Should they teach basic finance at school?

[nosos]

I know that you have never studied this period from an economic POV, or else you would not have made your comment(I note as with Butcher you don't suggest an alternative).

I have and it's a badly articulated version of an account of the period which is far from unanimously accepted. I caught you doing this about philosophy the other day: "if you had looked at the philosophy website a bit you would understand that everything is determined from the beginning of time to the end. It is an illusion of freewill that your quote here shows how little you've even looked at that". You've obviously read enough about the subject to come to an understanding of hard determinism yet you've not read enough to even understand that a) it's still a live issue academically b) the debate's been framed around compatibilism/incompatibilism for a long time. The issue's not such about determinism (although philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics have entered academic discussion) as much as the conceptual relationship between determinism and free-will. You have enough knowledge of the area to sound authoritative to someone who's not studied it but so little that what you say seems ludicrously uninformed to someone who is actually academically qualified in it.

I highly suspect the same is true of economics. You reek of someone who enthusiastically took on board undergraduate level teaching and then left before you got to masters and postgraduate level, started to encounter heterodox economics academically and began to realise that the theoretical account you're propounding rests on methodological assumptions that are open to question.

During this time, Keynesian policies ensured that full employment was maintained. However this went wrong during the 70's when the theories had to be updated by Friedman.

I mean do you really stand by this? I'm not saying it's wrong per se as much as it's painfully superficial. I mean "this went wrong" so Freidman had to update "the theories"?

 

[Gmart]

That's fair enough. The philosophy debate is one which I have looked at a great deal, but which I would not say I am an expert on. Still I have come to the conclusion I gave, and I stand by the deterministic world I suspect. However as you rightly pointed out, it is just my view. i would have been interested in your response there. The quantum issue was suggested but rightly (IMO) thrown out, but I got the feeling that people were stuck in a rut where they wanted freewill, but couldn't prove that it wasn't an illusion.

In this case though it is much more straightforward, and I have studied it a great deal. I have tried to reply to each point at hand, sometimes repeatedly, with nothing but claims that I am not addressing the issue.

In your quote you highlighted 'went wrong' and went on to describe it as superficial. Well I agree, but consider please that I was trying to make it as simple as possible. The others on this thread seemed to be having problems understanding my posts or even reading them.

I could have said that IMO the production frontier of the economy was reached in the early 70's after a long period of growth after the war. The attempts to manipulate the effective demand in the economy through increased government spending as well as the Oil shocks had the effect of raising prices rather than raising the level of employment.

It is obviously a matter of debate whether Keynes was wrong or whether the Oil Shocks simply created an extraordinary situation. Still Friedman came along and 'updated' the theory, though again some might argue that he was returning to the free market philosophy of classical economic theory. I would agree and indeed the results were good for the rich, but the poor suffered terribly.

I am still at a loss as to why you chose here to continue the philosophic debate, and what exactly you feel I have said which is wrong. I simplified, that's all.

One certainly needed to introduce a bit of reality in this case. It is a matter of fact that businessmen employ vast numbers of people who are dependent on them for their livelihood. Is it wrong to state this just because the posters here would prefer the usual 'all businessmen are bastards' routine?

Also I see no reason to continually put 'IMO' for everything I say. It is pretty obvious what is physical fact and what is metaphysical opinion. People would do well to think a bit more and react a bit less.

 

[kabbes]

Good god. This is so over the top it isn't even funny.

Butcher -- you insist that I MUST be intending to teach a link between inflation and unemployment. Why? I never even mentioned unemployment. I said that I would suggest that children learn the basics -- a highly controversial and complicated link between two apparently unrelated parts of the economy really doesn't qualify there. There is no fundamental reason why one has to teach anything at all about unemployment just because you are teaching kids about inflation.

