Harvard Students stage walk-out on Greg Mankiw

[ag]

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

[ag]

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?

[ag]

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

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.

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.

[ag]

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.

[ag]

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?

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

[ag]

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?

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.

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

[ag]

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

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 ))
 

[ag]

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?

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.

[ag]

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?

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.

[ag]

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