Ramanan — Ha-Joon Chang — Economics For People

Lecture series on YouTube for your upcoming holiday edification.

The Case for Concerted Action
Ha-Joon Chang — Economics For People
V. Ramanan

Michael Roberts Blog — Economics as a social science

There is no substitute for the ‘big picture’. Economists should not be doctors but social scientists, or more accurately they should develop an economics that recognises the wider social forces that drive economic models, in particular, the social mode of production that is capitalism. That is political economy, mostly not taught in universities and certainly not practised in international agencies....

Michael Roberts Blog — blogging from a marxist economist
Economics as a social science
Michael Roberts

Greg Mankiw' — Sad News from China

Depending on how you look at it.

Greg Mankiw's Blog
Sad News from China

N. Gregory Mankiw | Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University

How to reform the economics Ph.D — Tyler Cowen

Along those lines, I have a modest proposal. Eliminate the economics Ph.D, period. Offer everyone three years of graduate economics education, and no more (with a clock reset allowed for pregnancy). Did Smith, Keynes, or Hayek have an economics Ph.D? This way, no one will assume you know what you are talking about, and the underlying message is that economics learning is lifelong.

Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek were philosophers, and Keynes was a mathematician. Karl Marx, who goes unmentioned even though he influenced the modern world as much as any other, if not more, was also a philosopher. 

All of them influenced economics and also changed the world more profoundly more than any academic economist.  Conversely, Kenneth Boulding was an economist. Dissatisfied with the direction of academic economics, he became a philosopher and co-founded general systems theory.

Ok, these were outliers. Economic training is needed to do the day to day, nitty gritty.

But just what kind of training and how much is needed to do work in economics, including work that is contributory to knowledge? How would that be measured? What are the criteria? Are there hidden assumptions?

Tyler Cowen makes some suggestions but shouldn't something as important as this be studied on the basis of data? And as he points out, it likely applies to other fields as well. Are we sticking to a traditional process in education out of habit even though it could be greatly improved upon, as well as reevaluated for current needs? Have we inadvertently sacralized convention?

Marginal Revolution
How to reform the economics Ph.D
Tyler Cowen | Holbert C. Harris Chair of Economics at George Mason University and serves as chairman and general director of the Mercatus Center

Revisiting Education of Economics – Dr. Omer Javed

Economics and teaching economics in Pakistan. Good short summary of the history of economics. Curiously, he doesn't mention MMT or even Post Keynesianism, taking a decidedly institutional approach. MMT economists draw on Post Keynesianism and institutional economics heavily, although these are not the only influences. 

Global Village Space
Revisiting Education of Economics – Dr. Omer Javed

Omer Javed, institutional political economist,who previously worked at International Monetary Fund

Indoctrinated by Econ 101 — John Warner

My fundamental understanding of the world has been warped by a now challenged approach. I'm not alone.…

In the end, the chief byproduct of my general education exposure was a kind of indoctrination into the centrality of markets to understanding human behavior and the apparent importance of economics professors.

I’m not alone. Introductory economics could be one of the most widely received credits in all of higher education. And unlike other common courses (like say, first-year writing), Econ 101 is extremely similar institution to institution. Supply and demand is framed as a law in the same fashion as gravity. When supply and demand does not seem to work according to the “law” (e.g., health care) it is the not the law that is faulty, but the market itself, with much public policy effort going toward trying to bring the market in compliance with the law, often to negative effect.

That supply and demand might not be a law doesn’t seem to occur. Higher education seems to be bumping up against these tensions as well....

Bingo! That's is the purpose of it, after all. Some are finally waking up to it. Fake news is one thing that drives the narrative, and fake knowledge is another.

And it is not just Econ 101. The brainwashing continues through the PhD.