And what inflation measure would I use? Again, you are being way more complicated than you need to be. The important thing is the concept and its personal consequences. By all means then, I suppose, you could point out that there are a lot of ways in which this could be measured, depending on what you view as important. But no -- I am not suggesting that one pushes any agenda. The fact is that we will have inflation as long as we have money and children should be armed with knowledge about it.

You, butcher, really are unreal. You look for political arguments with people without knowing the first thing about them, choosing to read the most incredible things into the simplest statements. And the biggest irony is that it is very clear that knowledge of these economic fundamentals is most important to YOU! They are the very elements you want to make arguments with. And yet, for some reason, you want to deny this knowledge to others. Why? Are you frightened that all the children will just swallow orthodoxy rather than use the knowledge the way you have?

 

[nosos]

That's fair enough. The philosophy debate is one which I have looked at a great deal, but which I would not say I am an expert on. Still I have come to the conclusion I gave, and I stand by the deterministic world I suspect. However as you rightly pointed out, it is just my view. i would have been interested in your response there. The quantum issue was suggested but rightly (IMO) thrown out, but I got the feeling that people were stuck in a rut where they wanted freewill, but couldn't prove that it wasn't an illusion.

I believe determinism and free-will are, in a manner of speaking, compatable. We're able to choose (though we often don't - "free choice" is many times post-hoc rationalisation of instinctive reaction) but from a menu of choices restricted by social, psychological and physical realities.

In your quote you highlighted 'went wrong' and went on to describe it as superficial. Well I agree, but consider please that I was trying to make it as simple as possible.

Fair enough but you must admit that this: "During this time, Keynesian policies ensured that full employment was maintained. However this went wrong during the 70's when the theories had to be updated by Friedman" is close to being devoid of conceptual content?

I could have said that IMO the production frontier of the economy was reached in the early 70's after a long period of growth after the war. The attempts to manipulate the effective demand in the economy through increased government spending as well as the Oil shocks had the effect of raising prices rather than raising the level of employment.

It is obviously a matter of debate whether Keynes was wrong or whether the Oil Shocks simply created an extraordinary situation. Still Friedman came along and 'updated' the theory, though again some might argue that he was returning to the free market philosophy of classical economic theory. I would agree and indeed the results were good for the rich, but the poor suffered terribly.

That's better

I am still at a loss as to why you chose here to continue the philosophic debate, and what exactly you feel I have said which is wrong. I simplified, that's all.

Because you lecturing people about philosophy irritated me. You weren't putting forward your own views (which there's no need to qualify with "IMO"). You were making claims about philosophy (as a discoursive whole) and criticising others for being uneducated (of course if they weren't, they'd agree with you!) then on this thread you were saying: "I suppose this is the problem with sites like U75. How does one stop the uninformed from commenting on subjects which they patently have no idea about? "

One certainly needed to introduce a bit of reality in this case. It is a matter of fact that businessmen employ vast numbers of people who are dependent on them for their livelihood. Is it wrong to state this just because the posters here would prefer the usual 'all businessmen are bastards' routine?

If anyone on this site disagrees with the factual claim that "businessmen employ vast numbers of people who are dependent on them for their livelihood" I will eat my hat. The problem is that you're not just making that factual claim are you? You're putting forward a fairly straight neo-liberal economic history of the last few decades and then criticising people for being "uneducated" when they have the temerity to disagree with you.

Also I see no reason to continually put 'IMO' for everything I say.

I completely agree with this!

People would do well to think a bit more and react a bit less.

... and this!

It is pretty obvious what is physical fact and what is metaphysical opinion. People would do well to think a bit more and react a bit less.

However this is just bad philosophy. You can't psychologically cleave fact from value. I'm guessing it's also what's behind your pomposity on this thread. You see people questioning the self-evidency of 'physical facts' and take that as a prejudice caused by their 'metaphysical opinion': can you not see that the factual claims you're making on this thread are implicated in a network of value judgements to form a whole that people are responding to? You're making arguments and argument involve both facts and values (in fact splitting them off into the two categories is an exercise in abstraction). Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're flying in the face of fact as a result of their lack of education (though I'd question how many factual propositions regarding economic history are 'facts' in the sense of self-evident 'physical facts').

