4 ms·

I looked at the table of contents, and concluded I didn't really need to look further. This isn't an economics textbook - it's a propaganda piece. Section 1.1

I looked at the table of contents, and concluded I didn't really need to look further. This isn't an economics textbook - it's a propaganda piece. Section 1.1 of an economics textbook should not be about "Income Inequality." Any sane treatment would first provide some necessary context and theory to make a discussion of income inequality meaningful. I don't care where you are on the political spectrum, if your goal is to teach rather than indoctrinate this isn't how you start.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
Frequently, economic theory is driven by judgments about what is valuable in an economic system, beliefs about how the world operates (e.g. rational self-interest for a classic), and unfortunately, worldviews that align with the financial interests of those who back the economic research. I hope I have not maligned everyone in economics, because there is good work...it is just that the good work is not always the most influential.
- goialoq 9y ago
  Economics is a mathematical science that is tortured into a practical policy regime. Economists say that misapplications aren't their fault, and policy makers say that they are just applying economics. The problem isn't with economics, per se, it's that economics is given a privileged spot in the curriculum over, say, "socioeconomics"
  - jimmytidey 9y ago
    This may be the view of some economists, but certainly not all of them. Many notable economists promote the view that economics is overly mathematical and ought to do more to reflect real world behaviour. Ostrom's Law captures this beautifully: "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory"
goialoq 9y ago
It's a fair point, but the solution isn't obvious. This book leads with Big Issues before explaining context and background, making it inaccessible to people who aren't already versed in the basics. But other (orthodox) intro books/courses never get to the big issues, leaving students with a stunted misunderstanding of how economics works in the real world and an overconfidence that they know how everything works. I'd like to see a book like this blended with an orthodox textbook.
- jnordwick 9y ago
  But without the context and background people aren't equipped to make up their own minds in a well reasoned way. The text seems to try to take advantage of that by feeding the reader how they should believe instead of letting them make up their own minds.
mfringel 9y ago
So, you didn't look to see what they discussed under that heading, to verify that your judgment was correct?
jfrankamp 9y ago
I disagree, the section you complain about sits at the hook or "why you should care" section of the book. You don't need theory to talk about income inequality, and they do a good job. You looked, but not far enough.
- nolemurs 9y ago
  I did actually end up reading the first section (after seeing other comments in this thread). All I can say is that it was pretty much exactly what I expected from the title. They describe income inequality, yes. But they fail to explain how this textbook is going to provide tools to understand it any better, or why anyone should read it. I also don't feel as if there was much in the way of ideas to be gained from it beyond the simple feel for the magnitude of the inequality. But without some theory to put it in context, that magnitude has no meaning. Some amount of inequality is likely necessary. The question is how much is too much. The article doesn't bother to ask the question, or even to hint that the textbook will provide helpful tools to answer that question. I think it was Mark Twain who said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I'm sympathetic to the view that income inequality is a serious problem, but even so, after reading this article, I can't help but feeling I've been subjected to statistics, and not much else.
pimmen 9y ago
The section you're complaining about is under the chapter basically explaining why you should care about economics. The whole book is packed with stuff far and wide, such as pure microeconomics for those who just need to understand demand and supply curves and to how taxes work. From what I've seen so far, it's actually very traditional economics 101 for the most part, but I've admittedly just jumped around the chapters and read only four sections.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

Frequently, economic theory is driven by judgments about what is valuable in an economic system, beliefs about how the world operates (e.g. rational self-interest for a classic), and unfortunately, worldviews that align with the financial interests of those who back the economic research. I hope I have not maligned everyone in economics, because there is good work...it is just that the good work is not always the most influential.

goialoq 9y ago
Economics is a mathematical science that is tortured into a practical policy regime. Economists say that misapplications aren't their fault, and policy makers say that they are just applying economics. The problem isn't with economics, per se, it's that economics is given a privileged spot in the curriculum over, say, "socioeconomics"
- jimmytidey 9y ago
  This may be the view of some economists, but certainly not all of them. Many notable economists promote the view that economics is overly mathematical and ought to do more to reflect real world behaviour. Ostrom's Law captures this beautifully: "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory"

goialoq 9y ago

It's a fair point, but the solution isn't obvious. This book leads with Big Issues before explaining context and background, making it inaccessible to people who aren't already versed in the basics. But other (orthodox) intro books/courses never get to the big issues, leaving students with a stunted misunderstanding of how economics works in the real world and an overconfidence that they know how everything works. I'd like to see a book like this blended with an orthodox textbook.

jnordwick 9y ago
But without the context and background people aren't equipped to make up their own minds in a well reasoned way. The text seems to try to take advantage of that by feeding the reader how they should believe instead of letting them make up their own minds.

mfringel 9y ago

So, you didn't look to see what they discussed under that heading, to verify that your judgment was correct?

jfrankamp 9y ago

I disagree, the section you complain about sits at the hook or "why you should care" section of the book. You don't need theory to talk about income inequality, and they do a good job. You looked, but not far enough.

nolemurs 9y ago
I did actually end up reading the first section (after seeing other comments in this thread). All I can say is that it was pretty much exactly what I expected from the title. They describe income inequality, yes. But they fail to explain how this textbook is going to provide tools to understand it any better, or why anyone should read it. I also don't feel as if there was much in the way of ideas to be gained from it beyond the simple feel for the magnitude of the inequality. But without some theory to put it in context, that magnitude has no meaning. Some amount of inequality is likely necessary. The question is how much is too much. The article doesn't bother to ask the question, or even to hint that the textbook will provide helpful tools to answer that question. I think it was Mark Twain who said there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I'm sympathetic to the view that income inequality is a serious problem, but even so, after reading this article, I can't help but feeling I've been subjected to statistics, and not much else.

pimmen 9y ago

The section you're complaining about is under the chapter basically explaining why you should care about economics. The whole book is packed with stuff far and wide, such as pure microeconomics for those who just need to understand demand and supply curves and to how taxes work. From what I've seen so far, it's actually very traditional economics 101 for the most part, but I've admittedly just jumped around the chapters and read only four sections.