A socialist learns economics (sort of)
Here is a fascinating account of how a journalist for a socialist newspaper ended up taking a class in economics--and learning more about the way the world works than he expected to. Austrians will note that most of his criticisms apply not to Austrian theory but to a narrow brand of Chicago-style theorizing. Still, one can expect that the writer would have had an even more negative view of the Austrian school and its policy radicalism. He concludes that economics is great if all you care about is efficiency but then we must also think about morality and justice, which he just presumes the market cannot give us. Read it. It's wrongheaded but you will find it interesting, and, if you are like me, you will be wholly sympathetic to the professor's point of view (except that he doesn't go far enough).
Comments (10)
M E Hoffer
the sublime fatuousness of: "announced that the “era of big government is over.” He might as well have said, “We are all Chicagoans now.”"-- this construct, and the utter lack of any jounalistic inquiry/integrity required, of one, to say/reiterate it, caused me to suspend reading further.
If that wayward dude was seriously interested in learning anything about Economics, he'd be better off, outdoors, with the likes of these Individuals:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061126/business_documentaries.html?.v=2
Published: November 27, 2006 10:14 PM
Ben
The part towards the end where the students start to dissent regarding the topic of international free trade is a fairly telling indictment regarding the influence anti-globalisation propaganda. Up to that point, due to the lecturer's carefully reasoned arguments built from the ground up, everyone in the class seemed more or less cognizant of the benefits of free trade between two parties, however the blood pressure clearly starts to rise and the logic to skip when arbitrary national borders are transposed between them. Interesting article.
Published: November 27, 2006 10:25 PM
Ben
Incidentally, I dare him to attend a few courses by Professors Block or Reisman. He'd be a babbling wreck in about 15 minutes flat.
Published: November 27, 2006 10:34 PM
Chris Meisenzahl
It's too bad, he could have gotten a much better return for his time invested w/ the free PDF of Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson, or any 30 or so Walter Williams columns.
Published: November 27, 2006 11:50 PM
RogerM
I think it's obvious that the reporter took the class looking for a way to debunk economics, not to learn. He did learn some trivial things, but managed to keep his socialist ideology intact.
This proves somehting that I learned in public relations many years ago: few people seek the truth. Most people want to confirm their prejudices. Truth seeking requires humility and and an attitude that is emotionally indifferent to the outcome of the investigation, which is very difficult to do because our ideologies are intertwined with our self-image, and they affect our relationships with our closest friends and colleagues who tend to share those ideologies.
The reporter cared too much about preserving his socialist ideas. Had he been willing to surrender them because he cared more about the truth than socialism, he would have learned a lot.
Published: November 28, 2006 9:06 AM
Wild Pegasus
When the class starts to fire back about trade, that's a perfect opportunity for Prof. Sanderson to introduce market distortions: subsidies, tariffs, export taxes, dumping, "free trade" agreements, etc. Here, he can make a simple but powerful point: when the outcome is contrary to economic prediction, cherchez l'etat.
- Josh
Published: November 28, 2006 1:26 PM
M E Hoffer
RogerM,
Your thumbnail description of PR well and ably encapsulates the body of that Art.
Published: November 28, 2006 1:31 PM
RogerM
I had a paper from PR research that divided our convictions into three concentric circles. On the outside were opinions that changes easily, such as which brand of toothpaste to buy. In the middle were attitudes, such as whether to brush my teeth or not. In the center were worldviews, such as religion and philosophy. The paper said that PR dealt with the outer circle only. The middle circle, attitudes, require three years of psycho-analysis or an emotionally traumatic event in life to change, so PR stayed away from it. The inner circle, worldviews, represented things so difficult to change that the author wouldn't event talk about them. One reason that worldviews are so difficult to change is that we are so emotionally attached to them. They're make up our identity and the identities of our social/family groups.
Published: November 28, 2006 3:21 PM
Brent
He probably would have gotten better a better economics agent at GMU, but he seemed to be itching for a fight with "mainstream" neoclassical theory -- as developed by "Chicagoans".
There are many chicago-esque / neoclassical elements in current macrotheory, but there are still a great many keynesian components as well. It seems that the neoclassical approach has been used in more and more in macrotheory, but there is no real neoclassical macro, as there certainly is neoclassical microeconomics.
Published: November 28, 2006 8:05 PM
Brent
sorry, tiredness...
I meant to say he would have probably gotten a better economics education at GMU...
Published: November 28, 2006 8:07 PM