I am doing a talk to sixth formers at lunchtime today. I enjoy these events. Young people have insights that I invariably enjoy hearing. I always hope they get value from what I say, but expect to get at least as much back.
I do, however, always have three concerns when thinking about what say on such occasions.
The first is with offering guidance to those who want to take degrees in economics. My concern is to break the news gently that these are a three year exercise in theoretical mathematical study almost wholly unrelated to the real world at the end of which the student will have learned remarkably little about what I think economics should be about, will have had their empathic capacity reduced, their predatory instincts increased and their inclination to work in the City enhanced, but their social value somewhat undermined. That may be a little harsh, except many such students seem inclined to agree.
Second, there is the need to explain that if you really want to study economics as I think it is then you have to look elsewhere, to political economy, politics, geography, international relations and beyond. That is where the real issues might be found.
Third, there's the imperative of explaining that the subject matter is never as important as the lens through which it is viewed. Whatever the subject and whatever the issue it is personal ethics and what they dictate that really matter, not least because it is a person's ability to live with themselves in community with others that most determines wellbeing. Such ethics are not taught on most degrees.
And that's got to be wrapped up in some narrative. That will be something to think about as this morning progresses.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tell them to go study at Kingston with Prof Keen
I agree that’s a possibility
Sound like you know what to say, Richard! The most important thing is to stimulate real critical thinking so ideology presented as facts can be challenged-they will only be able to do this via their own independent thinking as the media is virtually a zombie.
Of course, the economic pressures themselves act as a barrier to independent thought-the need to get a job, roof over your head already pinions you to the financialised world. So the greatest weapon neo-liberalism has is pressure and fear.
perhpas you could do a little straightforward myth busting along the lines of:
1. There can’ be a shortage of money only too much (under specific conditions-Weimar, Zimbabwe)
2. Asset bubbles such as Housing as an example of how financialisation cripples the economy/communities and lives.
3. Of course: The Governments not a Household
That would do for starters!
Richard, are you concerned about the possible hostile reaction from some parents who might be opposed to your political views?
Not at all
Never occurred to me
Or, I suspect, the school
The person who invited me does not, I know, share my views
Advise them to go and study at a European university. There are hundreds of undergraduate and postgraduate economics courses across Europe taught 100% in English. From my experience (economics undergraduate in Britain, masters in Netherlands) you get a much more rounded view of economics abroad than you do in the UK. More focus on economics as a social science and less as abstract mathematics.
Also worth reminding them that whilst we are still in the EU they can study anywhere in Europe and pay the domestic fees which are in many cases zero or less than ‎£2000 a year, which compared to British fees is still basically free. Unless you get into the very very top British universities and get the kudos of that on your CV I can really see no reason why anyone should study at a British university now fees are so high and there is much better and cheaper alternatives a short cheap flight away.
Leading British universities are amongst the very best in Europe. If you have the ability to get into a Russell Group university then you should. You may have a point if a student is incapable of obtaining a place at a Russell Group university: most “leading” universities on the continent are no better than the mediocre (or worse) British universities found outside the Russell Group
As someone who is teaching at a non-Russell Group university I beg to suggest that the issue is a little more refined than you suggest
There are many variations: a student is wise to note them
@Richard – Please elaborate 🙂
On what?
On this – “As someone who is teaching at a non-Russell Group university I beg to suggest that the issue is a little more refined than you suggest
There are many variations: a student is wise to note them”
There are great courses at lots of other universities
That is what I am saying
But how do students differentiate if popular websites just throw rankings at them?
Whereas a 3 year degree in economics would be counterproductive, I nevertheless think an “introductory course to economics” should be compulsory for every student, if they have not had it at A-level. Say 1/4 of your first year in a social science subject at university should be about economics, especially macro-economics.
There is many things wrong with the details of macro-economic theories, but it would help if we know them, and followed them most of the time, because otherwise politicians can just bulldoze crazy ideas like the fiscal charter into law.
If everyone knew how non-sensical these ideas were from the education they had received in macro-economics, crazy policies like that would be less likely to happen.
I agree
I’ve always believed that a little bit of economics is a dangerous thing. I did A level in 1 year at a college of further education (ridiculous, I know) and came away at 18 thinking that socialism was nice but couldn’t work. It was only 15 years later, having lived in the real hard world and, then, taking a degree in economics, that I recognised that what I’d learned was rubbish. Richard is on the right track with raising the ethics issue from the start.
there are parallels with people wanting to become psychologists and help people with mental/emotional problems. A first degree in psychology is not particularly useful for that. You do need the theoretical knowledge but academic expertise is no predictor of the human relational skills needed for that sort of work.
Your second piece of advice is spot on really.
I’d be telling them to learn how to design and make things and even how to manage projects and also a foreign language or two.
Then I’d tell them to leave the UK and not return because their efforts as ‘hard working people’ will be rewarded more highly elsewhere.
“Then I’d tell them to leave the UK and not return because their efforts as ‘hard working people’ will be rewarded more highly elsewhere.”
Really? Where?
Iceland?
Just out there – in the world Robin. They should go and look.
As a blanket statement my suggestion is slightly over the top but is informed by the deliberate Tory policy of making this country the sweatshop of the world – compete by being the cheapest no matter how good you are. And this is said by millionaire politicians who have already made it (or shall we say – have inherited it).