Inside Higher Ed
Indoctrinated by Econ 101

John Warner

See also

Real-World Economics Review Blog
Economics is an ideology

CORE and Periphery in the Reform of Econ 101 — Peter Dorman

Peter Dorman critiques the CORE revision of Econ 101 and finds that it relies too much on rote and not enough on active learning. Rote may be more suitable for those going on in the study of economics, but most students taking Econ 101 don't. The introductory course should be designed to serve the needs of the many rather than the few.

Econospeak
CORE and Periphery in the Reform of Econ 101
Peter Dorman | Professor of Political Economy, The Evergreen State College

Bill Mitchell — The brainwashing of economics graduate students

I was reminded this week of an interesting studies published in 1987 by Arjo Klamer and David Colander on the influences that go into the training of a professional economist. This study was repeated by Colander in 2005. The results are rather disturbing although obviously I am an ‘insider’ in the sense I went through the process in one way or another myself (although not in a US graduate program). They demonstrate how far removed graduate students are from learning or being interested in the real world. They compete among each other for ‘technical excellence’ in mathematics so they can solve tricky technical problems but do not think it is important to know anything much about the real world economy nor about the economics literature and history of the discipline that has gone before them. They adopt classic Groupthink characteristics as they are moulded (socialised, brainwashed, choose your own word) by their professors (who then feed them into their own networks for employment etc). There is little wonder the profession has very little to say that makes any sense about the real world. It is largely a disgrace....

I would put this somewhat differently. It depends on whether a discipline focuses on pure theory or practical application. Pure math at the grad level is about proof. Theoretical physics is about mathematical modeling focus on questions at the frontier of knowledge rather than practical applications. In fact, the charge against the present state of theoretical physics is that it as exceeded the scope of science and has ventured into philosophy.

There is nothing inherently wrong about choosing to focus on pure  theory rather than practical application. But we rely on engineers to solve practical problems about material systems, not theoretical physicists or pure mathematicians.

What if there were no attention paid to applied physics and applied math, which is what engineering involves?

Yet, there we are in relation to the application of economics. Calling on pure theorists to do this work is not something that happens in other fields? Why economics? That is a pressing question.

If pure theorist want to pursue theoretical questions, no problem. The problems arise when they attempt to apply the models beyond the limitations of the scope and scale of the assumptions to arrive at solutions that to problems that are at bottom engineering problem. Or they are asked to do as "experts."

Business schools know this and devote minimal time to instruction in theoretical economics and none to pure math?

Theory is formal; experiment and practical application are empirical. In the context of application, theory is judged on its usefulness, not its elegance.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The brainwashing of economics graduate students
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Clint Ballinger — 1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics

Here is a draft of all five chapters of 1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics. Previous chapters have been linked to here at MNE. This is the complete work.

This is a pre-publication copy. Comments and constructive criticism of the draft appreciated.

1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics

Clint Ballinger

Bill Mitchell — MMT and pluralism in economics

I am recording some promotional videos in London today for Macmillan Higher Education who will publish our forthcoming textbook – Macroeconomics on March 11, 2019. These will be the first of many short videos to support the teaching program outlined in the textbook. At last Friday’s very successful launch of the – Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies (GIMMS) – I was asked a question at the end of the first formal workshop I presented, which I was unable to answer due to time constraints. The question went something like – “What do you think of the movements to instill pluralism into the teaching of economics?” The corollary was whether our forthcoming textbook adopts a ‘pluralist’ approach. The question implied that ‘pluralism’ was a desirable characteristic for a macroeconomics course to feature. In this blog post I discuss this question. It outlines what I might have said by way of answer to that question. But, given the medium, in a lot more detail than I would have provided at the actual event. Generally, we adopt a ‘pluralist’ approach. But it all depends on what we mean by that term. What we do not do is privilege the mainstream macroeconomics in any way. Too often, those who call for ‘pluralism’ in economics think it is appropriate to force students to learn swathes of the mainstream theory and practice as if it is knowledge. They think this is somehow a liberal approach to learning. Our view is that learning is about knowledge accumulation. Universities are not places where ‘fake knowledge’ should be disseminated. That is what propaganda is about....

