Talk Elections

On Nov. 2nd, a group of students in Harvard University Ec10, the introductory economics class taught by Greg Mankiw, staged a walk-out. In an open letter, the students lambasted Greg’s course and his textbook for “espous[ing] a specific – and limited – view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today…..There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.”
...
something is shifting out there, and we ignore it at our peril.
...
Right now the general public views the economics profession with a large measure of distrust and in some cases outright contempt. Students are entering the worst job market in well over a generation, without much prospect of improvement.  Many of them have seen their parents’ lives turned upside down by financial troubles.  They face being members of the first generation in American history with a lower standard of living than their parents.

http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet/robin-wells-we-are-greg-mankiw%E2%80%A6-or-not

Wow. There is definitely a shift away from supply-side economics in my generation (at least that's my impression).

I have a favourable impression of Mankiw though, so I kind of feel for him here.

Encouraging!

So, let us get is straight. The students worked out on one of the world's major neo-Keynesians :)))

I think why liberalism is considered a bigger classic than the work of Keynes is because of Smith's status as a member of the first  generations of the enlightenment. Somehow the dead white guys who lived between 1725 and 1825 AD were the smartest people that have or ever will live.

Considering, that both methodologically and ideologically Smith is a lot closer to Marx than Keynes is, whereas Keynes is a lot closer to modern economics than either of the two, I don't see what's your problem?

That's true. They weren't protesting his body of work as an economist, just the curriculum of Harvard's version of 'Econ 101' which sounds like almost the same as taught in any introductory undergraduate econ course across the US (http://hpronline.org/harvard/an-open-letter-to-greg-mankiw/).

We talked about this in my intm macro class as we use Mankiw's book for the course. I really don't get why they did this. It seems like they were simply protesting basic intro econ stuff for no particularly good reason. Besides, Mankiw (while I think Bernanke's rendition of the Solow Model is better, I'm not walking out!) seems to be fairly decent--that is, there are way more deserving economists you could do this to. Just reeks of Harvard elitism to me. :P

Well, the reason they were not protesting his research is because they knew nothing about it. Nor, it seems, did they know much about the subject matter of the course at hand. It was a protest against modern economics in general: which is a lot easier to sustain if you don't know anything about it.

Oh right, dismiss them as ignoramuses, from your perch as a professor. But they are right that academic economics is taught in a very narrow way. I think what they do know is that what they are being taught does not speak to them, to questions that they are hungry and curious about. That does not seem to me to be a way to attract the brightest into a field that badly needs it, at the age when they are deciding what to do with their life.

I think, if anything, there is an oversupply of smart students doing economics as undergraduates. So, if a few of them choose to do Comparative Literature instead, I will only be thrilled.

And I don't really want to call them ignoramuses. They are just kids, acting like kids do. Not that much different, really, from my 8-year-old.

You think that we (or they, to be less presumptous) are driving down your wage? :P

Well, this really wasn't about ideology. It was really about a tenancy to give the decade among friends perhaps more credit than it was due. Democrats need to stop doing this, too...and I do understand that all Keynes basically believed was-

- Sometimes the economy may establish a subnormal price equilibrium between the demand, supply, goods and services

- The state can create a more optimal equilibrium through government spending that artificially raises prices and demand.

Nah. Few econ majors go on to do Ph.D in econ.

I am awfully sorry, but I can't seem to understand a word you are saying.

None of this will result in anything as the 'economists' who run this country will be bank tellers and "businessmen" that give the maximum donation to the winning candidates' campaigns.

Funny. They're probably all Austrians or Marxists. And even in their case it's sort of a stretch. I used Mankiws manual and I have no idea why would anyone contest its content. I really doubt that this would have happened if Mankiw wasn't a more or less prominent republican. Someone should ask them what exactly they want to be taken out of the manual/curriculum and with what they'd want to replace it. I bet it'd be some sort of nonsensical and irrelevant (from an economic perspective) social sciences stuff.

You don't think more econ majors would lead to more Ph.D students? Or at least a higher quality of Ph.D students?

(I'd think the more appropriate counter would be that it would take a long time for them to affect you... ;))

Wow these kids are stupid!

They walked out on one of the most famous Neo-Keynesians in the world because he wasn't offering enough Keynesian enough for them. I mean this is the guy that actually recommended that FFR should go negative(that is crazy stupid Keynesian right there).

Greg Mankiw's intro books that are used all over the country are Keynesian books. They believe in the validity of the Philips Curve(which is the only model in modern American history to be 100% completely torn to shreds by events), it teaches government stimulus models, and its pretty dovish on monetary policy and that is just the intro to Macro book.

Obviously they were protesting the lack of marxist economical theory in their course.

Undergrad Econ in the US is hardly preparatory for econ grad school (Hell, US master programs are not very good preparation for PHDs). You would better off with a degree in Mathematics, Computer science, or even physics, and just take up to intermediate theory.

As to the student's they are just upset that their opinion is not as equally valid as their Professor when it comes to the underpinnings of basic theoretical economic models.

I thought when I saw the thread title that they had walked out on Jim Pankiw. That would have been entertaining.

Wrong sort of minds for that, surely?

Considering how expensive Harvard is, students there have a perfect right to be upset at being overcharged for a course they could have taken elsewhere with the same content.

Here's a startling idea: If you do not like a good/service, do not buy it! Why in the world would these students pay top dollar for Mankiw's class only to do what they have done? Why not use those funds to pay for another class that is more suitable for their interests?

Oh, wait, I forgot: Mommy and daddy are paying for everything, so it's all just a big joke at this stage. Woe is me, the Harvard kid who has everything handed to them. What a laugh...

