4 ms·

Can you give one (preferably two) specific examples of respected economists who are questioning 101 level econ principles? I've studied economics at the colleg

by Pyxl101 10y ago

Can you give one (preferably two) specific examples of respected economists who are questioning 101 level econ principles? I've studied economics at the college level. I follow economics news and am not aware of economists questioning 101 level principles. Many of these are relatively simple and intuitively obvious ones (once you wrap your head around them), much like 101 level maths. Consequently I am inclined to disbelieve the claim that economists are questioning econ 101 principles, unless you can provide some examples. More than one example would be most convincing since you're claiming this is a general trend. Journal article links would be appreciated.

cdavid 10y ago
(I am not an economist, never took a class in economics, but am interested in the field and like to read about it, so talke all of this w/ a grain of salt) It is not so much about questioning economics 101 principles as much as questioning their validity in the various economies. Taking the example of comparative advantage and more general trade theory, there are well known, respected economists (e.g. D. Rodrik) who have argued against the scope of their validity. There also seems to be a debate about how 101 is taught in schools, see e.g. [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/13/even-economists-love-to-hate-basic-economics-lately-they-shouldnt/?utm_term=.a6a85f49ea8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/13/...
- thesagan 10y ago
  You're right, it's a larger question of validity in these nuances. I knew I'd get in trouble saying "101", but I hope people will read that in a sympathetic light. (Ha!)
thesagan 10y ago
Please accept my apologies: I'm taking a Mary Poppins approach by "not explaining anything." We're all capable of looking for examples that'll confirm our own suspicions; an attempt at confirming or disconfirming what I've blurted out above can be an exercise for the diligent reader. I want to push back on the idea that economics is a way to divinate the truth of how to generate and share happiness. It's a piece of the puzzle, but a very small one.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
carsongross 10y ago
I think Steve keen is worth reading.

by Pyxl101 10y ago

cdavid 10y ago

(I am not an economist, never took a class in economics, but am interested in the field and like to read about it, so talke all of this w/ a grain of salt) It is not so much about questioning economics 101 principles as much as questioning their validity in the various economies. Taking the example of comparative advantage and more general trade theory, there are well known, respected economists (e.g. D. Rodrik) who have argued against the scope of their validity. There also seems to be a debate about how 101 is taught in schools, see e.g. [1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/13/even-economists-love-to-hate-basic-economics-lately-they-shouldnt/?utm_term=.a6a85f49ea8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/13/...

thesagan 10y ago
You're right, it's a larger question of validity in these nuances. I knew I'd get in trouble saying "101", but I hope people will read that in a sympathetic light. (Ha!)

thesagan 10y ago

Please accept my apologies: I'm taking a Mary Poppins approach by "not explaining anything." We're all capable of looking for examples that'll confirm our own suspicions; an attempt at confirming or disconfirming what I've blurted out above can be an exercise for the diligent reader. I want to push back on the idea that economics is a way to divinate the truth of how to generate and share happiness. It's a piece of the puzzle, but a very small one.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

carsongross 10y ago

I think Steve keen is worth reading.