Forum Post: Occupy Econ 101
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 6, 2011, 3:55 a.m. EST by sunshower
(80)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Students stage walk-out on Harvard Prof.
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.
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupy-econ-101.html
It is true that the teaching of neoclassical economics is more like teaching "religion" than facts of any kind. It is an accommodation to the political free market fanatics.
Yes - and it is designed to keep the economic status quo that feeds the corrupt interests of the FED. Wouldn't you agree?
It is designed to keep the economic status quo, yes. But I'm am not so focused on the Fed as on the abuses of the "free market" paradigm.
please elaborate on those abuses
The "free market" or "neoliberal" agenda consists of outsourcing of jobs to the lowest paying, slave wage, nations, the privatization of public entities so as to extract additional profits, the destruction of organized labor and the extreme concentration of wealth at the top would be some of the main features. If you're not familiar with the term neoliberalism, here's a brief overview. http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Thank you. I had no idea that neo-liberalism is the opposite of a progressive liberalism. The word 'neo-liberalism' is very misleading, very deceptive.
Now I understand what you meant about its abuses, eg “The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.”
It so describes the 1% that are completely indifferent to the suffering of 99% of Americans – and other people around the world.
I think there should be more discussion of the word neo-liberalism on this OWS Forum so that many others may understand the Republican party’s real political agenda. No wonder that their candidates will not support a universal healthcare program, want to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and reject bills that would provide jobs or help young Americans to pay for college tuition or help wounded and disabled American Veterans receive the medical care they so need and deserve.
It all makes sense to me now.
You've got it. I know the term noeliberallism is not widely understood in the US. It is far more recognized in the rest of the world. An excellent source for understanding the neoliberal agenda is Naomi Kleins The Shock Doctrine. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4231109320246838401
This doesn't even begin to cover it in entirety, but Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is a great read.
Also consider child labor, outsourcing, environmental destruction, the Gilded Age itself, etc - all brought to us by laissez faire (reborn as neoliberalism, as notaneoliberal points out above - great link btw).
I just noticed you had already recommended the same material as I did. Oops.
Good thread going here.
This is the question that change or reinforce people's view on compassion:
"Are you willing to share your lunch with 30,000 people?"
We need to do something about that (not silencing but giving a better answer other than a no in a possible truthful way).
Finally, nonviolent financial warfare!!!!
http://craphound.com/ftw/Cory_Doctorow_-_For_the_Win.htm
Spoiler alert This is how the antagonist got his worldview (this scene parallels this event)":
"The fact was, there wasn't room on earth for a couple million gold-farmers to turn into high-paid video-game executives. The fact was, if you had to slice the pie into enough pieces to give one to everyone, you'd end up slicing them so thin you could see through them. "When 30,000 people share an apple, no one benefits -- especially not the apple." It was a quote one of his economics profs had kept written in the corner of his white-board, and any time a student started droning on about compassion for the poor, the old prof would just tap the board and say, "Are you willing to share your lunch with 30,000 people?"
That may be true, but it’s also true that the professor was teaching Keynesian economics and those students were smart enough to know it was economically irrelevant to what we are facing in today’s world, for which noted economists have criticized it. Here are some examples; Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories encourage centralized planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of business cycles. Hayek also argued that Keynes' study of the aggregate relations in an economy is fallacious, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society. Hayek, Friedrich (1989). The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek. University of Chicago Press. p. 202. ISBN 978-0-226-32097-7.
Other economists have also attacked Keynesian economics. Henry Hazlitt criticized, paragraph by paragraph, Keynes' General Theory in The Failure of the New Economics. Murray Rothbard accused Keynesianism of having "its roots deep in medieval and mercantilist thought. “ Hazlitt, Henry (1959). The Failure of the 'New Economics': An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies. D. Van Nostrand. http://www.mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf.
Rothbard, Murray (1947). Spotlight on Keynesian Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute. http://mises.org/story/2950.
Krugman, Paul. "There's Something About Macro
Here’s a book (see below) of collected essays that shows excellent examples of why the Post Keynesian, Institutionalist, and Cambridge Keynesian(neo Keynesian) schools of economics are practically on the brink of academic extinction.
It is acknowledged that Keynes did not supply any formal or mathematical analysis proving the existence of either involuntary unemployment or an unemployment equilibrium. This kind of approach can only be read in one way. Keynes failed and his "theories" are nothing more than a series of empty assertions that have no scientific merit. READ: Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Volume One (Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy)
The Keynesian theory was developed in the wake of the great depression. It was very hard to argue then that only voluntary unemployment can exist as millions of workers were out of work, but he didn’t take into account that banks tend to be very reluctant when making loans when economic conditions do not seem promising, and that their reluctance itself was contributing to the economic slow down.
