Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Saving For a Space Ship

Has The Way Universities Teach Economics Changed Enough?

Recommended Posts

Has the way universities teach economics changed enough?

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/apr/28/has-the-way-universities-teach-economics-changed-enough

Related ..Q: What did universities learn from the financial crash? A: Nothing

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/feb/02/q-what-did-universities-learn-from-the-financial-crash-a-nothing

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Byline: Universities came under attack for failing to predict the 2008 financial crisis...

I should probably read the article once I've wiped my beer off the screen, do they think they could put the 2008 crisis in the 2007/8 curriculum?

Let me guess as to the article and comments;

1. Economics is wrong because no-one forecast 2007 (wrong, some did a lot)

2. Economics is responsible for inequality (wrong)

3. Economists are only working for their paymasters - the 'Elite' (partly correct - some do)

4. Capitalism is now dead (partly correct, or at least it's transforming)

5. Economics is a pseudo-science (absolutely correct, as are all social sciences)

6. Economics models don't reflect the real world (also partly true, none can with 100% accuracy, the old Laffer curve is absurdly simple)

7. Economics is only a vocational subject for Economists and academics (true)

8. Every armchair comment is from someone who supposedly knows more than the experts (it's the Guardian so that's always true)

EDIT: Read it now, it's such a short article about such a large event (timeline and size, it started in the 90s and has consumed trillions). BTW, Saving For a Space Ship, both links go to the same article.

Link corrected, Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This is the Phillips machine at Leeds University:

Is that the one the Engineering dept had to put back together because the Economics dept couldn't make it work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This is the Phillips machine at Leeds University:

I wanted to see it work! He dithered a bit, said 'er' far too much, spoke with his back to the students, didn't concept check once, I would colour code the different parts (green - money; red-debt; etc), and I'd also make sure every part was active before the lecture started. Even then, I'm still intrigued and pleased he made the machine. Much better than just quoting from a textbook or showing another bad PPT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93% of Indian business school graduates are useless.

Most Indian MBAs are good for nothing.

Only 7% of the graduates passing out of Indian business schools today are actually employable, according to a study by the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham), which represents over 450,000 business entities.

The study says that with the exception of the elite Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and the top 20 ranking institutions, most of India’s 5,500 B-schools produce “un-employable” graduates. And they land up in jobs—if at all—that pay less than Rs10,000 ($150) a month.

“Lack of quality control and infrastructure, low-paying jobs through campus placement and poor faculty are the major reasons for India’s unfolding B-school disaster,” Assocham explained. Outdated curriculum, too, contributes to the problem.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/93-india-b-school-graduates-060045152.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

93% of Indian business school graduates are useless.

Add to that Indian drivers, teachers, mechanics, plumbers, accountants, builders etc etc etc. The 7% who aren't useless are probably a fraction of those who don't do their training in India. Maybe 1% go through the India schools system and are competent, a very big gamble if you're going to employ someone who only studied there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they taught it correctly students might not turn up as they realise other options may offer better long term returns.

How would they do that, apart from start by saying "This will not help you get a job"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common complaint among economic students is they can't even explain what happened in the last crash. Neo-classical economic theory is the model taught as it provides a (quasi IMO) scientific and mathematical model. Since the crash, all those assumptions flew out of the window, and behaviourists took up the cause with their theory of 'herd' mentality. So years of study, research, theory formulation, books now have to be re-written. The world of academia has always been one step removed from the real world anyway.

I could offer a comprehensive (and well researched - I've read about the crash since the summer of 2007, when I was frightened like I have never been before) take, but I can't give enough cites or papers to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behavioural economics is not astrology, an assistant professor of philosophy and religion is hardly qualified to debunk Ben Bernanke who is IMO one of the top five economists alive today. Their 'survey' of 67 economists saying all predicted rates would rise in the next six months is utter ********. Very few have been predicting rate rises since 2007, certainly the number has been in single digits. The rest of the article is absolute Woo, and I feel slightly dumber for reading it. The author later does on to assert her qualifications in Astral Science in Ancient China. Say what??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reduction of the three traditional factors of economics - land, labour and capital down to two (labour and capital) was an interesting development.

"The Corruption of Economics"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corruption-Economics-Georgist-Paradigm/dp/0856832448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461974547&sr=8-1&keywords=the+corruption+of+economics

When did the proles have land, either in the UK or elsewhere? I guess we had labour and land, now we have labour and capital. Labour and capital has always been the industrialists' advantage, the landed gentry had/have the land. If you're poor you only have labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behavioural economics is not astrology, an assistant professor of philosophy and religion is hardly qualified to debunk Ben Bernanke who is IMO one of the top five economists alive today. Their 'survey' of 67 economists saying all predicted rates would rise in the next six months is utter ********. Very few have been predicting rate rises since 2007, certainly the number has been in single digits. The rest of the article is absolute Woo, and I feel slightly dumber for reading it. The author later does on to assert her qualifications in Astral Science in Ancient China. Say what??

Bernanke is a complete ass. Wrong on every count for years and years. Directly responsible for the policy errors which contributed to the housing bubble. Condemned hedge funds for their part in the crisis... and then joined a hedge fund.

July 2005
INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? Sir, we have so many economists coming on our air and saying, "Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy." Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario, if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?
BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So what I think is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize: might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's going to drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reduction of the three traditional factors of economics - land, labour and capital down to two (labour and capital) was an interesting development.

"The Corruption of Economics"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Corruption-Economics-Georgist-Paradigm/dp/0856832448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461974547&sr=8-1&keywords=the+corruption+of+economics

Interesting, and new to me. I do know that Steve Keen used a Physiocrat-style tableau economique to help orchestrate the money circuits in 'Minsky'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernanke is not remotely close to the top 5. Probably all the living winners of the Nobel memorial prize (even Krugman!) are more significant, and then there are all those marginalised by the profession for doing work in other paradigms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.