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
MMT and pluralism in economics
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

William McColloch — On Sraffa and the History of Economic Thought

What should the purpose of studying the history of economic thought be?

Piero Sraffa explains it.

The post is short and important in the study of history of thought, not only economic thought.

Sraffa's answer is consistent with Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change.

Naked Keynesianism
On Sraffa and the History of Economic Thought
Opening comments, "Roundtable on Sraffian Economics as Part of the Radical Political Economics Tradition," URPE 50th Anniversary Conference, September 28th, 2018.

William McColloch, Assistant Professor of Economics, Keene State College, New Hampshire

Bill Mitchell — Economics curriculum is needed to work against selfishness and for altruism

It is Wednesday and so just some snippets. I have written about the behavioural impacts that studying mainstream economics, particularly the microeconomics component can have on students as they progress through their studies. I have observed sort of nice young people entering first-year and by later years, become arrogant, self-opinionated and delusional jerks. This phenomenon is particularly prominent if they go onto to do postgraduate level studies. It is well documented. The way mainstream economics is taught builds on anti-social attitudes that might already be present in students who choose to undertake this sort of training. The curriculum matters a lot. In that context, our next macroeconomics textbook (see below) will, in my view, actively work against any predisposition towards selfishness and against altruism, while still providing students with a first-class, technical education in how the monetary system operates....

Also

The final publication of our new Macroeconomics textbook (Mitchell, Wray and Watts) by Macmillan Palgrave will be February 2019.

We are presently working with Macmillan’s editors on the final version to clear up outstanding issues. It has been a mammoth task, much harder than writing a stand-alone monograph. But we are in the final stages now and the outcome will be a two-year (University-level) sequence in Macroeconomics that is built from foundations up by the developments we have made in Modern Monetary Theory.

It doesn’t just mention MMT. The pedagogy is core MMT – the first time a 2-year sequence of this type will become available....

Woo hoo!

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Economics curriculum is needed to work against selfishness and for altruismBill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Asad Zaman — Simple Model Explains Complex Keynesian Concepts

Not MMT, but you may find this of interest.

In the context of the radical Macroeconomics Course I am teaching, I was very unhappy with the material available which tries to explain what Keynes is saying. In attempting to explain it better, I constructed an extremely simple model of a primitive agricultural economy. This model has a lot of pedagogical value in that it can demonstrate many complex phenomenon in very simple terms. In particular, Keynesian, Marxists, Classical and Neo-Classical concepts can be illustrated and compared within our model. We will show the failure of all neoclassical concepts of labor, Supply and Demand, equality of marginal product, value theory — the whole she-bang — in an intuitive and easy to understand plausible model of a simple economy.

WEA Pedagogy Blog
Simple Model Explains Complex Keynesian Concepts
Asad Zaman | Vice Chancellor, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics and former Director General, International Institute of Islamic Economics, International Islamic University Islamabad

George H. Blackford — Economists Should Stop Defending Milton Friedman’s Pseudo-science

Recommended reading on the history and philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, and Milton Friedman's instrumentalism.

Evonomics
Economists Should Stop Defending Milton Friedman’s Pseudo-science

George H. Blackford | former Chair of the Department of Economics at the University of Michigan-Flint

Lars P. Syll — Reformulating the economics curriculum

Econ 101. The standard model is misleading.

Having gone through a handful of the most frequently used textbooks of economics at the undergraduate level today, I can only conclude that the models that are presented in these modern mainstream textbooks try to describe and analyze complex and heterogeneous real economies with a single rational-expectations-robot-imitation-representative-agent.

