What school of economics were you taught in college?

I attend Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, majoring in Economics, Public Policy, and Finance. For the econ major, I'm traditionally taught supply-side economics, though Keynesian theory is taught somewhat "on the side." What's it like for you all?

 

The majority of modern economics is neoclassical (even Keynesianism is typically a bastardised version used to ensure consistency between micro and macro). I was brought up in a more pluralist environment. We covered most of the alternative schools. My favourite would be institutionalism and how its used to reject the textbook theory of the firm and the supply/demand understanding of the labour market

 

Interesting! Hmm - What college did you attend, if you don't mind me asking?

 

Sorry, never give out personal info. British is as disaggregated as I'll go.

I do think there has been a negative shift since my days. For example, were you taught Economic History and Political Economy? They were standard in my days of black and white tele

 

I learned the basics of the neoclassical synthesis in high school. In my personal musings, and possibly my academic pursuits, I am thinking of taking a syncretic approach, attempting to bridge the gap between the orthodox and heterodox school of economic thought.

 

That's basically labour economics

 

I majored in political science but took no courses in economics after transferring out of a community college in Montana. The instructor there taught a few flavors of neoclassical thought - namely the Chicago school - though he also touched on monetarist beliefs and set aside a considerable amount of time to discuss, and then identify flaws in, Keynesianism.

 

So that's 'using greek letters to explain the world away'! The Chicago School's efforts at economic imperalism, where the insights from other disciplines are ignored, has been deeply damaging for the value of economic analysis.

Sounds like a standard approach where, to advertise monetarism and the Friedman guff, Keynesianism is deliberately corrupted. IS/LM stuff?

 

Not surprised how you are being taught/lead. Why? Because College Professors are traditionally Liberals and I have a problem with that. When I attended College in the 70's we were taught both and what was taught didn't lean one way or the other. You kids are being ripped-off. You need to demand impartial teaching of the classes you or your parents are paying for. This is one reason I objected to paying for my kids to attend any of the IVY league schools. They are liberal Colleges and the professors are way to biased.

You should demand Professors include all theories, facts, history because that is what you deserve and that is the only way you will have all of the information you need to make up you own mind.

Life in general and the way your apply what you have learned, "don't be a Sheeple". Thinking outside of the box is what will determine your success in your profession, not simply repeating what your Professors believe. I would question their positions on various topics when I don't agree with them.

 

Not surprised, the we pay for our kids to be brainwashed into liberal, socialist practices. Not myself or my husband who is a doctor, didn't pay for our kids to attend liberal Universities.

 

Yeah, basically.

For lack of wisdom when it comes to economic matters I tend to keep an open mind as best I can yet have some serious doubts about some of the basic assumptions being made about human behavior. I try to be pragmatic on economic matters but that can be very difficult to pull off in practice for lack of insight as to which theories warrant the most respect - though I'm wary of neoliberalism and at some point through debates learned not to take the Austrian school seriously.

 

The Austrian school is deeply disappointing. Some of the analysis is very important in showing the weaknesses in the neoclassical approach. However, they've courted the right wing and a dogmatic approach that makes libertarianism look child like. I'd still like to see some of it taught at Econ 101, plus within more specialised courses such as the organisation of the firm

 

Personally, I went into a two-year community college after high school as a Trotskyist and became a moderate social democrat advocating the Nordic model - and thus I remained after being a curious, outspoken, and very successful student at a conservative four-year university. Afterwards I drifted into support of a non-Marxisant form of socialism and today am tinkering with ideas for combining classical liberalism with workers' coops and workplace democracy in mixed markets. I do not have all the answers I want, nor do I have a fool-proof plan yet, but am really not at all discouraged.

If you want your children to be wise, teach them to think for themselves, experiment with ideas, ask questions, and then embrace whichever conclusions appear most rational in light of their experiences - even if those conclusions are not the same as yours. Going to college with ones mind already made up is just going to make him or her better at rationalizing ignorant views - regardless of whether they go to a "liberal" or "conservative" place of higher learning. It is through having our ideas rigorously challenged, tested, and accordingly revised that we can honestly endeavor to seek out truth!

 

Labor economics is a subset of general economic analysis seeking to understand the functioning and dynamics of the labor market. It is not a fully comprehensive school of economic thought, but a delimited one. Heterodox economics is the likes of complexity economics, bio-economics, institutional economics, ecological economics, evolutionary economics, and behavioral economics. It comprises of approaches that stand significantly or completely in contrast with the mainstream neoclassical synthesis.

 

Is much more than that. Given the need to understand labour phenomena, it is the practical base for the integration of different schools of thought. Elsewhere the schools don't even play footsies and you're left with a non-pluralist demand.

