God and Man at Harvard

60 years ago an undergraduate at an "Ivy League" US university didn't like the economics and politics that were being taught there. He didn't boycott classes. Instead he wrote a book about it.

The full title of William F. Buckley's book is "God and Man at Yale: the Superstitions of 'Academic Feedom'". (I haven't read it, though I skimmed it 30 years ago.)

Buckley complained that the economics taught at Yale was too collectivist. Too much Keynes, and not enough Hayek and von Mises. He addressed his book in part to those who donated money to Yale. He wanted them to use their influence.

Sure, there are differences, but there's also an obvious parallel to the walkout by some students from Greg Mankiw's Intro Economics class at Harvard. But I Googled, and can't find anyone making that (to me) obvious connection. We need to make that connection. We need to ask ourselves whether our reactions to those two protests are consistent. Austin Bramwell (pdf) quotes some of the very extreme reactions to Buckley's critique. Was there anything that extreme said about the Harvard students?

Here's another recent example of students boycotting classes because they don't like what is being taught.

I also want to draw attention to that second bit of the book's title. William F. Buckley saw that underlying the question "what should we teach?" was the question "who decides what we should teach?".

I don't have any especially insightful answers to those questions that you probably haven't already heard. So I'm just going to give a few personal reflections.

I teach Intro Economics, and have done for many years. I use the Canadian edition of Greg Mankiw's book. (I was a co-author of the Canadian edition, but quit after the third edition for personal reasons.) I sometimes get questions or comments in class from students who, I guess, disagree profoundly with what I teach or the textbook says. Those questions usually make me happy, even though it's sometimes a challenge to come up with a good answer on the spot. "That's not how the world works" and "That's not what we should do" show that the student recognises that economics is supposed to be about the world and is supposed to be giving good advice. What depresses me is "Will this be on the exam?", because it suggests that nothing I say really matters at all. The critics, who think we are wrong, at least flatter our vanity by thinking that economics matters.

My sympathies, unsurprisingly, side with Greg Mankiw. I hope that sort of thing doesn't happen to me. If it does, I hope I would have the strength to deal with it as well as Greg Mankiw. It's hard enough teaching Intro Economics (few faculty volunteer) even without everybody on the internet joining in to criticise the politics of your course content. My immediate reaction might not be printable. Then I might start thinking about words like "Chilly Climate", "Hostile Environment", and "Silencing".

I haven't heard of any recent stories of conservative students walking out of classes taught by left-of-centre sociologists, but I hope my response would be consistent. Ultimately, I see this as a sort of social contract. "If you try to stop me teaching what I think is right, why the hell shouldn't I try to stop you teaching what you think is right?" Does this social contract extend to Nazis? Hmmm. Does this social contract extend to Marxists? Hmmm. Would they offer me the same deal? Hmmm.

Comments

[Frances Woolley]

Nick: "It's hard enough teaching Intro Economics (few faculty volunteer) even without everybody on the internet joining in to criticise the politics of your course content."

What I find so frustrating about this is that there are so many academics out doing nothing but producing "peacock feathers" - pieces of work that have no use other than demonstrating the intellectual superiority of the authors - and being completely disengaged from students, the wider community, etc etc.

Read this defence of Mankiw, written by one of his students Jeremy Patashnik, indeed one with liberal views http://hpronline.org/harvard/in-defense-of-ec-10/

Patashnik writes:

One would presume that, in this letter, students would lay out precisely what biases they find objectionable in Ec 10, but the closest they come to doing so is when they say, “There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.”

Incidentally, the authors of this letter are in for a treat: there’s plenty of Keynesian theory to come in the second semester of Ec 10. In fact, Mankiw is a great Keynes admirer, and once wrote, “If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there’s little doubt that that economist would be John Maynard Keynes.” The only reason that these students have not yet studied the father of modern macroeconomics in Ec 10, of course, is that the first semester of the class is devoted to microeconomics.

Patashnik goes on

[Mankiw's] His third lecture was a defense of a carbon tax and taxing negative externalities in general. I’m guessing liberals weren’t the ones objecting to this lecture.

The two guest lecturers were David Cutler, a former Obama health care adviser, and Ben Friedman, who gave a lecture on the religious origins of capitalism and the ties that religion and economics share today. The conservative bias, once again, fails to come through.

This is like the intellectual equivalent of a gourmet 12 course tasting menu, and these students were complaining????

[Ryan]

I read Mankiw's article from over the weekend, and I was amazed and the grace and class he demonstrated with respect to Paul Samuelson, who cantankerously criticized Mankiw in an interview a year or two ago.

I don't agree with Mankiw's brand of economics, but the world clearly needs more Mankiws.

[Nick Rowe]

Frances and Ryan: good comments. I agree. Greg Mankiw makes me feel totally inadequate about my course, and what my response would be.

But half of me wishes that Greg Mankiw were a totally different person, and had come out fighting the way a right-wing version of a Marxist would, making no apologies for teaching some crappy hard right Economics course, and telling his critics to get lost!

I think there might be some general rule here. They only pick on the moderates.

[Bob Smith]

I don't get what the students are complaining about, I used to love taking classes with professors I disagreed with, it made the course that much more intellectually stimulating. If you think they're wrong, and can raise interesting questions and critiques, great, so much the better for all concerned. The best papers I ever wrote were the ones where I knew (or suspected) that the professor disagreed (or would disagree) with my thesis, because those were the ones where I had to take serious what I anticipated to be their critiques and comments, in order to address them. Universities are supposed to be about critical thinking, not reinforcing your preconceived notions.

It's somewhat depressing that Harvard students, who are presented with an amazing intellectual opportunity at one of the worlds most exclusive universities, can't come up with anything more intellectually productive than walking out (or writing letters which highlight the extent of their economic ignorance, although that probably explains why they can't come up with anything more intellectually productive than walking out). So seriously depressing.

[Mandos]

The reason why is that what Mankiw teaches becomes part of an intellectual ecosystem with real-world consequences that are harmful.

Here's another perspective on it. Walkouts and political theatre are the order of the day: do you think that they'd have gotten any press by writing a letter?

[Jacques René Giguère]

MAybe the students don't want to be exposed to Ruizismus
http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2011.12.04/1314.html?

[Frances Woolley]

Mandos: "The reason why is that what Mankiw teaches becomes part of an intellectual ecosystem with real-world consequences that are harmful."

I agree absolutely with the first part of what you say: Mankiw's 10 principles have become paradigmatic, the tenets of belief that define modern economics.

But left-learning faculty are well-represented at Harvard, from Amartya Sen to Richard Freeman to Larry Summers to David Cutler (I don't know about Larry Katz or Claudia Goldin). Perhaps one of them is just yearning to grab Ec 10 from Mankiw. But I seriously doubt it. As Nick says, people tend to avoid large undergrad courses when possible. Mankiw is only able to occupy the place that he does in the intellectual ecosystem because of he has very little competition, either from other members of his department in particular or from members of the profession in general.

There is another reason why people who believe in markets i.e. people like Mankiw tend to be drawn to teaching first year undergrad. That's where the simple "this is how markets work" stuff gets taught. Introducing market failure - adverse selection, moral hazard, market power, imperfect information, strategy - or institutions, culture, customs, traditions - gets very messy very quickly. So that stuff tends to get put in the higher level courses.

And left-leaning people tend to be the people who are interested in all of these market failures and complications (if they didn't believe in market failures, they'd think markets worked perfectly, and hence would be more right leaning) - so they don't end up teaching first year.

[Bob Smith]

"The reason why is that what Mankiw teaches becomes part of an intellectual ecosystem with real-world consequences that are harmful."

Even if one were concede that that's true (and I don't), wouldn't the student's critique of that "intellectual ecosystem" be that much more poignant and coherent if they actually understood it?

I mean, Karl Marx certainly understood and read the workds of Smith that these students object to - he wrote extensively critiquing them (one of my economic history professors used to to joke that "Marx was a great classical economist, a lousy communism, but a great economist" because Marx understood the economic theories (and practices) he was critiquing, indeed some of his better critiques of capitalist practice relied on those economic theories). If the father of communism can study Smith, it certainly isn't too much to ask from a collection of Harvard undergrads.

I can't think of a more anti-intellectual approach to ideas that you don't like than "I don't like it, and I won't listen to it".

[Mandos]

Well, I have a deeper conceptual problem with starting from a "baseline" kind of assumption of The Market, and then essentially trying to catalogue exceptions (even if it is in some systematic way). I do think that it is going to create a systematic bias in the results you're going to get, because as I said on another thread, it assumes the conclusion---that the starting position was valid. That the simple cases attract the right-wingers kind of sums up the problem itself, no?

That's why the whole David Graeber argument re barter was so important. If that *isn't* the way these systems started, then it calls into question the very logical foundations of an intellectual ecosystem founded on the notion of free exchange as the basis for human relations (and then accounts for exceptions as market "failures"). Yes, you can build these models. But it's not at all clear that you should.

