Post-crash economics

[nexus]

Apologies if this has been posted already somewhere else, but if not check out what these Manchester Uni economics students are up to:

http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/

We are The Post-Crash Economics Society and we are a group of economics students at The University of Manchester who believe that the content of the economics syllabus and the way it is taught could and should be seriously rethought.

Can't argue with that.

also:

In most courses “economics” is shorthand for “neoclassical economics”. There is no recognition of the fact that economics is a discipline that consists of a variety of schools of thought. Academic integrity requires that alternative economic theories be introduced to students. Economic questions cannot necessarily be answered adequately from a single theoretical standpoint.
The way economics is taught has hugely important consequences because our societies are shaped by economic events and policies. Economics graduates should be prepared to deal with the economic problems that the world faces.
The mismatch between syllabuses and real-world needs is a challenge faced by economics departments across the world. We want to stress that the department are not the cause of the problem. However, as a world class institution they should take a lead by reforming their syllabus.
We therefore believe that an education in economics should include more plurality and greater critical evaluation. We propose the following changes:

In each module, it should be highlighted what theory students are being taught, as this often is not mentioned. This leads to economics being viewed as a monolithic discipline without debate.
Because economic theories cannot be fully understood independently of the socio-political and technological context in which they were formulated, links to the history of economic thought should be made wherever possible.
There should be an availability of courses in alternative economic perspectives in first, second and third years. The point is not to stop teaching mainstream economics and only teach alternative perspectives. It is to realise that a plurality of perspectives is needed.
Wherever possible, lecturers should link their subject matter to the real world so that students can learn to apply theory, and understand where theory fails to explain reality.
Modules should encourage the development of critical skills. Tutorials should foster discussion and reflective thinking, instead of students copying answers written on a board.
Exams should include marks for independent, analytical thinking, to reflect this increasing focus on independent and applied thinking.
The department should hire academics that specialise in non-mainstream schools of thought. Currently the work of all new staff is almost exclusively within the mainstream.
Some of these changes could be implemented quickly, but others will take more time and new resources. The signatories of this petition signal their agreement with us in thinking that the current syllabus should be revised along these guidelines, and that the department should implement these changes as quickly as possible.

Follow this link to sign our petition!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/revi ... -economic/

[Little John]

Apologies if this has been posted already somewhere else, but if not check out what these Manchester Uni economics students are up to:

http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/

We are The Post-Crash Economics Society and we are a group of economics students at The University of Manchester who believe that the content of the economics syllabus and the way it is taught could and should be seriously rethought.

Can't argue with that.

also:

In most courses “economics” is shorthand for “neoclassical economics”. There is no recognition of the fact that economics is a discipline that consists of a variety of schools of thought. Academic integrity requires that alternative economic theories be introduced to students. Economic questions cannot necessarily be answered adequately from a single theoretical standpoint.
The way economics is taught has hugely important consequences because our societies are shaped by economic events and policies. Economics graduates should be prepared to deal with the economic problems that the world faces.
The mismatch between syllabuses and real-world needs is a challenge faced by economics departments across the world. We want to stress that the department are not the cause of the problem. However, as a world class institution they should take a lead by reforming their syllabus.
We therefore believe that an education in economics should include more plurality and greater critical evaluation. We propose the following changes:

In each module, it should be highlighted what theory students are being taught, as this often is not mentioned. This leads to economics being viewed as a monolithic discipline without debate.
Because economic theories cannot be fully understood independently of the socio-political and technological context in which they were formulated, links to the history of economic thought should be made wherever possible.
There should be an availability of courses in alternative economic perspectives in first, second and third years. The point is not to stop teaching mainstream economics and only teach alternative perspectives. It is to realise that a plurality of perspectives is needed.
Wherever possible, lecturers should link their subject matter to the real world so that students can learn to apply theory, and understand where theory fails to explain reality.
Modules should encourage the development of critical skills. Tutorials should foster discussion and reflective thinking, instead of students copying answers written on a board.
Exams should include marks for independent, analytical thinking, to reflect this increasing focus on independent and applied thinking.
The department should hire academics that specialise in non-mainstream schools of thought. Currently the work of all new staff is almost exclusively within the mainstream.
Some of these changes could be implemented quickly, but others will take more time and new resources. The signatories of this petition signal their agreement with us in thinking that the current syllabus should be revised along these guidelines, and that the department should implement these changes as quickly as possible.