Americans are only a minority (often a small minority) of doctorate students in all but top 2 or 3 programs in economics. And, probably, half of those weren't econ majors to begin with.  Only a miniscule proportion of American econ majors go on for Ph.D.'s in any case, so the link between the two is, at best, very unclear.

Actually, though not an American, I, in fact, was an econ major in the US as an undergrad (though double major w/ math). It was no Harvard, though. Not even a Rutgers, for that matter, and it worked out fine. But, of course, like most freshmen I was obnoxious - an obnoxious right-winger, for a change, but that's not much difference, really :)))
 

Well ag, you win my taciturn friend. Your fellow Ph.D's and professionals occupy all the important posts now in Europe and the populations are acquiescent. I sincerely hope that succeed. If the world doesn't go into a deep depression in the next couple years, and we can get out of this without more than one or two people killed in riots, can we call it a success?

The point about reading on Harvard or another of the elite university isn't for the vast majority students about what they learn, but that the name is on their diplom afterward and the connections they have gotten while studying there.

Oy! As a member of my university's Literary Society I beg to differ. We're pretty well-read. On the other hand, our membership is percentage-wise really small. On the third hand, that's because most of the students at my school are business students. The actual Econ students aren't as uncultivated as you seem to think.

Target... hit! :D

My fellow Ph.D. doesn't even head the IMF. They've brought in two colleagues to deal w/ the basket cases of Greece and Italy - and it's a big mistake, if you ask me. The decisions to be made are political, not technocratic, and no amount of smarts are going to make them possible in the absence of political support.

Excuse, me. I thought the act of putting them in charge by itself was the ultimate political decision? Unless you can show where they asked for something and the politicians were not obedient?

I just came home after a night of drinking absinthe and discussing surreal literature. So, there. Beyond that, this is just a game for me, since I usually take your position at my university.

(tonight, we had an unusually large attendance due to the offer of absinthe. I think we scared them away through random provocative statements though)

No, it's the avoidande of the political decision. It is the general understanding among the economists, that either euro has to be ditched, or the much greater political and fiscal union has to be achieved. Neither option is even on the table - and the "economists" in question will never even whisper about it, as they have no political capital to implement it. So, it will be a muddle through for a while, at least until the politicians actually decide to shoulder the responsibility. Those poor montis and papademoses are merely sacrificial goats, put where they are to take the blame for everything that's going to happen.

Oh, well in that case, we are in agreement. :)

Well, yeah. That seems to be the straightforward professional consensus. I am not a macro guy, but my macro colleauges seem, actually, to have an alibi, specially constructed to make fun of them less than 2 years ago:

http://econjwatch.org/articles/it-can-t-happen-it-s-a-bad-idea-it-won-t-last-us-economists-on-the-emu-and-the-euro-1989-2002

The author of that article is a personal friend of my parents. He was, hilariously, opposed to the euro before he was hired to go work in Brussels. He asked my parents, before he went, "do you think I will be able to retain my independence if I take this job?" They told him no and turned out to be right. :P

Introductory courses for most sciences are based on unrealistic assumptions, and for such courses in economics to do this must mean economics has become a science.

On a serious note, it doesn't seem as if some students have much choice:

Harvard students have reasons to be angry. While they're taking notes on the inefficiency of price ceilings, the Justice class nearby is arguing about Rawlsian ethics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No) The latter is what was advertised and what applicants dreamed of. And don't dismiss everyone going to Harvard as doing it for the degree - financial aid means there are disadvantaged students who wants the education. Connections aren't easy to make without academic merit, either.

One response gets the central problem (http://hpronline.org/harvard/in-defense-of-ec-10/) when it says "One lesson from the first day of Ec 10 ... is learning to separate positive questions from normative ones." But the study of economics cannot choose between one or the other. Instead, the way the course is taught can be changed. Maybe intro econ can be taught in a "critical" manner by chronicling economics today as the product of economists' critiques.

Your follow up phrase makes me think the opening sentence is tongue-in-cheek. Even so, I'm confused by the highlighted clause.

A reference to freshman physics abstracting air friction and the like. Also references an argument I heard that introductory economics must sacrifice realism to develop the method of reasoning, just as introductory physics does.

"Science" was not the best word choice, but take it as you will.

Now I'm fascinated. Abstracting air friction is not something I'd expect in freshman physics beyond the concept of a terminal velocity. That doesn't strike me as an unrealistic assumption, so I presume there's something more to the story.

I have never heard of a first year economics textbook that does not highlight the difference between positive and normative economics, and does not emphasize almost exclusively the former. When normative economics is broached, usually the top opposing viewpoints on a particular matter are given to provide balance.

This is just a bunch of whiny, naive students who know nothing about economics, most notably a complete absence of understanding of scarcity/constraints. This is the foundation of their fantastical beliefs about a great deal of things without an iota of empirical evidence, not to mention mathematical rigor, to back themselves up...

Classic right-wing diatribe there, politico, devoid of any evidence to back it up.  You do realize, don't you, that 'scarcity' is a myth created by the owners?

Full disclosure: I used to be just like them when I was a teenager.

You still do not realize why printing money will not get everybody everything they want/desire? Every time I see one of your posts in this sub-forum, I pray that you are trolling and not serious...

The point is to get rid of the debt without 'repaying' it, Politico.  Printing money is one good way to do that.

Reminder to self: Do not feed the troll...do not feed the troll...do not feed the troll...

Come on, politico, you're the classic right-wing 'troll'.

Surely you realize that the reason some countries (the US, UK, Japan) pay low interest rates is precisely because they can simply print the money to pay back debts (the debt is 'guaranteed' in that way).

I can't hear you!

Scarcity is certainly an item of mere myth in macroeconomic theory.