So I think that the students' walk-out of Mankiw's class was well-timed (to go with the Occupy movement) and well-placed.

[wh10]

For your consideration if you didn't see it

http://ineteconomics.org/blog/inet/robin-wells-we-are-greg-mankiw%E2%80%A6-or-not

[Nick Rowe]

Mandos: what's your reaction to Buckley? Or to a hypothetical walkout of conservative students from a left-leaning sociology course (let alone an Intro sociology course taught from the Marxist perspective)?

[Neil]

Interesting. I'm currently taking an introductory micro course based on Mankiw's textbook and taught by a guy who's day job is providing policy advice to Alberta's (very) conservative government. It really hasn't come across as right-wing propaganda to me. Maybe I'm missing something...I opted not to buy the textbook, so maybe there's something in there that isn't covered in the lecture.

My impression - also as a self-described liberal - has been a reasonably balanced look at the underlying principles of Econ as they're currently understood. While there was certainly discussion about why some liberal friendly policies - minimum wages and rent controls for instance - might not work out too well in practice, there's also been plenty of discussion about why government policy might want distort the marketp, and bridge the gap between a private equilibrium and a socially optimal one. Using taxes and subsidies. Not exactly a far right position.

[Mandos]

Nick: I think that student reactions across the political spectrum are fair in these sorts of circumstances, proportional to that particular discourse's influence on our social order. For instance, while I would strongly disagree, I wouldn't have a "moral" objection to a right-wing walkout of, I don't know, a sociology course on universal health care use provided by a known member of the NDP or something. I welcome that sort of discussion, actually, because I think people are complacent about it.

Using taxes and subsidies. Not exactly a far right position.

But it precludes any discussion of establishing the socially optimal relations in the first place. Redistributionism is at best centrist, because it's the most vulnerable way to correct bad distributions.

[Lord]

I would think Mankiw would want to teach Ec101 to keep his book up to date.

[Min]

I cannot judge the Harvard students' walkout, but Nick's question, who decides what we teach, put me in mind of one of my philosophy courses. The prof was one of the stars of the profession, and the course had an unusually large enrollment for an upper class course. Around 200 of us filled a lecture hall. Only two texts were assigned, both written by him.

To give some flavor of the class, on the first day he posed a question to the class. To each student who rose to present an answer, he replied, "No," and called on another student. Finally at the end of the class he answered his question. His answer was both obvious and trivial, and received a chorus of hisses and boos.

He started each class with a brief talk about the assigned chapter, and then opened the floor for discussion. Only there was very little actual discussion. Typically a student would offer an opinion with a brief argument, and then the prof would come back with a retort that felt like a put down. Then he would call on another student who would talk about something else. I did not find all of this amusing, and apparently neither did a lot of other students, as attendance dwindled.

Then at midterm he did not start class with a talk about the chapter. Instead he noted the falling attendance and posed a question: "What am I doing wrong?" He listened to each student who spoke and simply thanked them. He began the next class by stating that there was no assigned reading for the rest of the term, and opened the floor for discussion. Instead of acting as Mr. Know-it-all who proved that he was smarter than his students, he genuinely facilitated inquiry. I found this transformation of his behavior to be quite remarkable, especially given his reputation as a megalomaniac.

[Bob Smith]

"I welcome that sort of discussion"

What discussion? A walkout is the anti-thesis of a discussion, it's what you do when discussion is impossible. Moreoer, it is rude (both to the professor whose class you're walking out of, but more importantly to you fellow students who might, quite fairly, object to your disruption of their class), and it's certainly anti-intellectual.

[Bob Smith]

"It really hasn't come across as right-wing propaganda to me."

I suspect one's view of what's "right-wing" kind of depends on where you sit on the political spectrum. If you sit at the far left of the political spectrum, everything is "right-wing".

[Nick Rowe]

Min: wow! 'Course, that's just philosophy ;-)

[Mandos]

What discussion? A walkout is the anti-thesis of a discussion, it's what you do when discussion is impossible.

Why, the sort of discussion we're having, of course. The sort of discussion that makes Robin Wells write a blog post about some of the problems in the way that econ 101 is taught.

That sort of discussion. There really is no other kind even worth having. That those students had both the organization and timing, sense of drama, and so on to do what they did, and make a splash doing it, and get us talking about it, suggests that there may yet be some hope for a Harvard education. Doubly so, because this wasn't some small fry TA or adjunct/sessional they were doing it to, but Gregory Mankiw.

...or I suppose you think that the role of a student is to put his/her head down, and regurgitate the answers on the exam. Or maybe, being generous, write a Sternly Worded Letter to the editor or something. Or, being even more generous, writing a Phd thesis after 11-14 years of school (ugrad, MA maybe, PhD), which will promptly be e-shelved in ProQuest, and e-ignored by the planet...

[Gregor Bush]

Mandos, you said:
"That's why the whole David Graeber argument re barter was so important. If that *isn't* the way these systems started, then it calls into question the very logical foundations of an intellectual ecosystem founded on the notion of free exchange as the basis for human relations (and then accounts for exceptions as market "failures")."

David Graeber’s point is irrelevant. The world in which we live is a monetary exchange economy with private property, contract law and freedom of exchange. And learning about the underlying forces that drive prices and quantities exchanged in this world is a very useful thing – even if you happen to think that society should be organized very differently.

In the economy in which we live, demand curves slope downward. Maybe you wish that they didn’t but they do – and there’s plenty of evidence to support this. The question of “the way these systems started” is an interesting one. But the answer to it will not change the fact that if you put a price ceiling on a good that is below the market price you will get a shortage of that good.

To me, the walkout nicely encapsulates the laziness, arrogance and intolerance of most university campus activists. Isn’t it telling that none of the students was able to point to any specific disagreement with the material in the course? Nobody said “Professor Mankiw, I think you're wrong -rent controls won’t lead to a shortage of rent-controlled apartments. And here is the evidence to support my position.” No, to do that would actually require some work - and some humility.

[Mandos]

David Graeber’s point is irrelevant. The world in which we live is a monetary exchange economy with private property, contract law and freedom of exchange. And learning about the underlying forces that drive prices and quantities exchanged in this world is a very useful thing – even if you happen to think that society should be organized very differently.

We *also* live in a world with regulations, electorates, cultures, politicians, vested interests, malicious people, etc, etc, etc, most of which are massively underweighted in a conception of the universe that contains only "a monetary exchange economy with private property, contract law, and freedom of exchange [Oxford comma!!!1!!!1]," which of course we don't actually live in, considering the numerous exceptions to private property, freedom of exchange, and so on. This is what is what I mean assuming the conclusion.

Nobody said “Professor Mankiw, I think you're wrong -rent controls won’t lead to a shortage of rent-controlled apartments. And here is the evidence to support my position.” No, to do that would actually require some work - and some humility.

And engaging on a political operative's (Gregory Mankiw's) own political turf.

[Bob Smith]

Gregor,

Exactly! When the criticism of Mankiw's teaching is that he discusses Smith rather than Keynes in the micro portion of the course, that isn't likely to provoke a radical rethink of how people teach introduction to economics.

Sure, they got publicity, but publicity comes and goes, it doesn't equal change, certainly not without a coherent platform for change. Mankiw will go back to teaching his course the way he always teaches it (certainly that was my read of his piece in the Times). I'm reasonably certain that no economist will try to introduce more Keynes into the micro portion of his or her course.

Sure, I wouldn't expect first year students to be able to put together a coherent critique of "mainstream" economics. Then again, it's a bit presumptuous to be calling for the reform of an academic discipline based on a two months of study of an introductory course on the matter. Of course the slow evolutionary change of economic thinking isn't likely to stir the blood of your average student revolutionary, but it's how ideas actually evolve over time.

[wh10]

I view attacking the students based on how ignorant they may or may not be, as Mankiw did and many here are, as the equivalent to an irrelevant ad hominem argument that ignores the real issues. That the walkout students believe more perspectives could be fit into college intro econ courses is something MANY educated people, inside and outside academia, would agree with. This goes back to Rowe's question, about who gets to decide what is taught. What do you think Post-Keynesians, for example, have to say about the mainstream economic curriculum? What if some Post-Keynesian or other ideas, even still orthodox, about how the economy and monetary operations works are more accurate than some mainstream beliefs taught in intro econ? The students have realized they only get one perspective in their class, the neoclassical perspective, and they have every right to be concerned about that, particularly given the nature of economics (which is not a pure science) and how its been called into question over the last couple years. It's absurd to say that they must first achieve a PhD before they can exercise their opinion, to be lost in the archives, as Mandos says.

