Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

I disagree with your idea of the left and right.

The fundamental difference between the two is hierarchy. The right accepts or even embraces it, the left rejects it. That's why those leftists who follow their logic end up anarchists, rejecting all hierarchy, whether it's economic (socialism), gender based (feminism), race based (racism), species based (veganism) etc. The perfect leftist society is the perfectly egalitarian one, where all are equals, a society of abstract human beings with no distinguishing qualities.

 

It was, TortoiseDream, but the panic of the1970s Oil price shocks saw Keynes rejected and Friedman embraced.

 

Maybe in rhetoric, but not in practice. Nixon took us literally off the gold standard for god's sake. I don't know about Friedman, but that's like literally the most anti-Austrian thing possible.

 

Perhaps I should have said Classical was abandoned in favour of NeoClassical instead.

Keynes put full employment first. That was abandoned in favour of NAIRU.

Not sure what you mean about anti-Austrian.

 

Economics in academia is taught from the perspective of very intelligent economists using high level calculus and understanding of their field. It just so happens that their work does not coincide with any conservative economic theories. So it may seem "left wing" because it differs from right wing... but in reality, it's just the conclusions experts from all across the world have come to. And the crazy thing is, economics just like any other field is compartmentalized. Just like you have surgeons, nurses, eye doctors, dentists, etc. Economists become experts at a certain subset of economics. Then organizations try to take all this expertise and make sense out of it to make proper monetary and fiscal policy decisions. Unfortunately, you have to get through politicians to make fiscal policy changes.

 

of course thats absurd given that few objected to Obamacares huge leap toward socialism or to Bernie's open socialism or to Hilary shaking her head in agreement with Bernie all day long yesterday.

Norman Thomas quotes: http://quotes.liberty- "The Americ...ist nation, without knowing how it happened."

 

can you give us a substantive preteen communist example of this???

 

If you think economics is about numbers and some truths that are in essence axioms then you need to re-learn economics. In reality, the whole discipline is really about modeling, assumptions and attempts to create equations that describe human activity. There are very, very few absolutes in economics only approximations based upon the bias of the observer.

 

Did you ever take any courses? All you did was just replace my words with your words. What do you think equations consist of exactly? Numbers=equations, theory=models.

For crying out loud a 5 second google would have shown you a bazillion pages.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-theory

http://www.economictheories.org/

And please post me a single case of the IS model being a success. Just one. When it comes to which one performs better it is extremely clear that import substitution is a complete failure. You sound like one of those communist blowhards that says "Well it just wasn't done correctly, if they did communism correctly it would work".

 

That is the theory!! Liberals won't stop exploring big govt schemes until 200 million human beings have been killed and only then they will become freedom worshiping conservative libertarians.

 

economic commentary is largely supportive of libcomie Obamacare, libcommie Sanders, and libcommie Hilary who spend all day 2 days ago shaking her head in agreement with open libcommie Bernie. If you think economic commentary coming out of the US is not supportive its because you are are not reading it. 1+1=2

 

I took plenty of economics classes, lived with my Econ Professor. But that is besides the point. If you truly knew anything about the subject you would agree with me. Modeling is the key to all economics, all the rest of it assumes mathematical models or equations simulate reality. The entire subject of equilibrium is based upon mathematics and it is pure hogwash. But I digress. If you think anything in economics has been proven, tested, repeated and is going to be true tomorrow, enlighten us. Show your links.

 

I'm curious, what is the difference between your models and the econometrics of your average mathematician-economist?

 

sure, East German did worse than West Germany, Cuba did worse than Florida, Communist China did worse than Capitalist China, America did far better before and after FDR etc. etc. Do you understand?

 

Well, the classical era ended in the 1870s with Menger, Jevons, and Walras, the marginalists.

Certainly since WWII the economics world has been dominated by Keynesians and neo- or post-Keynesians.

The Austrian School of Economics: Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe.

 

Economics is the study of how people use scarce means to achieve their ends. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. It doesn't offer an agenda. It simply observes how people behave in trying to achieve their ends using limited resources.

 

well, the behavior in libsocialist USSR and Red China was standing in line for days hoping to find essentials available and affordable with 120 million human souls slowly starving to death in the end. So that does offer an anti libsocialist Sanders/Hilary agenda. Do you understand?

 

The behavioral science of economic doesn't advocate or denigrate libsocialism. It simply observes how people behave, and the consequences of that behavior. If one wants poverty, then one should follow libsocialism. If one wants prosperity, then one should enforce liberty constrained by respect for property rights. Economics doesn't say which ought to be chosen. It simply describes the consequences of each choice.

 

well if you think describing 120 million dead is not denigrating to libsocialism. Why pretend that human beings do anything or study anything in a moral vacuum when they mostly do not?

 

Economics is a social science. It studies how people use scarce resources to achieve their ends.

The science of economics can certainly explain why socialism leads to poverty and destruction. Just as a physicist will be able to tell you the effect of dropping an anvil off the empire state building onto the crowds below, economics describes. It doesn't proscribe.

However, most rational people would prefer not to drop an anvil off the empire state building onto the crowds below. Similarly, most people, when the know of the consequences, would prefer to avoid the destruction wrought by socialism.

 

so is sociology, ..in theory but in the end its just an organized way to promote ones political POV.

 

No. Science is just a systematic way of describing how the world works.

Now, I will admit that hacks like Paul Krugman, who claim to be economists, spout off on what the government SHOULD do, but a true scientist simply describes how things work. Once he goes on to make policy recommendations, he has stopped being a scientist and is acting as a partisan.

 

well, fairly trivial subject anyway. Last survey I recall showed economics departments were by far the most balanced departments at major universities. I cant imagine any economist not having a political POV and not finding justification for his POV in his understanding of economics

 

Considering we have the best economy (mixed=leftwing) in the world, I'd say we're doing just fine.