Rethinking economics is starting now, in Britain

vivatifosi

Interesting article from The Economist:

Economics as a discipline is in a crisis following the GFC and so few economists forecasting it. New degrees will reduce focus on the mathematical mechanics of economics in order to focus too on historical precedents and economic thought. For example, Milton Friedman was a critic of fractional reserve banking, but previously students would not necessarily have been taught this. Students will also learn about other markets, not just the USA and Britain.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21590555-britain-leads-global-push-rethink-way-economics-taught-keyness-new-heirs

Great news I think.

Loughton_Monkey

I am not convinced that more economists means "Great news".

In this country, we have one economy. This is largely controlled by the Treasury and the Bank of England. They need economists.

But pray tell me what the other 200,000 so-called 'economists' do. What do they contribute to... er... the economy? I envision the situation to something like Michaelangelo painting the Sistene Chapel over those 4 years, and having, say, 4,000 other artists standing around viewing every brushstroke, most of them wishing to stick their oar in to question what he is doing, and how they would have done it another way......

Let's train more people in Sciences, Engineering, Bioscience, Medicine, Computer Sciences, Design, Urban planning, Teaching, Business Skills...... but far fewer "PPE's", historians, religion, and 'African Studies' [what ever that is.....]

Scrootum

Just shows that at least 50% of economists are generally wrong. Trouble is that nobody know which 50% they are until it is too late.

Generali

Well I trained as an economist in pretty much the way envisioned here.

I have never used that training in my work, not really, except for the 6 months that I taught economics at Uni. I did predict the GFC though, albeit in a Cassandra-ish way.

Getting a few more economists to write about the economy for the BBC rather than using people with degrees in Liberal Arts would be a good use for many of them.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Well I trained as an economist in pretty much the way envisioned here.

I have never used that training in my work, not really, except for the 6 months that I taught economics at Uni. I did predict the GFC though, albeit in a Cassandra-ish way.

Like Gen, I also studied economics, though as part of a modular degree with politics. I found it reasonably useful in my previous work as a researcher developing forecast models for the industry that I used to work in doing business research. However it is of limited use in a library, unless people want book recommendations about economics.

I do think though that context is very important in economics and if more is added to the curriculum that can only be a good thing.

While I'm assuaging my guilt for studying economics, I would like two further offences to be taken into account in my sentencing. First that I studied sociology at A level, second that I also have an MBA. Hopefully my admissions won't mean that I'm strung up on Loughton's yard arm while he downs copious G&Ts.

kabayiri

- I have never studied economics
- I don't know what a typical course comprises, or how they arrive at the content
- I can't tell you how economists have worked to assist the governing bodies in the past.

Therefore, I feel *fully* qualified to take on a SENIOR government role interpreting the output of selective economists *I agree with* and using that output to justify my own half-baked decisions which will affect millions.

... there, that should cover it

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

While I'm assuaging my guilt for studying economics, I would like two further offences to be taken into account in my sentencing. First that I studied sociology at A level, second that I also have an MBA. Hopefully my admissions won't mean that I'm strung up on Loughton's yard arm while he downs copious G&Ts.

I don't have a degree they weren't needed back then in anything like the numbers we have today. The country survived. I am sure it would have continued to prosper today.

Whilst an MBA is a personal distinction and in your case well earned and deserved, no doubt, it is a shame that education inflation seems to make them the "new degree".

Virtually selling a degree these days is one way of keeping our economy afloat through export and debt.

Perhaps students should challenge the worth of modern degrees and expect better value.

Many of our young don't have the drive, common sense, practical ability,pragmatism or people skills to make a degree a reliable benchmark. The amount of phsycometric testing and screen interviews, internships, that have opened up suggest employers know this.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

....Economics as a discipline is in a crisis following the GFC and so few economists forecasting it.....

Did the mass outbreak of lawlessness in the summer of 2011 cause a crisis in the law as a discipline? Would a flu pandemic this winter cause a crisis in medicine as a discipline? Why do we always blame economists for economic problems? Why do we expect economics to be able to predict the future?

Personally I don't believe that economics is "in a crisis". The issue is that economics is frequently political economics, and a 'crisis' is always a useful pretext for some economists holding a particular set of political views to push themselves forwards, just as it's a useful hook on which some journalists can hang a story.

CLAPTON

I'm not sure that the 'basic' economics needs massive revision but more attention needs to be paid to the human aspects of the situation

- independent bodies all have an agenda

- independent bodies all work on a 'local' consensus basis i.e. they agree with the general economic thoughts of their (intellectual) near neighbours

- basis errors/nonsenses continue even when everyone knows they are absurd
i.e. off sheet balances and PFI schemes, the credit rating agencies
many of the EU economic policies

-exceptional events are hard to predict but event harder to prevent as politicians will rarely want to act on a non-consensual somewhat vague possibility.

- most systems don't take account of massive fraud



Today e.g. the government has announced it is 'selling' off the student loan book: now how does this change anything in the real world?
Of course it changes some arcane accounting entries but everyone 'knows' it is a nonsense including the government, international bodies, we do etc

michaels

I might argue that the discrediting of economists is part of a bigger picture of distrusting 'experts'. In general 'scientists' have failed to communicate that when they give a reasoned opinion based on the facts it may be wrong. The media of course report on the cases where things are wrong and the general public 'learn' that expert opinion is not to be taken at face value and that all views are equally valid.

Once expert opinion can be 'safely' disregarded it is then easy for politicians to resort to popularism (in essence their job description).

Thus I would say now we are in a situation where economists are too often ignored for example:
There may be a lack of competition in the energy supply market, the public believe the solution is not one an economist might suggest on transparancy and market regulation, it is a 'price freeze' that makes no economic sense.
Adults taking informed decisions to take out pay day loans are suffering hardship; rather than pressing for such loans to be regulated the 'solution' is to cap APRs as this sounds simple and high APRs 'sound' unfair, regardless of the fact that APR is a very poor way of measuring the cost of such loans.

lostinrates

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I am not convinced that more economists means "Great news".

In this country, we have one economy. This is largely controlled by the Treasury and the Bank of England. They need economists.

But pray tell me what the other 200,000 so-called 'economists' do. What do they contribute to... er... the economy? I envision the situation to something like Michaelangelo painting the Sistene Chapel over those 4 years, and having, say, 4,000 other artists standing around viewing every brushstroke, most of them wishing to stick their oar in to question what he is doing, and how they would have done it another way......

Let's train more people in Sciences, Engineering, Bioscience, Medicine, Computer Sciences, Design, Urban planning, Teaching, Business Skills...... but far fewer "PPE's", historians, religion, and 'African Studies' [what ever that is.....]

The comparison to a great master of art is interesting
The great art masters had workshops full of apprentistices doing their 'colouring in' and stuff, didn't they?