Follow this link to sign our petition!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/revi ... -economic/

Yeah, I've been reading about these students. They are part of a groundswell occurring all over the world in all kinds of places.

The water is rising. The bastards in charge keep building higher walls of bullshit to keep it at bay. But the water just keeps rising and the dam will burst at some point and, when it does, all the shit is going to be swept away.

I have to believe that.

[Snail]

When I studied accountancy, all these proposals were extensively included in the entire course from 1st to 4th year. Ethics, Social, Islamic, Environmental issues etc. Also, from journals and lecturers that serious fundamental questions and perspectives are being actively discussed&debated.

I've always assumed it was the same in economics, so it's a bit disappointing to read the above.

[Potemkin Villager]

Economics is largely a brainwashing cult with lots of competing sects where pompous knowitalls try and upstage one another ever muddying the water even further.

I don't see anything that these guys, and I guess they are mostly male, are proposing that does anything to reconcile their precious religion with physical reality.

God save us from economists.

[SleeperService]

Economics is viewed by many with contempt, ironically many of those same people are happy to cherry-pick economic theory to 'justify' their positions then blame economics when it all goes wrong.

PV shows one attitude, I'm studying economics and can tell you that the reading list covers everything snail mentions. The issue is that economic theory is incomplete, the same is true in physics where quantum theory covers the very small, Newtonian?Einsteinium the very large and a fuzzy bit in the middle.

Micro-economics is our Newton. It works and very accurately, can be explained easily to others and is intuitive which quantum physics certainly isn't.

Macro-Economics is a real bun fight. Supply side, Keynesian, Gilbraith, Demand side, Free Trade, Bretton Woods et al. have created multiple theories that can't all be true. Some are no longer considered viable but are still used by non-economists to justify their positions.

As an example it has been shown, repeatedly, that closing the gap between rich and poor in a society leaves everybody better off. An examination of the relative positions of Japan and the USA Post-WW2 is the most common example quoted. Support is growing for this position. However it is being attacked from without by 'experts' whose other literature attacks climate change, cigarette/cancer links, GM foods criticism, and so on. All are linked back to those who benefit from the system as it is today.

My study group took about an hour to rip the KPMG HS2 justification to shreds, some of the result is in another post. 'Muddying the water' is often the claim of someone whose position depends on an 'economic' assumption being true. When economists say things like you've left out the cost of X and/or Y the claim is then 'You don't know what you're talking about' etc.

God save us from Spin-Doctors, Charlatans and outright liars.

[emordnilap]

God save us from Spin-Doctors, Charlatans and outright liars.

[SleeperService]

Perfect. Absolutely perfect

[UndercoverElephant]

The water is rising. The bastards in charge keep building higher walls of bullshit to keep it at bay. But the water just keeps rising and the dam will burst at some point and, when it does, all the shit is going to be swept away.

I have to believe that.

It is going to happen. Sure as what goes up comes down.

[stumuzz]

What constitutes a revolution in your world?

[Little John]

What constitutes a revolution in your world?

All profit that is derived from the acquisition of primary resources and their processing thereof to be comprehensively taxed to reflect and make amends for the full environmental costs including the costs to other humans

A massive reduction in the disparity of wealth that exists between humans

All human institutions to serve the interests of the planetary living systems as a whole first and the majority of humans immediately second and not, as is currently the case, in the interests of a tiny minority of humans to the growing exclusion of the interests of the majority of humans and to the complete exclusion of the rest of the living systems of the earth.

