Worldly philosophers needed...the teaching of economics.

[groovedaddy]

IT’S become commonplace to criticize the “Occupy” movement for failing to offer an alternative vision. But the thousands of activists in the streets of New York and London aren’t the only ones lacking perspective: economists, to whom we might expect to turn for such vision, have long since given up thinking in terms of economic systems — and we are all the worse for it.

This wasn’t always the case. Course lists from economics departments used to be filled with offerings in “comparative economic systems,” contrasting capitalism and socialism or comparing the French, Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon models of capitalism.

Such courses arose in the context of the cold war, when the battle with the Soviet Union was about showing that our system was better than theirs. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, that motivation disappeared. Globalization, so it is claimed, has created a single system of capitalism driven by international competition (ignoring the very real differences between, say, China and the United States). We now have an economics profession that hardly ever discusses its fundamental subject, “capitalism.”

Many economists say that what matters are questions like whether markets are competitive or monopolistic, or how monetary policy works. Using broad, ill-defined notions like capitalism invites ideological grandstanding and distracts from the hard technical problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/worldly-philosophers-wanted.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

[HopeHoops]

1. Just what the hell is the question?

I have a degree in Philosophy (as well as Mathematics) and I can't figure out what the fuck you're asking. No, I didn't hit the link. Just what is the point of your post?

[groovedaddy]

3. Where did you see a question? This is an op-ed piece from the NY Times

It's essentially challenging the way economics is now taught. But you might have to actually read it to get the point of it.

[HopeHoops]

5. Ah, reading - I've heard of that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

2. Economics is a quantative science

that does not encompass philosophical discussions.

It have studied the very things you speak of in college. The course was a comparative government class offered through the political science department.

[jtuck004]

6. Despite the torture with statistics and equations economics has never

confessed to being a quantitative science. One can write anything in a book, (just check with Texas, or Virginia), throw in a bunch of math that purports to tell the future and explain human behavior, but that does not make it so. It's no more quantitative than carpentry or pipefitting.

;)

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. The economics classes I took in my MBA program

required more than just a passing familiarity with differential calculus. The economics classes I took were very quantitative. Without much talk of philosophy.

That fortelling human behavior thing (with respect to money) was addressed in my behaviorial finance class. That class was very touchy feely and basic math sills were barely required.

[jtuck004]

9. The social sciences have been dressing themselves in math

to appear "just as good as" for a long time, (like Democrats trying to appease Republicans?) and there are some useful outcomes. (In the first example, that is). But regardless of how much math one throws at something, there are still human behaviors that aren't explained, aren't rational. That's ok, because any philosophy that doesn't fail can't be measured, and we want to know what the return on our investment is. (Unless it means giving heating money back to poor people, that is). Economics has it's theories and calculations, but even rocket science, for the most part, is no good without the motivation to go to the moon, (or thereabouts) and I haven't seen the calculation(s) in economics that describe the human spirit to my satisfaction.

ymmv, of course ;)

Maybe that's where I get caught up. The people who ran our economy into the ground had some of the most well-developed quants this world had ever seen, MBA's who use high-level calculations like we use simple phrases. But they had no philosophy. They were, and are, described as what I would call thieves, liars, and cheats in many of the history and blogs that I read. Millions of people are paying the price for this failing, imho.

But that's just my thinkin'...I have no problem with course listings that place their economics class (well, ok, differential calc with applications) in the hard science building, or even with people who think they should be there. There are more important things to concern us, I think. I wish them luck.

[Coyote_Bandit]

10. Those folks that ran the economy into the ground

do have a philosophy - maximize return.

What they don't have is morals, humanity and heart.

Those can't be taught.

[On the Road]

4. From the Responses You've Received So Far

Looks like a lot of people who have taken economics courses don't even recognize political economics as a field. (Comparing economic differences among various political systems = comparative economics.) That bears out the author's point that the field is not being taught and has fallen into disfavor.

It is still very important, however. There is a lot of bad economics floating around these days from both the right and left, and comparative economics should be the antidote. Some institutions like Stanford even offer PhD programs:

Political Economics is an interdisciplinary field focusing on the non-market, collective, and political activity of individuals and organizations.... The intellectual foundations of the program are rational choice theory, positive political theory, theories of collective action, institutional analysis, and analysis of political competition and equilibrium. Specific fields of inquiry include regulation, distributive politics, elections, corporate politics, political participation and collective action, interest groups, constitutional choice, legislative behavior and organization, judicial institutions, bureaucracies, comparative institutions, cooperative political economy, macro political economy, law and economics, and business and government.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/phd/fields/pe/index.html

[Coyote_Bandit]

8. Political economics was included

in my comparative government classes.

Granted, I've slept since then. Alot.

[cswriter1]

11. oil and the value of the dollar

What we need to understand the rise and fall of civilizations is Youngquist books "Mineral Resources and the Destinies of Nations" and "Geo-destinies". "Geo-destinies" is best if you want info about today's economy. I think economic explanations without a geological explanation of resources are pretty lame. That is kind of like knowing how to drive a car, but knowing nothing about the mechanics. Economies rise and fall, depending on available supplies of mineral resources.

The US is where Rome was when it fell, because like Rome it has exhausted its mineral resources. Like Rome it is heavily invested in its military might, and using its military might to defend its economic interest.

The value of the dollar has been backed by oil for many years, and to be sure this continues, the US takes out leaders such as Saddam and Qaddafi because these men attempted to trade oil in another currency. Saddam got permission to trade oil in Euros, because that would have been great for the Euro, and you might have notice, the Euro countries were not in favor of the US invasion of Iraq. More recently Qaddafi was going to trade oil in his own country's currency, and the Euro and dollar people both wanted to take him out. The value of the dollar would collapse if the world stopped trading oil in dollars. It may collapse anyway, because the feds keep giving away money without charging interest, so they aren't pay enough interest to bond holders. OPEC has been dumping bonds. So far I am not aware of any economist who comprehends this stuff, so our understanding of economics is laughable.

[Po_d Mainiac]

12. And welcome to DU n/t