Also, if the walkout students wanted to make this known nationally and start a national debate, which they did, then I think their tactics made sense. Feel free to call it disrespectful; here's a little violin playing for you. You're missing the point, and if you think a sit down in office hours would be more effective, you're a fool. Obviously this becomes problematic if this starts an excessive episodes of classes everywhere experiencing a walk out, but it's not that, and I think the students have merit to their complaints, as do many, including Robin Wells. Kids skip class all the time anyways; so if it bothers you, ignore them, and let them walk silently out. If it gets out hand, use academic code of conduct enforcement if it applies.

[wh10]

BTW, I probably shouldn't have used inflammatory language above, but its target is not Nick Rowe.

[Bob Smith]

WH 10,

Except as the Nick's original post pointed out the students DON'T only get a neoclassical perspective on economics. So tthe entire premise of their criticism is flawed (a point which would have been obvious to anyone who read ahead in the course outline).

Look, let's strip this debate of the political overlay that underlies this discussion and which is really irrelevant to the discussion. Imagine a similar debate in another academic discipline, say physics: "Professor Hawkins, you seem like a nice guy, but I've been enrolled in your intro to physics course for two months, and I can't help noticing that you've focused heavily on this Einstein fellow and relativity, while we've hear nothing about Heisenburg and quantum mechanics. Walkout!".

Now, its an improbable scenario, but mostly because, absent a political agenda to give a veneer of legitimacy to the walkout, I suspect my hypothetical physics student would, rightly, be seen as a smarmy twit who would be better served by studying both Eistein and Heisenberg than making ill-informed criticisms of the teaching method of their professor.

More to the point, even if you thought Einstein had his head wedged, you'd be well served by studying his ideas so you could pinpoint exactly why he was wrong. The comparison with Marx is telling, there was a fellow who spend days, weeks, months studying the works of smith, ricardo and other classical economists. His criticism is effective precisely because he knew what he was talking about. These students don't, So their criticism isn't.

[wh10]

Bob, what are you talking about??? Where in Nick's original post does it say that? The vast vast vast majority is the neoclassical perspective. That is the school Mankiw hails from, and it's one he has helped develop considerably. He would agree, along with any other economist.

My feelings have ZERO to do with political agenda. Neither do many others' belonging to other economic schools. Politics can, but doesn't have to define differences, and I agree, it's the wrong grounds on which to base this argument.

Again, economics isn't a science like physics, so your example is entirely flawed, and it's evidence you see no room for other theoretical frameworks outside the New Keynesian perspective in intro econ, since you deem it to be 'the right way of doing things.'

[Determinant]

Economics is a formal science like math, logic and linguistics, not a natural science like physics. Further Relativity is a cosmological theory, quantum mechanics is an atomic theory. You get the latter in Chemistry in fact, not Physics, starting in first year.

The difference between economics and physics is that physicists are all agreed about the usefulness and *limitations* of classical physics. Economists are not agreed about the limitations of classical economics nor which theory is the larger counterpart to Modern Physics. Austrians, Neo-Keyesians, Post-Keynesians. I think MMT fits in here somewhere. Where you go after the basic theory directly impacts what basic material is taught.

Economics as a social and formal science requires a foundational set of assumptions, axioms and social construct. What those are or should be will always be debatable.

[W. Peden]

wh10,

"It's absurd to say that they must first achieve a PhD before they can exercise their opinion"

Who is saying that?

"particularly given the nature of economics (which is not a pure science)"

No science is.

"how its been called into question over the last couple years"

Centuries. But here's the thing: when the historicists or the Marxists or the Veblenists or the Institutionalists criticised, they did so from a position of knowledge with respect to what they were criticising.

"I view attacking the students based on how ignorant they may or may not be, as Mankiw did and many here are, as the equivalent to an irrelevant ad hominem argument that ignores the real issues"

It's not an ad hominem. It's pointing out exactly the issue: should an introductory course be an introduction to the popularly held theories in a discipline or some particular set of theories that some people may like? The issue is clearly not "should all theories be covered in the class", because I haven't heard anyone advocating that Romanticist economics get taught in introductory economics classes (I wouldn't even teach that in an introductory history of economics class).

I agree with quite a few heterodox ideas, but I wouldn't want them to be taught in an introductory course. That's like teaching Esperanto to a child as its first language.

[Frances Woolley]

Bob - "students DON'T only get a neoclassical perspective on economics"

Let's be clear - Greg Mankiw is a pretty effective advocate of a particular approach to economics; the students are not getting some kind of CBC-bland balanced give-all-sides-equal-time approach. But biased beats boring every time. At least it makes you think.

Having said that:
- Ivy League schools tend to be pretty responsive to their undergrad's wishes - your $30,000 or $50,000 in tuition does buy you something. I'd be very surprised if Harvard would be letting Mankiw teach Ec 10 on an on-going basis if the students were generally dissatisfied.
- the #1 enemy to academic freedom is not student activism, it is faculty sloth. Every time an instructor hands the design of his or her course over to a publisher - and that's what using pre-packaged powerpoint slides and test banks amounts to - they're giving up a little bit of academic freedom. Until in the name of "coordination" "consistent standards" or some other such buzzword we'll find that we have no option other than to use some designated text, exams from the test bank, etc.

[Determinant]

Your final point, Frances, directly raises the eternal debate of Research vs. Teaching which is being discussed in a parallel thread.

Are profs using pre-packaged slides and test banks so they can concentrate on research, their priority and first love? I believe that is a significant motivation.

[econometrician]

Bob: Rather than comparing this to a student in a physics class complaining about not enough Heisenberg, you should have compared it to a student in a geometry class complaining about not enough Sartre.

[wh10]

W Peden,

"No science is."

There's a difference between say, biology and science. That's my point, and it's valid. Disagreeing with anatomy is different than disagreeing with the New Keynesian perspective. Can we not think in shades of grey instead of pure black and white, please?

"Centuries. But here's the thing: when the historicists or the Marxists or the Veblenists or the Institutionalists criticised, they did so from a position of knowledge with respect to what they were criticising."

Okay, so above you said no one is saying you have to have a PhD, but this is effectively what you are implying here. The students must be learned, established thinkers in another tradition, for their positions or knowledge to be valid. If I am mistaken, can you please provide rough parameters for when YOU think students have a valid stance to protest? I think that is ludicrous and ad hominem. "You're opinion is not valid, because you're ignorant!" Their opinions may very well be valid, yet you struggle to look beyond that possibility since they haven't completed undergrad or an MA or PhD. That's ad hominem; judging the person, not the idea. But I'll tell you what. They know enough to know they're getting only one side, and they know other perspectives may add value, and they didn't get these ideas on their own; they see these opinions being expressed by other legitimate entities, and so they work up the courage to protest. Nowhere in their letter did they say "tell us we need welfare." If that's what you want to make out of it, fine. Even if that's how they felt, I may think that's unfortunate, but I still think the issue they raise is valid.

"The issue is clearly not "should all theories be covered in the class", because I haven't heard anyone advocating that Romanticist economics get taught in introductory economics classes (I wouldn't even teach that in an introductory history of economics class)."

No one said Romanticist economics should be taught. But perhaps a healthy dosing of alternative viewpoints or counterpoints can be fit into the curriculum without overwhelming it? Again shades of grey, sir, instead of black and white, please. Or are you so presumptuous to suggest Ec10 curricula have no further room for improvement, and this isn't one valid angle of criticism? You're avoiding the issue by hyperbolizing solutions.

"I agree with quite a few heterodox ideas, but I wouldn't want them to be taught in an introductory course. That's like teaching Esperanto to a child as its first language."

I plainly disagree. You're being hyperbolic again. For example, what about basic operational matters, such as the money multiplier? What if a lot of research, from orthodox to heterodox researchers, from the BIS to the Fed, challenges how this is taught in mainstream intro econ? You don't think there's room to show another viewpoint, on these limited, but fundamental matters? I beg to differ, sir. And don't tell me this isn't what the students were asking for. I am talking about the issues that matter - different viewpoints, which were requested - not your pejorative reading into what you perceive as ignorant characters.

I see no reason why econ courses can't supplement or adapt to very basic things like these, incorporating the viewpoints of other schools without making the class unworkable.

And if there isn't room for full explication, then at least mention potential flaws/alternative viewpoints and give sources for further reading.

Coming out of my undergrad (not a major in econ, like most people), at a very reputable school, I did not appreciate how much else was out there, for the simple reason that econ teachers never bothered to emphasize not only the flaws but also the alternatives to what they were teaching, and that's dangerous. Just as a history course only showing one viewpoint, would be.

[wh10]

Frances,

"Let's be clear - Greg Mankiw is a pretty effective advocate of a particular approach to economics; the students are not getting some kind of CBC-bland balanced give-all-sides-equal-time approach."

Thank you for recognizing.

"But biased beats boring every time. At least it makes you think."

Who said it had to be boring or overwhelming?

"Having said that:
- Ivy League schools tend to be pretty responsive to their undergrad's wishes - your $30,000 or $50,000 in tuition does buy you something. I'd be very surprised if Harvard would be letting Mankiw teach Ec 10 on an on-going basis if the students were generally dissatisfied."