Not quite! Its only 'completely in contrast' with particular sub-schools (such as the Chicago school's economic imperialism).

 

I would have to disagree. Take for example complexity economics. This heterodox school of economic thought operates completely upon the premise of out-of-equilibrium dynamics. In other words, it shakes the very foundation of the neoclassical synthesis by questioning its quintessential models, whether they are CGE models, DSGE models, or AGE models.

 

That wouldn't matter. There's no debate in it: its only labour economics where there is genuine integration of the different schools of thought.

Can you refer to aspects of neoclassical economics attacked by specific schools of thought? Of course! Like the cretinous Austrian wannabe who would blubber about the use of equilibrium. But back to the practicalities! Labour shows that they can be easily integrated as part of understanding phenomena: e.g. Marxism for unemployment; Institutionalism within labour market segmentation etc.

 

Lets put this question as to whether labor economics can serve as a synthesis between the orthodox and the heterodox to the test. In what manner can labor economics integrate methodologies to provide a comprehensive financial market hypothesis? Personally, I see labor economics as too delimited to branch into the field of financial economics, but maybe you can surprise me. If the goal is to integrate methodologies regarding a financial market hypothesis, then labor economics must be able to effectively combine tenets of the efficient market hypothesis with those of, say, the knowledge of heuristics and rules of thumb of behavioral economics, the imperfect knowledge constraints of imperfect knowledge economics, the cascading failure measurements of ecological economics, and so on and so forth.

 

You've missed the point. Labour provides the launch of cross-fertilisation. There's less "mine is better than yours" posturing as the discipline automatically leads to amendment of the neoclassical approach. If you want to learn how these schools can be integrated then its labour that provides the examples. Should we be disappointed that the lessons aren't used within more general analysis? Of course! Then again, understanding the labour market is the most crucial aspect for our understanding of economic outcome

 

What makes you not take the Austrian school seriously?

 

Well, I think you will find that labor economics is not the only subset of economic inquiry where 'cross-fertilization' is possible. You will also find that the 'mine is better than yours' dialogue is not present in other subsets of economic inquiry as well. Lastly, yes, the labor market is a crucial aspect of understanding economic outcomes. However, it is not the only one. I brought up the efficient market hypothesis to make the point that labor economics is too delimited to truly promote a synthesis between the orthodox and the heterodox. That is a reasonable point, as some of the most contentious debates over the future of economic thought are not per say over the labor market. There are certainly debates on the subject afoot, but if you look at the conversations within the economics community, one of the biggest discussions to date is the ability of macroeconomic models to predict financial calamity. This is where the likes of behavioral economics, imperfect knowledge economics, complexity economics come into play. These heterodox approaches are attempting to be integrated into the neoclassical synthesis by fundamentally challenging and altering general equilibrium models in order to improve their predicting power.

But wait, that is not all. Some of the heterodox approaches have made it to the forefront of macroeconomic and microeconomic analysis in other ways. For example, complexity economics has taken a major step forward with MIT's Encyclopedia of Economic Complexity. This resource involves the basic features of complexity economics and network theory to create what is called the Economic Complexity Index, or ECI. According to its creators, Ricardo Haussmann, a Harvard Development Economist, and Cesar Hidalgo, an MIT Physicist, the ECI maintains greater prediction power of future GDP per capita growth than measures used by the World Bank, the Global Competitiveness Index, (GCI), and other measures of human capital.

My interest in terms of these heterodox theories is to bridge them all with the neoclassical synthesis. In turn, I would like to discover if there is a way of create a new and comprehensive economic synthesis capable of eliciting economic outcomes with greater accuracy, not just for matters pertaining to the labor market, but for all economic phenomena.

 

It just happens to be where it most occurs.

Its the most important one.

Without focus on the labour market, its spitting in the wind! Even theory of the firm is really a sub-set of it (as we can't understand firm organisation without reference to hierarchy and the nature of the internal labour market)

And, if the past is anything to go by, its going to be one of the most stagnant debates where we just get models with temporary prediction power (until the next crisis)

This is bobbins! Behavioural economics merely provides an enriched understanding of the maximisation process (shifting us away from the simple story-lines from basic game theory). Imperfect knowledge economics is just a made up term! Asymmetric information, however, has been a key aspect of neoclassical microeconomic theory for yonks.

Let's not kid ourselves. Complexity economics has achieved very little and there is little evidence that is going to change.

Strangely enough, you sound no different to someone from the Chicago School.

 

I was taught Supply Side, Monetary Policy and Keynesian.

 

My macro course was supply side oriented as well, although that was in the early 80's so that was the current flavor. Of course we were also taught the Keynesian model but they weren't treated as mutually exclusive.

 

Yeah that seems to be what's happening similarly over here.