An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Disagree. They need to stop teaching old fashioned econ 101 until econ has a coherent body of knowledge or information that is useful to humans. The current curriculum as it exists in text books is harmful, dangerous and not fit for human consumption. It isn't based on reality, facts, data or in anyway useful for running business, government, lives or anything else, just pure fantasy. It has harmed civil society irreparably. If it were any other consumer product, it would either be banned entirely or labelled with warnings, like alcohol, cigarettes or automobiles which kill and injure millions of people each year.
I would just like to point out that religion fits your definition of harmful teaching perfectly.
Incoherent body of "knowledge"......check not useful to humans (other than to lie to ourselves that our loved ones are in a "better place" and we'll get to see them again after we all become worm food).....check current "curriculum" is harmful, dangerous, and not fit for human consumption.....check not based on reality.....check based on fantasy....check harms civil society irreparably.....check
Mainstream economics teaching is basically a religion. It has its unchangeable central tenets (printing money = bad, deficits = bad, interest rates = all powerful, free markets = good, etc), has high priests that must be consulted to understand the "gospel". People get extremely upset and uncomfortable when you criticize their jesus or allah beliefs just like they do when you point out inconsistencies with their economics beliefs.
This understanding also allows one to answer the question:
"well, if what MMT says is true, then why does everyone else believe what I do?" Otherwise known as the consensus fallacy.
Easy, if 75% of the population can believe in magic when it comes to religion, why should it be a surprise that 90% of the population believe in the delusions of mainstream economics.
A key difference between economics and religion is that religion is not taught in public schools in a liberal society. Rather, conventional economics based on myths of economic liberalism as the sine qua non for political and social liberalism is taught as the basis for liberal society. This is this what economic liberalism has become the new religion culturally.
Also interesting, is that just as there is a difference between conventional myth-based economics and reality-based economics, there is a similar difference between myth-based religions and the core spirituality that underlies all wisdom traditions.
Both religions and pseudo-sciences, which are myth-based and depend on magical thinking, need to be replaced by reality-based science and core spirituality culturally for social, political and economic liberalism to be integrated and achieved practically in society. This is the basis for living a good life as an individual in a good society.
5 comments:
Disagree. They need to stop teaching old fashioned econ 101 until econ has a coherent body of knowledge or information that is useful to humans. The current curriculum as it exists in text books is harmful, dangerous and not fit for human consumption. It isn't based on reality, facts, data or in anyway useful for running business, government, lives or anything else, just pure fantasy. It has harmed civil society irreparably. If it were any other consumer product, it would either be banned entirely or labelled with warnings, like alcohol, cigarettes or automobiles which kill and injure millions of people each year.
Great comment Ryan.
I would just like to point out that religion fits your definition of harmful teaching perfectly.
Incoherent body of "knowledge"......check
not useful to humans (other than to lie to ourselves that our loved ones are in a "better place" and we'll get to see them again after we all become worm food).....check
current "curriculum" is harmful, dangerous, and not fit for human consumption.....check
not based on reality.....check
based on fantasy....check
harms civil society irreparably.....check
Mainstream economics teaching is basically a religion. It has its unchangeable central tenets (printing money = bad, deficits = bad, interest rates = all powerful, free markets = good, etc), has high priests that must be consulted to understand the "gospel". People get extremely upset and uncomfortable when you criticize their jesus or allah beliefs just like they do when you point out inconsistencies with their economics beliefs.
This understanding also allows one to answer the question:
"well, if what MMT says is true, then why does everyone else believe what I do?" Otherwise known as the consensus fallacy.
Easy, if 75% of the population can believe in magic when it comes to religion, why should it be a surprise that 90% of the population believe in the delusions of mainstream economics.
Good luck with that... Economic departments are on a power trip.
True Auburn, We'll probably never 'fix' either religion or econ to be less destructive too.
A key difference between economics and religion is that religion is not taught in public schools in a liberal society. Rather, conventional economics based on myths of economic liberalism as the sine qua non for political and social liberalism is taught as the basis for liberal society. This is this what economic liberalism has become the new religion culturally.
Also interesting, is that just as there is a difference between conventional myth-based economics and reality-based economics, there is a similar difference between myth-based religions and the core spirituality that underlies all wisdom traditions.
Both religions and pseudo-sciences, which are myth-based and depend on magical thinking, need to be replaced by reality-based science and core spirituality culturally for social, political and economic liberalism to be integrated and achieved practically in society. This is the basis for living a good life as an individual in a good society.
Post a Comment