Occupy Econ 101
When a science is dying, disciples begin to refuse initiation.
This is what happened last Wednesday in the class of Harvard economics professor Gregory Mankiw, with these simple opening words: “Today, we are walking out of your class.”
The rejection of Mankiw’s class is only a single event in the class of one professor, and yet this refusal may prove to be an event with a much wider significance. Mankiw's econ 101 textbook, Principles of Economics, has made it into the minds of almost every economics student in the modern world and if the students of Mankiw can revolt, then it is possible that students everywhere can begin the task of rethinking the dysfunctional old neoclassical paradigm.
In response to the walk-out, Mankiw has only doubled down his orthodoxy, claiming that the 1% have suffered more than the 99% as a result of the recession. Now is the time for a global walk-out. Download a poster of the True Cost Economics Manifesto at kickitover.org and pin it up in the corridor of your department. Let's start an all out meme war against our neoclassical profs and begin the daunting task of ushering in a new bionomic, psychonomic, ecological economics paradigm.
Now is a good time to begin an escalation and turn the whole world into a grand economics department … to occupy it.
Send pics of what's happening at your campus to [email protected]
for the wild,
Culture Jammers HQ
Update: Check out the video of students walking out of Professor N. Gregory Mankiw's Economics 10 class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKS1jZxWLPM
212 comments on the article “Occupy Econ 101”
Displaying 61 - 70 of 212
Page 7 of 22
Anonymous
Now apply everything you've just said to the OWS "movement" and ask yourself: What will it look three or four years down the road?
Anonymous
Now apply everything you've just said to the OWS "movement" and ask yourself: What will it look three or four years down the road?
Anonymous
We have a long way to go. First we have to be clear about where we are trying to go. Right now we are only expressing our dissatisfaction with the present corrupt moneylender system. I do not hear much about what we want. Here is a short list for starters:
- We want to abolish usury. Most people have no idea what the moneylender does to cost of essential. For example Usury multiplies the cost of electricity more than ten fold. Shocked? Do your own research to convince yourself.
- We want to be able to use the fruits of our labour. While we are more productive than at any other time in history, why is our standard of living going down? We want better distribution of wealth.
- We want earlier retirement. It is absurd to increase age of retirement when so few people can produce all that we need for good life.
- We want basic health care for all. It is definitely doable.
- We want the re-teach the professor so that he stops talking nonsense about economics, politics, and media ets.
- We want to remind the Church that it is neglecting Christ. Why it no longer speaks against Usury?
Anonymous
We have a long way to go. First we have to be clear about where we are trying to go. Right now we are only expressing our dissatisfaction with the present corrupt moneylender system. I do not hear much about what we want. Here is a short list for starters:
- We want to abolish usury. Most people have no idea what the moneylender does to cost of essential. For example Usury multiplies the cost of electricity more than ten fold. Shocked? Do your own research to convince yourself.
- We want to be able to use the fruits of our labour. While we are more productive than at any other time in history, why is our standard of living going down? We want better distribution of wealth.
- We want earlier retirement. It is absurd to increase age of retirement when so few people can produce all that we need for good life.
- We want basic health care for all. It is definitely doable.
- We want the re-teach the professor so that he stops talking nonsense about economics, politics, and media ets.
- We want to remind the Church that it is neglecting Christ. Why it no longer speaks against Usury?
peter_1
Adam Smith is to blame for his phoney metaphors of the baker, butcher, and brewer behavior as showing that markets can self-correct against the selfish behavior of economic actors. His metaphor is false as there is no problem when a small on shop baker acts badly, he will be quickly put out of business because of his bad actions as there are plenty of other bakers to step in. However, when dealing with too big too fail corporations and banks, Adam Smith's metaphor breaks down. These behemoths win regardless of how badly they act as they have power to make $ regardless of how badly they act. Adam Smith's ideology of self-correcting markets is a myth.
peter_1
Adam Smith is to blame for his phoney metaphors of the baker, butcher, and brewer behavior as showing that markets can self-correct against the selfish behavior of economic actors. His metaphor is false as there is no problem when a small on shop baker acts badly, he will be quickly put out of business because of his bad actions as there are plenty of other bakers to step in. However, when dealing with too big too fail corporations and banks, Adam Smith's metaphor breaks down. These behemoths win regardless of how badly they act as they have power to make $ regardless of how badly they act. Adam Smith's ideology of self-correcting markets is a myth.
ChicagoJohn
Walking out of class is both cowardly and pointless.
If the students really thought that they had something to add to economic theory, they should have debated it in class... not walked out.
What they showed is that they were not ready to debate economic theory. They proved it by running away from the debate.
Whenever I thought that my instructors were wrong, I challenged them. Now while this will not ingratiate you to your professors, it will most certainly get your brain working. Moreover, it will give you an idea of whether or not there is a rejoinder to the argument that you've formed in your head... the one that you think is absolutely brilliant. On the other hand, you could just go on thinking that you have it all figured out, and walk out of the class knowing that you're 'smarter' then all of that.
ChicagoJohn
Walking out of class is both cowardly and pointless.
If the students really thought that they had something to add to economic theory, they should have debated it in class... not walked out.
What they showed is that they were not ready to debate economic theory. They proved it by running away from the debate.
Whenever I thought that my instructors were wrong, I challenged them. Now while this will not ingratiate you to your professors, it will most certainly get your brain working. Moreover, it will give you an idea of whether or not there is a rejoinder to the argument that you've formed in your head... the one that you think is absolutely brilliant. On the other hand, you could just go on thinking that you have it all figured out, and walk out of the class knowing that you're 'smarter' then all of that.
Ozzie Maland
Graeber talks up a Jubilee as a fresh start, all debt being extinguished. That does not do enough to tame excessive greed. We need enough greed to incent people to innovate etc. But if society does not put limits on greed, the early winners will soon be able to corrupt any supposed democratic institutions and an oppressive oligarchy will emerge again, also pretending to be a meritocracy. The bills by Shelly Yacimovich in the Knesset to limit top corporate compensation to 50 times the bottom is a major step in the right direction. Martin Sabo introduced bills in Congress to take away corporate tax deductions for top compensation in excess of 25 times bottom. But if athlete and entertainer stars, college football coaches, etc, continue to be rewarded outrageously, the bank CEOs are still going to get their 20 mil a year, one way or another. So there need to be legislated limits on all forms of compensation and assured enforcement -- not sure how we could ever get to that last step.
Ozzie Maland
Graeber talks up a Jubilee as a fresh start, all debt being extinguished. That does not do enough to tame excessive greed. We need enough greed to incent people to innovate etc. But if society does not put limits on greed, the early winners will soon be able to corrupt any supposed democratic institutions and an oppressive oligarchy will emerge again, also pretending to be a meritocracy. The bills by Shelly Yacimovich in the Knesset to limit top corporate compensation to 50 times the bottom is a major step in the right direction. Martin Sabo introduced bills in Congress to take away corporate tax deductions for top compensation in excess of 25 times bottom. But if athlete and entertainer stars, college football coaches, etc, continue to be rewarded outrageously, the bank CEOs are still going to get their 20 mil a year, one way or another. So there need to be legislated limits on all forms of compensation and assured enforcement -- not sure how we could ever get to that last step.
Pages
Add a new comment