Look, I doubt I would have supported the walkout if I was still in college, when I was within the ivory tower of the mainstream, focused mostly on getting the A. I would never have known better. I would completely have supported the side that the students didn't 'know any better' and what was taught to me in intro/intermediate econ was for all intents and purposes accurate enough. Out of college, and being exposed to ideas that were never even mentioned, learning how political the econ academic profession is, potential flaws in theories I learned, etc etc, I can't tell you how frustrated I am. I feel lied to, duped. I'm not talking about grand theories, like the Austrian school. I am talking about fundamentals, like how banking works, how monetary operations work, etc etc, perspectives on basics not shared.

The financial crisis has rocked many foundations in ways perhaps not rocked before in a world that is much different from the past, and the walkout is a product of that. It's coming not just from hippy students, it's coming from the other side of as well, like George Soros and INET, like Wells and her blog post.

[W. Peden]

wh10,

"There's a difference between say, biology and science. That's my point, and it's valid. Disagreeing with anatomy is different than disagreeing with the New Keynesian perspective."

I have no idea how I was supposed to extract that from "Economics is not a pure science."

"Can we not think in shades of grey instead of pure black and white, please?"

Like "pure science" versus "impure science"?

"Okay, so above you said no one is saying you have to have a PhD, but this is effectively what you are implying here."

It is not. Having a PhD in a subject is not necessary for knowing about it; from some basically fraudulent institutions, having a PhD is not even sufficient for knowing about it!

"They know enough to know they're getting only one side"

I assume that this is not, in itself, grounds to complain about the content of any course?

"No one said Romanticist economics should be taught."

Why not? Why should people only get one side of the Romanticist/non-Romanticist distinction in economics?

"But perhaps a healthy dosing of alternative viewpoints or counterpoints can be fit into the curriculum without overwhelming it?"

Into the curriculum? Certainly. Into an introductory course? Probably not.

"Or are you so presumptuous to suggest Ec10 curricula have no further room for improvement, and this isn't one valid angle of criticism?"

That's a complex question, so I'm going to unpack it: the answer to the first conjunct is "no", the answer to the second conjunct is "yes".

"I plainly disagree. You're being hyperbolic again. For example, what about basic operational matters, such as the money multiplier? What if a lot of research, from orthodox to heterodox researchers, from the BIS to the Fed, challenges how this is taught in mainstream intro econ? You don't think there's room to show another viewpoint, on these limited, but fundamental matters?"

There is certainly room. The question is where. The answer is "Not in an introductory course". Now, I had thought that US schools don't teach that money multiplier stuff (in the UK, I don't think they ever did) but if there's enough research and general against it that its not a prerequisite for understanding basic economic discussions, then it shouldn't be taught in introductory courses.

"I see no reason why econ courses can't supplement or adapt to very basic things like these, incorporating the viewpoints of other schools without making the class unworkable."

Time.

"And if there isn't room for full explication, then at least mention potential flaws/alternative viewpoints and give sources for further reading."

That's certainly a good thing to do. Even then, though, one needs criteria on which to decide what to mention e.g. mentioning an Austrian School perspective is going to be more relevant to contemporary debates than mentioning a Romanticist Economics perspective.

"Coming out of my undergrad (not a major in econ, like most people), at a very reputable school, I did not appreciate how much else was out there, for the simple reason that econ teachers never bothered to emphasize not only the flaws but also the alternatives to what they were teaching, and that's dangerous. Just as a history course only showing one viewpoint, would be."

That is perhaps the biggest problems for teaching a subject like economics, which requires so much time before a student can properly grasp the basics, as a minor. Similar problems exist in many disciplines, I find: you can't get to grips with contemporary debates in physics or entomology or archaeology or logic or geology or palaeontology without a huge amount of background knowledge. On the other hand (and I say this as a humanities student who doesn't regard it as a defect) the background knowledge required for an intelligent person to engage sensibly with basic yet relevant debates in philosophy or jurisprudence or literary theory can be learnt in a single one-year course. (History and criminal law are examples of that do require a lot of background knowledge, that can't be taught in a single course, prior to engaging in the big debates.)

I agree that there is an issue here: a good education in a subject should enlighten students on the disagreements within the subject. The question is when they should learn the various perspectives, and I think it should be when a basic minimum knowledge about the subject has been acquired and this can only be acquired through the perspective of a particular set of economic theories.

Part of the solution, perhaps, would be to make a course in the history of economics a prerequisite of getting a degree in the subject. That's the place to learn about the debates in the subject. (Entirely by fortuitous accident, it would also open up employment opportunities for those of us who want to teach history of economics courses.)

[wh10]

""But biased beats boring every time. At least it makes you think.""

The last sentence here bothers me as well. Lots of things can be difficult and make one think. But if there's a decent chance they're not representative of the real world, then perhaps that bias deserves a little counterpoint. Other social sciences seem to have much more humility in recognizing the importance of presenting multiple viewpoints.

[wh10]

Sorry- meant 'b/w biology and economics' RE: "There's a difference between say, biology and science. "

[Gregory Sokoloff]

Nick, you've risen to the bait! Because you are a serious tenured economist, you interpret the protest as an attempt at a serious critique of the assumptions of textbook economics and an attack on academic freedom. To me it seems to be political theatre: a gesture of solidarity with the Occupy movement whose only chance of success was to provoke the outrage of articulate and eminent professors like, well, you!

[Daniel I. Harris]

wh10, I think you missed the point a bit.

It's not that the students need a certain amount of knowledge before they can criticise: it is that they purposefully refused to learn. They said, "This is not worth learning" and walked out. Furthermore, if they had bothered to pay attention, they would know that their articulated concerns were going to be focussed on in the second semester. The class they walked out on was a class on income inequality.

That is willful ignorance.

When would a walkout be justified? I think a walkout would be justified if the professor just ignored all subjects that disagreed with his/her views, and would not accept any disagreement from students. That is a bad professor, and you can learn little from such an environment. Drop the class and take another.

As much as I generally disagree with Mankiw on many subjects, he is also (from what I have seen) not one to shut down opponents. He is certainly biased (as we all are) and will certainly argue for his brand of conservative Keynesianism, but he listens to the other side, and will try to present them fairly. I think a good example of this is the notes from one of his lectures on left vs. right economists: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

Yes, you can easily see the right-wing bias in there. But you can also see someone who is trying to be fair. Look at how he handles the walkout: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/know-what-youre-protesting-economic-view.html?_r=1 The first thing he does is praise the people who do the walkout—"I applaud the protesters for thinking beyond their own parochial concerns and trying to make society a better place for everyone."

[wh10]

They walked out to raise a stink and bring national attention to these issues, and it was darn effective. If these students have decided to keep skipping class, perhaps that's another story. I'm sure, though, you've missed college classes before, for various reasons, and then put in an honest attempt to learn the material you missed. Does the student who purposely slept in after a late night of studying deserve your label of willful ignorance as well? Anyways, this is besides the point and more of the ad hominem I am referring to. It's focusing on the protesters, instead of the issues they raise, which goes beyond the narrow scope of the political issues you refer to.

Mankiw's article is quite troubling to me. Is this really what a humble teacher would write, truly interested in his students' viewpoints? Mankiw's article comes off as disingenuous, a pathetic exercise in the self-defense of himself and his economic ideology, New Keynesianism (yet he writes "I don’t view the study of economics as laden with ideology"), all while disparaging the intelligence of his students. And he gets away with it by preying on most peoples' ignorance of the diversity of economic schools, effectively hiding behind the secret dominance of New Keynesianism, by describing it with language that makes it sound objective, and using the same ad hominem approach some people here are using, which is to assert that these students are ignorant and then ignore any real issues their protest has surfaced regarding the way econ is taught in America. It's a great recipe for establishing innocence and putting down the students, instead of taking the time to rise above his ego and write something constructive about econ education.

Robin Wells's article is more in the spirit of a humble, open-minded teacher trying to learn something from one's students, and she hails from the same economic ideology as Mankiw. Perhaps I wouldn't expect Mankiw to go as far over on the humble scale as Wells, but I'd expect more balance.

[wh10]

Noah Smith is more likely to side with you guys, than me, but he puts it well here, and this is my main gripe:

"As it stands, students in introductory economics courses walk away feeling that econ theories are "received wisdom" - that a theory is just something that a smart guy dreamed up, and then concluded was right because it sort of seemed plausible (which, sad, to say, describes some econ theories all too well)"

The average student though, in an intro econ course, typically walks away with the feeling that the theories are essentially 'right enough,' with no sense at all of how flawed some researchers say they are and what some of the alternatives may be. They don't know any better. This is indoctrination and incredibly problematic to me.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-to-teach-intro-economics-students.html

[Stephen Gordon]

What is so special about the US that when their policy-makers screw up, the world must re-invent principles courses?