That would do for starters......

[extractorfan]

A massive reduction in the disparity of wealth that exists between humans

I'd like to explore how this could be achieved.

Beheading? taxing and giving to the poor in a kind of global benefit system? Creating some kind of meaningful work for people to do and paying them for it via taxation?

I hope that doesn't sound glib, it's a very difficult situation to address.

[stumuzz]

All profit that is derived from the acquisition of primary resources and their processing thereof to be comprehensively taxed to reflect and make amends for the full environmental costs including the costs to other humans

A massive reduction in the disparity of wealth that exists between humans

All human institutions to serve the interests of the planetary living systems as a whole first and the majority of humans immediately second and not, as is currently the case, in the interests of a tiny minority of humans to the growing exclusion of the interests of the majority of humans and to the complete exclusion of the rest of the living systems of the earth.

That would do for starters......

That certainly would be a revolution.

You believe this is going to happen?

[biffvernon]

E.F. Schumacher presented a good blueprint in Small is Beautiful. David Fleming elaborated on the philosophical basis and the imperative in Lean Logic.

You believe this is going to happen?

No. We're probably doomed.

Jonathon Porritt, in The World We Made, explains why we should not say 'We're probably doomed'. He's a good bloke but I'm not convinced he's right. Still, as a working hypothesis applied to daily life, he's probably right.

[Little John]

All profit that is derived from the acquisition of primary resources and their processing thereof to be comprehensively taxed to reflect and make amends for the full environmental costs including the costs to other humans

A massive reduction in the disparity of wealth that exists between humans

All human institutions to serve the interests of the planetary living systems as a whole first and the majority of humans immediately second and not, as is currently the case, in the interests of a tiny minority of humans to the growing exclusion of the interests of the majority of humans and to the complete exclusion of the rest of the living systems of the earth.

That would do for starters......

That certainly would be a revolution.

You believe this is going to happen?

I think the probability of achieving it is near to zero. However, the probability of the extinction of humans and a significant degradation of the rest of the living systems on earth in the absence of our achieving it is near to one.

So, no matter how difficult to achieve, we have quite a bit of incentive to try.

[SleeperService]

A massive reduction in the disparity of wealth that exists between humans

I'd like to explore how this could be achieved.

Beheading? taxing and giving to the poor in a kind of global benefit system? Creating some kind of meaningful work for people to do and paying them for it via taxation?

I hope that doesn't sound glib, it's a very difficult situation to address.

Agreed it is difficult to achieve but things of benefit usually are. There are two issues to address;
A.How to change the political scene to achieve change
B.What change is implemented.

A. Assume that ALL the current political parties are incapable of achieving change, even the Greens. Set up an umbrella organisation, the People's Party, establish residents associations which then nominate local residents to council positions. Make sure they get elected and focus on the needs of the people. Then nominate a local person for the General Election, if the local issues are being addressed you should see a majority in parliament. The model has worked in Thames Ditton, for example, for years. Then run referendums on contentious issues such as EU membership, EU trading agreement etc. to decide the direction.

B. Plcs to establish workers representation committees these are to immediately receive 5% of company shares then 10% per annum for 5 years. Finance would be provided to allow this. One employee one vote. Decisions binding. That would rein in CEOs receiving 1500 times the remuneration of the majority of employees. It could be backed by a 'super business tax' that taxed extra if desired.
Allow every person two tax allowances on earned income and on investment income to encourage saving. Set the threshold for starting tax at the 'living wage' and aim to increase it to the average wage. That gets the lower earners catching up. It would be accelerated by greatly simplifying the tax system to avoid abuse.

I accept that many 'high-flyers' and the 'super-rich' will clear off, or at least threaten to. Provide them with guides to the nearest airport/ferry and relieve them of their UK passport as they go If a person needs to earn millions while employees get Tax Credits to make up their wages, (that's HMG, so us tax payers, subsidising their profits,) a fairer society won't be for them anyway.