Keynes also argued that prices and wages are not flexible because workers will not accept wages which do not permit them to live adequately; this is reinforced by the actions of unions. If wages are too low, unemployment will exist.
But since the 1980’s, there have been many instances where employees have accepted wage give-backs: eg;, in the airline and steel industries, etc. Aside from some wage decreases, the general pattern is one of continuous increases, at least, to match cost of living increases. (excerpts from a study guide in Keynesian economics ,NYU , 2002, by Professor John Petroff, PhD in economics/international business.) http://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesen/mac/fram7.html
I think those bright Harvard students must have already known that the size of the economic "pie" ,which their professor gave as an example to prove Keynes’s theory, saying, "When 30,000 people share an apple, no one benefits ….Are you willing to share your lunch with 30,000 people?", he failed to see that the “economic pie” is never fixed--it's either growing or shrinking. Keynes' macro theory completely leaves out the affects of taxation levels. And, if you take too much of what people earn, they will stop earning by going on the "dole" or moving away or going underground. READ MORE AT http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keynesian-economics.htm
Nuff said, now do some homework and educate yourself Bigbangbilly
yeah, uh, kick'm in the head, smack'm, fk HIM UP....
to much?
I said non-violent!!!
my bad :P
"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation." This statement is taken from the popular Forum site with a list of "ideas" This statement perfectly addresses why we need to Occupy the White House now! Some of these ideas are good, some miss the point, yet they are a coherent start.. But the Occupation does not need specifics handed down from the so-called "General Council" in order to do what is so specifically clear in the above statement>.. I quote it again: "The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation." The time is today!! Occupy the White House. Tell the President, this is the peoples house. Tell Congress< they all work for us. OWH begins today at 2:00..See you at the Gates!!!
[Removed]
Funny; what's it cost to go to Harvard? $60k a year? And these morons are complaining? Lol!
You stupid fucking idiots do even pay attention to information. You are so biased you imagine your own idiotic ideas are right instead of listening to truth FUCK U OWShitters!
A device whose mystery is only exceeded by its power.
Do you releaize we sent the Palestinian Authority 600 million of our tax money last year!!!!!! We should be camping out on the White House lawn FOREVER!!!!!
and the sidewalks and streets surrounding the Capitol buidling where corrupt Senators and Congress people voted for that - and also voted to give Zionist Israel hundreds of billions of our tax money for their armies, nuclear weapons, and genocidal, apartheid policies, etc - which are abhorent to most American taxpayers
yea. I feel bad about people in need all over the world. but... I think there is plenty needed right here Isn't it time we cut all foreign aid until we have recovered here at home?
we need that money at home, especially with Obamas riggernich spending
If you want to rethink dysfunctional old neoclassical paradigms, you must study them first. Those who drop out end up sleeping in the cold.
We could turn those dropouts into a resource for ows.
Ironic since Mankiw is an intransigent Keynesian.
Take ten points off the final grade.
On the contrary, if that happened, and OWS OCCUPIED HARVARD, it would take more than 100 points off Harvard's reputation as a citidel of academic excellence, and draw attention to the billions of dollars it receives from Big Corporations and its filthy rich, elitist alumni, whose donations to Harvard come from the unbridled, unethical profit margins they've made off the blood and sweat of working class American families - not a pretty picture.
Perhaps all those IV league OWS supporters should drop out, that will show those institutions of higher learning who is boss. Yea, they need to give up that prestige that they chose that school for and attend a tech school closer to home. What do you think of that idea?
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit Yawn
Not sarcasm at all. If they or you honestly feel that there are aspects of Harvard that they do not like, then isn't boycotting the proper thing to do? How do you boycott? You do not do business with those entities, right? But I can guarantee that none of these students are willing to walk away from the prestige of these degrees, therefore they are all not really supporters, they are fair weather protesters.
boycotting isn't necessary Rob
an OCCUPY HARVARD, in Cambridge, with or without the participation of any fearful student protesters (as you suggest) - would be quite effective in exposing Harvard's archaic professors and the Big Corporations and filthy rich, elitist alumni, whose obscene donations ultimately come from the exploitation of working class American consumers - whose children cannot afford to go to college at all.