[wh10]

And here is Galbraith, obviously passionate and biased in his own beliefs, but stabbing at the heart of the beast, which is the oppression of all other ideas that are not what currently is mainstream, yet ideas that have proven worth, particularly throughout the crisis.

http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA09EconomistGalbraith.pdf

"The urgent need is instead to expand the academic space
and the public visibility of ongoing work that is of actual value when faced with
the many deep problems of economic life in our time. It is to make possible careers
in those areas, and for people with those perspectives, that have been proven worthy
by events. This is—obviously—not a matter to be entrusted to the economics
departments themselves. It is an imperative, instead, for university administrators,
for funding agencies, for foundations, and for students and perhaps their parents.
The point is not to argue endlessly with Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The point
is to move past them toward the garden that must be out there, that in fact is out
there, somewhere."

[wh10]

Once again, Stephen, being hyperbolic and avoiding the issues, and this can stand completely independent of the crisis.

[DavidN]

wh10 you’ve made a number of arguments but I still find it hard to know exactly what your criticisms of the undergraduate econ curriculum is. I think it would be helpful for clarification if you could set out what you think ideal curriculum for principles econ or alternatively whole of undergrad econ should be. That way we might actually know what ‘perspectives’ you think are missing or what misrepresentations the current curriculum is creating.

[Nick Rowe]

wh10: quoting Jamie Galbraith: "This is—obviously—not a matter to be entrusted to the economics
departments themselves. It is an imperative, instead, for university administrators,
for funding agencies, for foundations, and for students and perhaps their parents."

Aha! now we are getting to the main issue of the post. *Who decides* what we should teach? Does this mean Jamie Galbraith wants deans, governments, donors, students and parents, to decide what sort of economics we teach? What does this say about academic freedom? Can we also get the same people to stop Marxists teaching Anthropology? Aside from economics, and the apolitical science and engineering departments, the whole rest of the university is lefty. It could be seen as a "hostile environment" for conservative students and ideas. The many failures of mainstream economic policy pale in comparison to the failures of Marxism. What about some goose sauce?

When William Buckley said sort of the same thing as Jamie Galbraith, the academic establishment went ballistic.

(I'm a little disappointed nobody has mention the Buckley book.)

[wh10]

David, fair enough. I am not prepared to write a curriculum, and I don't want to get into a fight here about which ideas are right enough or wrong enough to be included in the curriculum. But my feelings are similar to Galbraith's, which is that the mainstream has shut out all that is not. I don't like that the vast majority of students remain ignorant of this, I am personally resentful of it, and it's probably not an impossible task to introduce counterpoints from schools outside of mainstream to very basic fundamentals taught in intro econ, without making the course overwhelming. Wells' article takes a different approach, but her ideas are not bad either.

But I am not ready to buy that the intro econ curriculum has no room for further improvement, for further diversity of perspective.

[wh10]

Nick, I agree this issue is problematic, and I don't necessarily agree with Jamie's opinion here. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for constructive change, that teachers can teach that which they may not entirely agree with or other perspectives, just as is regularly done in any other social science.

[Frances Woolley]

"It is an imperative, instead, for university administrators,
for funding agencies, for foundations, and for students and perhaps their parents."

If you want university to be nothing more than an extension of high school, this is the path to follow.

How easy is it going to be to hire creative smart people - do you even need to hire creative smart people - if people are told what they have to teach?

And what do you think those administrators will choose? Do you think they will choose an obscure heterodox intro text, e.g. the one by my friend Jean Shackelford and co-authors, or take the safe route and go with Mankiw's best selling text?

What critical theory/Marxist understanding suggests that university administrators, funding agencies and foundations will side with those who seek to overturn capitalism-as-we-know it, as opposed to siding with the oppressors?

(Sorry, Nick, I haven't read Buckley).

[wh10]

I would agree, there is problem a middle ground between what Jamie suggests and what is done now. Or perhaps what is done now is the best approach. But I think this remains problematic given the level of politics and oppression of ideas within mainstream econ that Jamie laments.

[Frances Woolley]

wh10: "But I think this remains problematic given the level of politics and oppression of ideas within mainstream econ that Jamie laments."

Perhaps that used to be the case 20 years ago, and perhaps it's still the case in macro. But in micro, if you have good data, e.g. some kind of convincing natural experiment (such as a government policy that randomly selects a bunch of kids for some kind of radical intervention) and whiz-bang techniques, it doesn't really matter what your politics are.

Honestly, in the past 20 years I'd argue that the profession has become far less political than it was. Now perhaps that's because mathematicians and engineers aren't the most political of animals (and a lot of new hires come from math/physics/engineering undergrad backgrounds), but everything has its pluses and minuses.

Econ 1000 is one of the few battlegrounds, because there's far more scope for influencing public opinion, and far less scope for high tech theory.

[Mandos]

The many failures of mainstream economic policy pale in comparison to the failures of Marxism. What about some goose sauce?

The dominance and prestige of economics in our day-to-day political discourse, particularly received wisdom about, as Gregor puts it, the world as primarily composed of "property rights, contract law, and freedom of exchange", suggests that economics as a discipline has far more political import than Marxist anthropology, so it's much harder to make a case for a walkout of an anthropology course as a political statement.

I mean, Gregor put his finger on the whole underlying issue here. There is a basic, simple conceptual framework that clearly provides the infrastructure of what mainstream economists do and teach. It's not hard to spell it out. If you accept it, than you can define a right and left wing there and then. The left wing is now interested in enumerating and compensating for exceptions ("market failures"). The right wing is interested in explaining why apparent exceptions, aren't. In this conceptual framework, the left wing is always going to be at a disadvantage, because enumerating exceptions to the underlying foundation of "property rights, contract law, and freedom of exchange" is always going to be weak political sauce. The basic right-wing belief that our economic and social relations are the way they are because they approximate the optimal outcome of the free exchange of property can only be challenged at the fringes.

(The fact that there *can* be a right and a left wing is interesting in itself! But no matter...)

But a simple glance at a newspaper tells me trivially that it is not a sound basis we can assume for the way the world works. That's why the David Graeber argument was so important, pace Gregor and Nick. If it was never the case, then what we see in the world is not a deviation from that state. Then there's no real reason to accept it as a basis for discussion when planning a renewed society.

And if that's the case, then it's like wrestling with the prospect of a winged purple elephant. If powerful people believe in it, or some approximation of it based on the underlying argument about outcomes subtending from the free exchange of goods, then one is forced to that extent to engage with it. But not because of its intrinsic merit.

So no, I don't believe that the protesting students were under any obligation to come up with a cogent counterargument within the same intellectual framework, even the well-intentioned kind that admits market failures. Having to do so is the intellectual equivalent of having one arm tied behind one's back.

[wh10]

Frances, I can only speak to macro.

My argument is not about the political element of economic ideas and the political biases of economists, though. It's about the economic fundamentals that are taught - are they accurate and representative of how the real world works, independent of policy implications? The politics I lament is the politics within the econ profession, which leads to entrenched ideologies that preclude the exposure of other ideas.

[wh10]

In other words, the politics within the econ profession is not the balance of left vs right economists, but the process by which ideas become entrenched and the struggle for academic power, influence, and prestige, at the expense of an open-minded approach and exposure to other ideas.

[Frances Woolley]

wh10: "It's about the economic fundamentals that are taught - are they accurate and representative of how the real world works, independent of policy implications?"

Generally speaking demand curves slope downwards and supply curves slope upwards. A movement along the demand curve is different from a shift in the demand curve. A change in prices produces a substitution effect and an income effect. The actual effect of policy is frequently different from the intended effect of policy.

Just getting people to think through problems analytically with a simple supply and demand framework is immensely valuable. And, as a first order approximation, it's frequently reasonably accurate and representative (see, e.g., my recent post on dental hygienists).

Or at least as accurate and representative of the real world as what's taught in intro survey courses across the academy.

If you'd spent as much time as I have trying to force people to think analytically, to pay attention to market forces, you'd be grateful to just about anyone, regardless of their political views, who was able to convey these ideas in a way that stuck.

[wh10]

Frances, that's fine, and I think that stuff is great. However, there's more to intro econ than that. For example, Post-Keynesians would take much issue with how intro texts describe and approach banking and fiscal/monetary operations, not on the basis of what it implies about policy, but simply on the basis of what actually happens.

[Gregor Bush]

Mandos you said:

"We *also* live in a world with regulations, electorates, cultures, politicians, vested interests, malicious people, etc, etc, etc, most of which are massively underweighted in a conception of the universe that contains only "a monetary exchange economy with private property, contract law, and freedom of exchange [Oxford comma!!!1!!!1],."