 

[nosos]

a highly controversial and complicated link between two apparently unrelated parts of the economy really doesn't qualify there.

It's not highly controversial and complicated. It's an accepted and quite basic part of orthodox macroeconomics. There are at least 7 significant schools of economic theory yet over the past few decades, one school of economic theory has come to achieve complete dominance over academic economics (and it's built on some quite spectacularly foundations). It's increasingly difficult for people who don't abide by its dogmas to get published, to get taken seriously within the academy and even, increasingly, to get past undergraduate life. If you don't give the 'right' answers (after all they're self-evident 'physical facts') to questions as an undergraduate, you don't get your bachelors degree. Even when you encounter heterodox economics a post-graduate, you've often been so concretely socialised into neo-classical economics (after all you've spent 3 years learning facts) that you reject any views to the contrary as self-evidently absurd and ascribe any disagreement to a lack of technical expertise. Debate's been progressively shut down (sometimes intentionally, other times not so) within academic economics over the past few decades and this has massive politico-economic significance. I completely see where you're coming with regards to teaching people these concepts so they can see how they apply to them (rather than being a disempowered passive subject of economic change) but my worry is that if you start to teach economics to children (as opposed to personal finance) then you continue the process of entrenching the authority of a certain rather dogmatic school of economic thought. People already see things as self-evident which ought to be open to debate.

 

[Gmart]

I understand your points and agree with all of them. I do find it easier to cleave the physical from the metaphysical, but I see no problem with doing this.

Businessmen do employ millions, it is a physical fact, but it is just my perception and I accept that to describe those who disagree with me as uneducated was rude and simplistic.

What I should have said was that people may not recognise the difference between the physical and the metaphysical which I see, and that this is their problem not mine.

I would add that the question:

How does one stop the uninformed from commenting on subjects which they patently have no idea about?

Is important if one is to get anywhere on a subject. I have lost count of the number of threads on U75 which have been derailed from actually getting somewhere by the uninformed who constantly repost their half-baked ideas. I'm sorry if this offends, it's just my opinion. I want to discuss actual solutions, not be misquoted and abused over and over.

I appreciate this though:

If you don't give the 'right' answers (after all they're self-evident 'physical facts') to questions as an undergraduate, you don't get your bachelors degree.

It is important to discuss things fully, in a logical way and to avoid fallacies. Still I remember getting very upset with my tutors over this so I empathise. It is very difficult to come to a solid conclusion in economics, due to it being about people at a basic level. Still this won't alter the basic definition for inflation.

 

[nosos]

Would it be hugely off-topic to get onto your physics/metaphysics distinction?

 

[nosos]

I have lost count of the number of threads on U75 which have been derailed from actually getting somewhere by the uninformed who constantly repost their half-baked ideas.

I'd much rather have this than people whose 'full-baked ideas' are a result of uncritical acceptence of intellectual authority. I've (genuinely) got no idea if you fall into this category but the world is full of people who speak with confidence and authority on subjects because they've taken on a network of ideas wholesale rather than building their own views critically. This sort of self-critical exploration can often stop debate from "actually getting somewhere" but that's because the "somewhere" is defined by a world of debate taking place back stage between qualified experts that demands assimiliation rather than contibution from the "uneducated". In short what irritated me about the posts I read of yours on this thread and the other was that you were shutting down debate through appeal to authority. One of the things I like about urban is the open debate. I run another forum where the 'academic' quality is far higher than on here but in general the debate's are less interesting because they're less open.

(p.s. I'm not actually an economics student but I appreciate the empathy nontheless )

 

[Gmart]

Would it be hugely off-topic to get onto your physics/metaphysics distinction?

Not at all! This thread was dead when the greater question about what skills should be taught at school thread came along.

I started a thread here about it.