts' are selected for presentation by humans employing a theory, the parameters of which determine what counts as a 'fact'.

PCES wrote:

Right now a particular theory is drummed into students…

Yes, the correct method is to 'drum several theories into students'! Since theory is inescapable, students must be exposed to as many conflicting theories as possible, the better both to identify their own (which they are probably unware of, and often deny having) which they presently employ, and to allow them to explore others and thus have a choice which one they intend to employ to select 'the facts'. This builds critical faculties, both of themselves and others.

PCES wrote:

The result is that the student thinks first in terms of theory and then in terms of the real world when it should surely be the other way around.

Doh!No, everybody (not just students) thinks first in terms of theory. Those who deny this are merely ignorant of their theory. Society teaches us 'theory' by socialisation, and to leave it unexamined is a methodological error.The theory will determine what counts as 'the real world'; the other way round is our old friend 'induction'.

PCES wrote:

But obviously all of this requries a grounding in ethics, philosophy and so forth. In fact, we believe economcis should start with the study of value.

Well, I'm sure all of us here would agree… but then we're open Communists!Unless the PCES is open about its political aims (in an ideological, philosophical, methodological sense, not 'policy'), then I fear that you will go astray. Pretence is not a good starting point. There is no 'objective' position in the universe, so we must expose our stance, our relationship to our focus of study.The biggest pretence in 'economics' (sic) is that it is an 'objective' science. This notion has been dead in physics since Einstein, and the sooner the lesson spreads to the various 'social sciences', the better.Perhaps you should adjust PCES to mean 'Pre-Communist Economics Society'.We all know that won't happen because the bourgeois myth of 'objective enquiry' in academia must be maintained. It's a lie, it's always been a lie, and whilst it continues, we are prolonging the lie.The professors won't be happy unless you adhere to their stance. You'll be castigated as 'biased' and, god forbid, 'political'!Embrace the truth, and expose their ideological biases, too. Good luck!

[Author]

Posts