That is, with something that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.….
For almost forty years mainstream economics itself has lived with a theorem that shows the impossibility of extending the microanalysis of consumer behaviour to the macro level (unless making patently and admittedly insane assumptions). Still after all these years pretending in their textbooks that this theorem does not exist — none of the textbooks I investigated even mention the existence of the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu theorem — is really outrageous.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Reformulating the economics curriculum
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Asad Zaman — Methodology of Modern Economics

My paper is a survey of the huge amount of solid empirical evidence against the utility maximization hypothesis that is at the core of all microeconomics currently being taught today in Economics textbooks at universities all over the world. It is obviously important, because if what it says is true, the entire field of microeconomics needs to be re-constructed from scratch. Nonetheless, it was summarily rejected by a large number of top journals, before being eventually published by Jack Reardon as: ” The Empirical Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Review of the Literature,” in International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2012, pp. 366-414. Speaking metaphorically, my paper documents the solid evidence that the earth is a round sphere in world where educational institutions teach the widely held belief that the earth is flat. Readers of RWER blog will recall that when challenged on the failure of macroeconomics after the Global Financial Crisis, economists retreated to the position that while macro theory may be in a bad shape, at least Microeconomics is solidly grounded. My paper blows this claim out of the water. As a result, nothing is left of Micro and Micro, and of economics as whole. This supports my earlier claim that a Radical Paradigm Shift is required to make progress — patching up existing theories cannot work...

The central question remains of what is to be done. A complex response which requires coordination on multiple fronts is required. The first step has to be the development of a coherent alternative. I have developed a two semester micro coursewhich starts with the Anti-Textbook of Hill & Myatt, and follows up by using two main tools OPPOSED to maximization and equilbrium. Maximization is replaced by behavioral heuristics, which allow operation in environments with genuine uncertainty. Maximization is actually IMPOSSIBLE in uncertain environments. If I have to choose between actions a and b but the outcome to me depends on unknown state of natures and unknown acts of other agents then maximization is not possible. I cannot calculate which of the two actions will yield greater utility because the outcome depends on many thing I do not know, and cannot learn. SIMILARLY, if we equip all agents with heuristic behavior and try to compute what will happen, this can only be done within an Agent Based Model using computer simulations — which will generally lead to disequilibrium outcomes. Using these two tools to replace the central micro tools, one can go quite far in replacing standard micro with sensible alternatives....

WEA Pedagogy Blog
Methodology of Modern Economics

Asad Zaman | Vice Chancellor, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics and former Director General, International Institute of Islamic Economics, International Islamic University Islamabad

Lars P. Syll — What’s the use of economics?

The economists' dilemma: If economic methodology doesn't base itself on assumptions common to the hard sciences, like homogeneity, additivity, transitivity, etc, then it won't be considered a real science. On the other hand, if economists ignore reflexivity, downward causation in systems, synergy, and other factors that affect individuals who are socially embedded, its output will not fit reality and it will appear lack empirical foundation, not to mention disappointing raised expectations resulting from the claim of being a "hard" science distinct from "soft" science like social science.

Maybe quit being hypocritical and 'fess up to the actual situation?

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
What’s the use of economics?
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Lars P. Syll — A new paradigm for teaching economics

Samuel Bowles and Wendy Carlin.

I would say that CORE is an update rather than a new version.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
A new paradigm for teaching economics
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Cameron K. Murray — Seven questions economists can't answer

I’m not saying all economists can’t answer these questions. I’m saying that collectively these are core parts of what the discipline of economics should be about and yet are topics dealt with by fringe groups whose key insights have not penetrated the textbooks or been shared widely across the discipline....

Fresh Economic Thinking
Seven questions economists can't answer
Cameron K. Murray

John Quiggin — Economics in Two Lessons

I’ve finally committed to delivering a manuscript of my long-overdue book Economics in Two Lessons. As part of the process, I’m going to post the chapters, one at a time, and ask for comments, criticism, encouragement and so on. To begin at the beginning, here’s the Introduction.

Crooked Timber
Economics in Two Lessons
John Quiggin | Professor and an Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland, and a member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government