Who said we didn't? Of course there are politicians and vested interests. So what? There are also market forces at work. And they matter a great deal. And most people are fairly ignorant of market forces. If you never study economics, you're much more likely to think that the world is ENTIRELY driven by regulations, electorates, cultures, politicians, vested interests, malicious people, etc, etc. If you never studied any economics, you’re much more likely to think that instituting a 20/hr minimum wage is a good idea. You’re much more likely to see think that the government setting a price ceiling of 80 cents/lite on gasoline is a good idea. And you’re much less likely to think that that requiring companies to provide workers with certain benefits will result in corresponding downward pressure on wages. If you think all there is to the world is politicians, social movements and culture, you’re going to make a lot of incorrect predictions about the effects of different economic policies. Ignore market forces at your peril.

When you learn econ 100, you learn about market forces and how those market forces and how those market forces interact with the political and cultural forces you described. Take your example regulation. Some market activities are regulated by the government and some are not. How can we assess the impact of a government regulation of a market activity if we are completely ignorant of the forces that drive the quantities and prices exchanged absent the regulation? You need to compare the case where there is regulation to the case where there is no regulation. And for that you need to learn econ 100.

[W. Peden]

Hmm, my comment seems to have got dropped down the memory hole. That's a shame, because I thought it was a sound argument for universities to employ more people who can teach the history of economics...

[JL]

In a democracy people should come together to construct the society that they want to live in... They may not all understand economics, but that does not mean they don’t have values. When the values are constantly ignored on the basis of political ideologies based on the language technocratic management ... they feel left out of the political process and react (not always appropriately). These manifestations have to be looked at as symptoms. In that sense asking whether protesters are right or not is not really the right way to look at it. In a system that shuts out progressive voices that want change through protocols of speech – a protest is one that finds no other voice. Here is an example of this :
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/07/un-climate-kent.html
“The six members of the Canadian Youth Delegation stood as Kent began his speech and turned their backs, revealing the message “Turn Your back on Canada” on their T-shirts. The youth delegates said they received an ovation from the crowd but were escorted out by security and had their accreditation revoked.”

[JL]

Gregor Bush : Of course you have to understand the implications of your actions on market forces otherwise you may do more harm than not: that is realism. But I would not say "so what" to the vested interests of big players and the ideologies that dominate politics. The problem is that many people who want to see change are being played the tune of realism to justify a status quo that has nothing to do with realism... (Republican party anyone?)

[Mandos]

Gregor,

Let me give you at least this. If economics confined itself to coming up with "interpolative" explanations---of the way things were in the past with severe caveats about its predictive power, then it might eventually, after some time, gain a status similar to evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology has also a conceptual substructure that has been refined and empirically validated by looking at past and present (and even then there ambiguous issues like the role of neutral selection), but no evolutionary biologist would claim that s/he could make any reasonable sort of prediction as to what might happen in the future.

But to claim that "market forces" are a dominant overlay that restricts the effect of all other relations and conditions all possible futures is, once again, to assume the conclusion. I don't admit the existence of "a case where there is no regulation"---that is a claim that is simply assumed. There is always regulation; it is only the regulator and their intent that differs.

This is all, heh, "academic" in the case of Gregory Mankiw. He's in a different league entirely.

[Nick Rowe]

W. Peden: I just found it in the spam filter. It's now published, at 11.05pm yesterday. Sorry about that.

[Mark_dowling]

(Stephen Gordon) "What is so special about the US that when their policy-makers screw up, the world must re-invent principles courses?"

(Nick Rowe) "I teach Intro Economics, and have done for many years. I use the Canadian edition of Greg Mankiw's book."

It strikes me that the second paragraph might go some way to explaining the first?

[Nick Rowe]

Mandos: "But a simple glance at a newspaper tells me trivially that it is not a sound basis we can assume for the way the world works. That's why the David Graeber argument was so important, pace Gregor and Nick. If it was never the case, then what we see in the world is not a deviation from that state. Then there's no real reason to accept it as a basis for discussion when planning a renewed society."

I want to understand your position, not (yet) argue against it. Massively oversimplifying, is this it:

'Markets were (historically) created by the state. Therefore we should have an economics which is based on the allocation of scarce resources by the state, and teach about markets as a special case of how the state allocates resources, rather than vice versa.' ?

[wh10]

W. Peden,

You've essentially just made up your mind that modifying intro courses, along certain lines which are unclear to me, is out of the question.

Oddly enough, the lines I am talking about, such as the money multiplier, seem to be lines you might agree with.

I also agree history of econ would be helpful.

But I disagree that 'time' is an issue and that simply making it a prereq for only econ majors is sufficient. Most people are not econ majors, and so they won't be exposed to this, and they'll carry their poorly formed understanding and prejudices into the real world. And your implication that current debates in physics are of similar nature to those in economics is tenuous and misses the point. See Determinant's comments at 8:55am

[Mandos]

'Markets were (historically) created by the state. Therefore we should have an economics which is based on the allocation of scarce resources by the state, and teach about markets as a special case of how the state allocates resources, rather than vice versa.'

Hmm, that is indeed a very oversimplified view of what I mean, though it is in the right direction. For one thing, I would quibble with the word "historically". I would say that markets are *currently* created by the state, because the current state itself is designed, at a very deep level, to discourage or penalize the emergence of even attempts at producing alternatives. (Witness the crackdown on some of the occupy encampments.)

[Stephen Gordon]

If economics confined itself to coming up with "interpolative" explanations---of the way things were in the past with severe caveats about its predictive power...

"If"? That pretty much describes the entirety of applied work in economics. Unconditional forecasting is a niche field, and most of that is done outside academia.

[W. Peden]

Nick Rowe,

Thanks!

wh10,

"You've essentially just made up your mind that modifying intro courses, along certain lines which are unclear to me, is out of the question."

No I have not. It would be absolutely insane to think that intro courses should never be modified.

"But I disagree that 'time' is an issue and that simply making it a prereq for only econ majors is sufficient. Most people are not econ majors, and so they won't be exposed to this, and they'll carry their poorly formed understanding and prejudices into the real world."

This seems to be a hazard in any introductory course to any subject. Time is precisely the reason why.

"And your implication that current debates in physics are of similar nature to those in economics is tenuous and misses the point. See Determinant's comments at 8:55am"

They are similar in this respect that is sufficient for my point to be correct: you cannot properly understand them without a considerable understanding of one set of theories, which takes longer than one intro course to know and understand.

The requirement of a basic grounding is true of any subject, including literary criticism and sociology, so the relative fundamental consensus in physics is quite irrelevant to my claim. Whether or not learning the basic popular theories in economics requires more than an intro course is a contingent question and I'm open to any argument to the contrary.

[Mandos]

Any form of policy advice (such as critiques of party platforms) is also an exception.

[Gregor Bush]

Mandos, you said:

"That's why the David Graeber argument was so important, pace Gregor and Nick. If it was never the case, then what we see in the world is not a deviation from that state. Then there's no real reason to accept it as a basis for discussion when planning a renewed society."

Ahh...so you're effectively conceding that if you were not "planning a renewed society" that what you learn ECON 100 can be quite useful for understanding the world in which we live today. So if a proposed policy change were marginal, say, a price cap on gasoline, then the Econ 100 prediction of a gasoline shortage will be valid. Do you agree? And if so, why is that not useful for people to know?

You sound alot like the utopian socialists of the late 19th century here: we don’t need to worry about the laws of supply and demand because once we overturn the existing social order there will be a “spiritual transformation of man” and individual incentives will become meaningless. Well, as it turns out, individual incentives still mattered. When China (and in other countries) collectivized farming, output plummeted. Then when they allowed private farming again output shot back up. Who could have predicted that? Well, anyone who took and truly understood Econ 100, that’s who.

The moral of the story is that if your socialist revolution does not come, Econ 100, as it is currently taught, will be a very useful tool for understanding market forces in the world in which we currently live. And if the socialist revolution does come, Econ 100 will offer important insights into why the whole thing isn’t working out nearly as well as the socialist revolutionaries had hoped.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” –Hayek

[W. Peden]

Let's stick for a while with Determinant's analogy to logic. One sense in which this analogy is certainly correct is that both subjects require a considerable amount of technical training before the main issues can be understood.

A modern formal logic course will begin* with a basic propositional calculus (without going into the more esoteric issues of NAND, NOR and functional completeness) then proceed onto a fairly luxurious predicate logic system. That will take up at least a semester and even then most students will get very little out of the course in the long-run if it is covered too quickly. A two semester course might go into one or two simple modal logic systems. The issues in mathematical logic, philosophical logic and the philosophy of logic that are the debates within formal logic as a subject will not be taught. Fuzzy logics, interrogative logics, imperative logics, funky modal logics like temporal logic, intuitionist logics and Aristotelian logics have no place in an introductory logic course, unless they're mentioned for about 30 seconds.

The same is true for an informal logic course. An introductory informal logic course (or, more typically, a short informal section within a wider logic course) will go through a basic fallacy classification system. If Douglas Walton or one of his followers is teaching, a dialogue approach will be taken. If a rhetorician is teaching, a rhetoric approach will be taught. Trying to teach all three in one intro course would be very unwise and horrifically confusing for students.

That's not to mention idealist logics, Boolean logic and pragmatist logics. Learning what John Dewey or F. S. Schiller had to say about logic is interesting and perhaps they were right, but should it be taught in an introductory course?

* Some might still waste their students time with Aristotelian logic.

[wh10]

Peden,

You.are.disagreeing.with.me.about.modifying.intro.econ.courses. Thus, you are disagreeing about modifying them in certain ways ("certain lines"), which is exactly what I said. I never said that you think they should 'never be modified' in any way.

Furthermore, I am talking about fundamental things like the money multiplier, which you seem to be potentially on my side about! So don't tell me you think there isn't room for modification here, when you already have.

Your point/claim with regards to physics may be correct, but it's irrelevant to the grounds on which I am suggesting change. I'm not talking about matters as complex as contemporary debates in physics, about grand theories, which of course I would agree first requires base-level understanding. I'm talking about basic fundamental concepts such as the money multiplier.

Capiche?

[Stephen Gordon]

The money multiplier is 'fundamental'?

[wh10]

I can understand why you misunderstood me, reading my response again. However, if I meant what you thought, I would have more properly placed "along certain lines..." as clause after "made up your mind."

Secondly, I should rephrase to say not that I don't think time is an issue, but that it is not an insurmountable issue. At least to the same degree you view it.

Although, as I point out, we may not be disagreeing all that much, on at least certain potential modifications.

[wh10]

Stephen, call it what you want. There's serious disagreement about it across the profession, yet it's introduced as a basic concept in intro econ across the US without any caveat. I see no reason why intro econ can't also explain why this concept might be flawed.

[W. Peden]

wh10,

"You've essentially just made up your mind that modifying intro courses, along certain lines which are unclear to me, is out of the question."

I suspect that the commas in this sentence have mislead me. I was under the impression that the "certain lines" were MINE i.e. my reasons for rejecting even the question that intro courses should be modified. This is because the phrase "along certain lines" is part of the appositive subordinate clause rather than the subject of the sentence (my making up my mind that etc.). So I'm glad to hear that I don't come across as insane!

"Furthermore, I am talking about fundamental things like the money multiplier, which you seem to be potentially on my side about! So don't tell me you think there isn't room for modification here, when you already have."

There is definitely room for modification there: the money multiplier concept should not be taught. However, the modification should not be to present different perspectives, but rather because professional opinion has (surely?) moved away from the concept and learning it is no longer a prerequisite for understanding basic macroeconomic debates. I only found out about it quite recently, for instance, despite years of discussing macroeconomics.

I think the complex case is where an economics lecturer disagrees strongly with the basic views in the subject. In such a situation, the lecturer has to exercise his/her judgement: can their objection be stated quickly and clearly? Can the controversy just be referred to generally? Is the issue one without much of a consensus or importance such that teaching the lecturer's view would not disadvantage students when they go on to discuss economics?

[wh10]

Well, Peden, I would personally agree with you on banning the money multiplier, but I expect many professors around the US might disagree, since it seems to be a near universal concept in intro econ, in the US. It most certainly is presented in Mankiw's text, for example. So I am trying to compromise by suggesting both sides of it can be presented without making the intro econ curriculum unworkable.

Your last paragraph sort of gets at my issue with the entrenchment of certain ideas and tribal nature within the economics profession. What if valid disagreements with basic views exist, but most teachers simply just don't know about them, rather than choose to disagree with them? In the US, I'd say the money multiplier is a perfect example of this.

[Chris Auld]

"Noah Smith is more likely to side with you guys, than me, but he puts it well here, and this is my main gripe:"

Noah's point is that empirical work in economics makes a misleadingly inadequate showing in Econ 101. Students are introduced to lots of abstract theoretical concepts but are not presented with the "the part that links theory to reality." They walk out wrongly thinking that economic research is based on what "sort of seemed plausible" rather than systematic analysis of evidence. I agree with Noah's complaint about the 101 curriculum, although I think he massively underestimates how difficult it is to discuss statistical concepts in a 101 class.

That is not your complaint at all. Your complaint appears to be that your favorite fringe schools of macroeconomic theory are not represented at the 101 level.

[Winslow R.]

Does Nick teach the money multiplier?

If not, did he make the decision for " university administrators, for funding agencies, for foundations, and for students and perhaps their parents" ?

If so, what would 'make' him change?

[wh10]

Chris,

You're right. My point was only tangentially, if that, related to Noah's article and the specific quote I selected. I used the quote because I thought the importance of challenging assumptions using empirical data was related to the idea that most students simply walk out of econ accepting that the ideas they were taught were essentially right, with no exposure to or idea that other perspectives may exist.

In recent comments, I've made one of my complaints regarding econ 101 plainly clear- the money multiplier. Feel free to engage me on that level, instead of making assumptions about how I would ultimately like to see the econ 101 curriculum. I don't know. I came here to discuss.

[Nick Rowe]

Winslow:
Yes, I teach the money multiplier. In a very small part, because some of my students come from China and China uses required reserves as an instrument of monetary policy.

What would lead me to change? Maybe: a good intellectual argument for change, from someone who actually understood the difference between: supply; quantity supplied; demand; quantity demanded; actual stock; and also the difference between the determination of the stock of medium of exchange and all other assets.

[Nick Rowe]

Mandos: "For one thing, I would quibble with the word "historically"."

I would quibble (or more) with that word too. I only stuck it in there because I thought that was Graeber's argument.

[wh10]

Nick, interesting. Are all those requirements necessary since you think they're absolutely crucial to understanding whether or not a bank receiving reserves will set off a cycle in which the money supply expands, through loan creation, in accordance with the reserve ratio, or rather that you are so suspicious of anyone who hasn't proven to you that they understand those things that you feel it is safest to not seriously consider their take on this very specific idea, just in case some of those issues actually matter?

I can understand either reason, I suppose, though I find it frustrating that whole schools of economic thought and empirical research, from mainstream authorities, can challenge the money multiplier, receive no legitimate rebuttal, and the idea continues to live on as if nothing happened.

[wh10]

*to be clear - "just in case some of those issues actually matter" to a meaningful degree in the specific context of the money multiplier.

[wh10]

In your graduate training as an academic economist, were you taught or did you ever read any research exploring the specific matter of the money multiplier and the details behind how it might operate in the real world, or is it something, by and large, treated as self-evident and not given much further attention, partly because there's so much to learn? What about in your years as an academic economist?

I am not trying to be curt here. I am honestly just curious. It's something I never really questioned meaningfully in undergrad, where I had intro and intermediate econ, and I could imagine higher level econ not wasting too much time on this.

[wh10]

Sorry for the string of comments. I don't mean papers trying to forecast or model the money multiplier as it might exist in the real world, but papers exploring why the logic taught in econ texts regarding the money multiplier makes any sense.

[Nick Rowe]

wh10: some background:

The money supply multiplier is a small unimportant part of economics. Most microeconomists will be very hazy on the concept. Even in macro it's not a big deal. When (say) MMTers make a big deal of it, mainstream macroeconomists raise their eyebrows.

Many mainstream macroeconomists don't like the money supply multiplier approach. It does not "live on as if nothing had happened", though there is a lot of inertia in intro textbooks. I am one of a minority who have actually thought about it and thinks it is telling us something important.

"or rather that you are so suspicious of anyone who hasn't proven to you that they understand those things that you feel it is safest to not seriously consider their take on this very specific idea, just in case some of those issues actually matter?"

That's probably closer to it. I don't want to spend a lot of my energy going over the basics of that stuff, just so we can get to what matters.

Funny thing is, if you had asked me (say) 4 years ago what I thought of the money multiplier, I would have shrugged my shoulders. A quick and dirty way to get from H to M, nothing more. It was only after reading critiques of it that I began to see the good in it.

Updated (after the Economics Department wine and cheese, I see a couple more comments).

"In your graduate training as an academic economist, were you taught or did you ever read any research exploring the specific matter of the money multiplier and the details behind how it might operate in the real world, or is it something, by and large, treated as self-evident and not given much further attention, partly because there's so much to learn?"

I vaguely remember being taught it, with some discussion of why it might change or be unstable. I think Tom Courchene wrote about it in the Canadian context, and I may have read him. James Tobin critiqued it from a theoretical standpoint. We really never paid it much attention. It was seen as a rather boring and unimportant topic, to be gotten out the way as quickly as possible so we could get on to the interesting controversial stuff. It didn't really matter much if it was right or wrong.

[Winslow R.]

"Maybe: a good intellectual argument for change, from someone who actually understood the difference between: supply; quantity supplied; demand; quantity demanded; actual stock; and also the difference between the determination of the stock of medium of exchange and all other assets."

You've been explaining these topics through allegory on your blog for years? I' ve followed loosely as various commentators, more informed than I, have engaged with you in a discussion of theses issues. Sometimes it 'feels' as though the narrative is being complicated unnecessarily into a form where obsification is more important than understanding.

Despite what many would like us to believe, money creation just isn't that hard to understand, neither the mechanics nor drive. Given that I like your curiosity, sense of humor, willingness to engage, it bothers me when I sense what could be feigned humility. I would never accuse you of megalomania.

Personally I have many faults, mostly saying offensive things without realizing it, hence my moniker :)

[W. Peden]

wh10,

"Well, Peden, I would personally agree with you on banning the money multiplier, but I expect many professors around the US might disagree, since it seems to be a near universal concept in intro econ, in the US. It most certainly is presented in Mankiw's text, for example. So I am trying to compromise by suggesting both sides of it can be presented without making the intro econ curriculum unworkable."

I would hope that it isn't the consensus in monetary opinion in the US (it certainly isn't here in the UK; people very rarely even use the phrase "monetary base" when discussing monetary issues here and we focus more on interest rates, deposits, credit and equity) and if it's not the consensus then there is no reason to teach it.

"Your last paragraph sort of gets at my issue with the entrenchment of certain ideas and tribal nature within the economics profession. What if valid disagreements with basic views exist, but most teachers simply just don't know about them, rather than choose to disagree with them? In the US, I'd say the money multiplier is a perfect example of this."

That does raise a really big problem. I don't really want to say that it's the job of intro lecturers to know about each and every heterodox theory and to judge the soundness or validity of these alternatives.

[Nick Rowe]

This is what is weird about intro textbooks: they are very slow to change. But, sometimes, that is a good thing. Consider this example:

Ever since around 1950, the main macro model in the intro textbook was the Keyensian Cross. At first, most macroeconomists believed the KC was a good model, even if oversimplified. But the KC model lived on in the intro textbook for decades after most macroeconomists had abandoned it as hopelessly misleading. In other words, relative to what macroeconomists believed, the typical Intro text showed a massive Old Keynesian bias. But really, it was just slow to change.

Ironically, only in the last 3 years has it been possible to argue that the KC model is useful.

For the last 20 years, the mainstream New Keynesian approach has also believed that the stock of money is an irrelevant variable. (And so the money multiplier is doubly irrelevant). The only thing that matters is the rate of interest. But they still lived on in the Intro textbook.

Ironically again, only in the last 3 years has it been possible to argue we should pay attention to this old stuff again.

There are two reasons why Intro textbooks are slow to change:

1. Innate conservatism (small c, not righty) of us old guys teaching it.

2. There's a coordination problem. Nobody wants to change first. Everyone wants to do the same as everyone else is doing.

[Nick Rowe]

Winslow: "Despite what many would like us to believe, money creation just isn't that hard to understand, neither the mechanics nor drive. Given that I like your curiosity, sense of humor, willingness to engage, it bothers me when I sense what could be feigned humility."

Thanks. This isn't feigned humility. I think I understand one important thing about money creation that only very few economists understand. I'm more arrogant than humble on that point. But I still don't understand that thing very well. And I barely understood it at all a couple of years ago. That's where I feel humble. Money is weird. The usual demand and supply stuff doesn't work for money. Everybody else, from New Keynesians to MMTers, thinks it does. They just draw the money supply curve as horizontal, with the stock of money being determined by quantity demanded at the rate of interest set by the central bank. That's what I used to think too, though I never thought about it much. Now I think that's wrong. Hardly anyone agrees with me.

[Stephen Gordon]

There are sometimes pedagogical reasons. For example, the KC is a good way to work out the distinction between a national accounting identities and an equilibrium condition. And IS-LM is a good way to introduce the idea of having more 2 (or more) markets clearing simultaneously. If you got rid of them, you'd have to come up with another set of models that does the job.

[Nick Rowe]

Stephen: true. Even if you think the KC model is wrong, it is at least a model, and it's simple enough for first year students to play with, so they can learn how economic models work.

But nearly all macroeconomists agree that, understood literally, with no qualifications, the KC model is horribly wrong (except in very special cases). It says: monetary policy is irrelevant and fiscal policy is the only way to control AD (even though all civilised countries were using monetary policy rather than fiscal policy until 3 years ago); it says if you want to increase real income, all you need to do is increase G or cut T.

That is a terribly wrong lesson for students to learn, if that's the only economics course they ever take (which is about half of them). A little learning is a dangerous thing. The KC model was that little learning for millions of people. That model has done more damage than any other (Marx aside).

30 years ago Mike Parkin tried to delete the KC model from his intro text. The market would let him. He had to hold his nose and put it back in. Finally, Greg Mankiw managed to get rid of it as a formal model, and just relegate it to a side-show.

But, for all its flaws, the KC model contains some important grains of truth. I both love it and hate it.

[wh10]

Nick, thanks for the perspectives and anecdotes.

Putting aside what you think is important about the money multiplier concept, I think it hangs around in bad ways, precisely due to the nature that it is taught universally in intro econ, at least in the US. Take for example many economists's, commentators's, and market participants's reactions to QE2. Everyone thought this would be wildly inflationary due to money multiplier mechanism taught in intro econ.

Putting aside the possibility that the Fed wanted to create inflation expectations specifically through this channel of poor misunderstanding, what good is this misunderstanding? It seems this is, if anything, destabilizing in the markets and causes unnecessary lost trust in the Fed. I mean, as a proponent of NGDP targeting, wouldn't you like greater support and understanding of the Fed on the part of society?

I guess this might be getting too far off topic, but thoughts I had. And you might disagree with me anyways, since you find value in the money multiplier.

[wh10]

Sorry- wanted to write 'precisely due to the way it is taught in intro econ.'

[Mandos]

I would quibble (or more) with that word too. I only stuck it in there because I thought that was Graeber's argument.

Well, it is; I assumed you stuck it in there because you were trying to imply that it had stopped at some point being true, which I don't think is a necessary part of Graeber's argument. If it hasn't stopped being true, then yes, the point at which econ101 starts should be very different.

[Nick Rowe]

wh10: "Take for example many economists's, commentators's, and market participants's reactions to QE2. Everyone thought this would be wildly inflationary due to money multiplier mechanism taught in intro econ."

Fair point. Good example of the "taking models too literally and uncritically" and/or "a little learning is a dangerous thing".

Actually, I think the money multiplier sucks if it's used for comparative statics equilibrium exercises, like M=(1/rr)H. But I like the disequilibrium process story that goes along with it. Sort of the same with the Keynesian Cross model, which has a really useful positive feedback disequilibrium process story built into a bad model for comparative statics equilibrium exercises.

[Mandos]

Gregor,

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.” –Hayek

"I'll take 'praxeology' for 10 billion drachmas, Alex!"

Ahh...so you're effectively conceding that if you were not "planning a renewed society" that what you learn ECON 100 can be quite useful for understanding the world in which we live today

I don't see where I conceded anything. See Nick's previous reply to me and my reply to Nick and his reply to me and mine to him. Because "the world in which we live today" is as much an imposition as any other, with capitalism indeed having its own sordid little set of catastrophes, what you're calling ECON 100 can be thought of as a characterization of the selfsame imposition. Obviously, just as we don't discard everything the Greek philosophers said because we might not now agree with everything they wrote... you can fill in the rest.

The remainder of your comment is simply a rehash of the belief that because USSR, markets are some sort of natural baseline for human interaction. Petitio principii.

[Jacques René Giguère]

KC cross didn't show the monetary policy that "civilized countries" used. But it showed that "barbarians" could do something other than relying on the tender ministrations of independant central banks, so independant that like the BoC in the '90's or the ECB now, they are willing to destroy their countries for the fun of respecting some absurd shiboleth about inflation.

KC cross has lots of defects and faults. But it included the Injections-Withdrawals model ( full of faults etc). And the IW could show to the dumbest least interested undergrad that "expansionnary austerity" can't work. And that's a powerful result.( Or should have been).

[Nick Rowe]

Mandos: thanks. I haven't read Graeber at all fully and carefully, so I'm not at all sure I can critique him properly. But I *suspect* he may be making a profound conceptual mistake. Similar to the mistake made by a political scientist (if there are any) who thinks that Hobbes' Leviathan was about the *historical* origin of the state. Similar to an economist who interprets Menger as writing a *history* of the origin of money. (Maybe you *can* interpret Menger and Hobbes that way, but I think both make a lot more sense if you don't.)

Aha! I've found my old post on this subject:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/02/creation-myths-and-economic-history.html

I wonder if I dare re-post it, with the title: "A critique of Graeber"? Better not!

[wh10]

Thanks for the thoughts Nick.

In that regard, I think it's a shame books can't be updated, or at least teachers address old but dangerous material. Isn't it a good excuse for a new addition and a new price ;)?