But there is more than a hint of truth in what I say. I was speaking to Geordie welder some while back who was freelance. He spent most of his time going to south east Asia repairing poorly constructed ships that had been made in SE Asian shipyards and not British or Scottish ones. His services and expertise came at a premium.
I have family relations who are well educated and have worked in Germany, Japan or Brazil all in mid-upper tier jobs pay wise. Japan is planning to open the first maglev railway is it not? The Tories can’t even be bothered to electrify the ancient Midland Main line. Evidence of better thinking by the Japanese whose economy is meant to be basket case.
As for Europe – it is in the grip of some foolish ECB policies which I hope will change but even GDP in France has out performed ours on many occasions since Mrs Thatcher.
Low productivity due to an over financialised economy is the cause. Also because of management culture imported from the USA which over-manages processes without adding value.
Why should our graduates waste their lives and potential here? They should go out into the world if they can.
For integrated political economy with normative/ ethical theory given it’s head – PPE at York or Queen’s…
Oddly enough, you and your crew got a mention
I studied Political Science at Birmingham University and particularly relished the Political Economy modules. They used to offer an entire Political Economy course there, probably still do. Department used to be very highly rated. I was very inspired by some of the lecturers there notably Sam Ashman, Matthew Watson, Ronen Palan – he in particular focused on offshore which led me to my interest in tax havens, my dissertation, and of course, this blog!
I think political economy is important because it should give the theoretical political grounding and underpinning that IMO is necessary to appreciate economics. Mainstream economics has too much of a tendency to reduce fundamentally political issues into mathematical equations and theories, which often completely ignore their broader political context. Often I think this is a deliberate depoliticisation exercise, e.g. you can’t have better working conditions because the markets and the economic theory says it’s impossible.
Ronen is now my colleague at City
We are, of course, also co-authors and expect to be so again
Which blog? Tax research? I thought its was Richard’s blog? :S
Sentence is a bit ambiguously worded admittedly. I meant “my interest in … this blog”, which I’ve been reading with keen interest since 2007
“I always hope they get value from what I say, but expect to get at least as much back.”
For once I agree with you. I am sure you could learn much from sixth formers studying economics.
Interesting
I guess you think all professors of political economy lack knowledge of the subject?
I could be teaching these guys soon
I would say, before they even start studying, either take out or buy a copy of Michael Rowbotham’s “The Grip Of Death”.
A book that blows the economic illiteracy of much mainstream economics out of teh water.
Essential reading.
Get a textbook and debunk the money multiplier etc they are taught.
Then explain how it really works.
https://originofspecious.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/macroeconomic-theory-and-operational-reality/
These documents may be of help for teaching.
Indeed- operational reality would help-I like the quote: “if economics were engineering, the bridge would collapse” Of course the bridge is always collapsed but not for everyone at the same time and the ones that aren’t touched by it just happen to be in power.
Simon, I would take that statement one step further. Economists would never build the bridge because they would not be able to agree on:
1 the precise crossing point
2 the materials to be used
3 its width, to cover future increasing traffic
4 the economic value of being able to travel easily to the opposite side
5 whether tolls should be charged and at what level
6 what compensation, if any, should be given to the existing ferry operator
If by chance the bridge were finally built then it would collapse because the mathematical model would be flawed.
I’d be amused if it wasn’t so true
Richard-you didn’t tell us how it went!!!
Well
They seemed to enjoy what I had to say, including on current affairs
There was some political disagreement, which was good
And some good questions as well as discussion on the EU
Worth doing
Fred Lee used to say that in order to debunk mainstream economics you have to understand it so you need to learn it along side heterodox economics.
Andy
Easy to say, but when I read my lad’s AS2 Economics text-books I was horrified at the extent to which they envisaged only one possible model &, hence, only a tiny number of solutions. The model, as Richard has pointed out, being one that bears little or no resemblance to real life.
Of course, you can say that the intellectually curious student can react against this, but it isn’t easy to react against something you are told is conclusively true. If it were easy we wouldn’t make such a fuss of those like Galileo, Darwin or Copernicus who did it.
I also agree with Richard that mathematical equations are a poor mechanism for measuring the actions of real human beings. Equations can be pure, beautiful & easily reproduced. Almost no human beings are pure, a small number are beautiful &, TBoMK, none have ever successful been reproduced
It is this that I find worrying
The student wanting to study financial economics at university is never going to have their horizons widened by the syllabus they are offered
His rationale is here :
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue31/Lee31.htm
Did you feel that they connected your appraisal of the current situation with the viability of their own futures? Did they see how this affected them?
To be honest, no. I am not sure they did
That’s the key-how this stuff affects our quality of life and how we can persue what really interests us rather than fit into any crap, meaningless job that the ‘market’ has available.
Well – there’s a curriculum then!!
‘A Citizen’s Self-defence Guide to Bad Economics: what you need to know when your politicians talk crap economics and how you might suffer when you vote for them’.
or:
‘Neo – liberal economic theory defined: do really want to endure colonic irrigation of the mouth?’.
when I was leaving school, my father used to get the Daily Mail before it backed Thatcher. He stopped reading it when it did this. I remember reading it at school and coming across all the plans Thatcher had to privatise stuff and I innately felt that this was wrong – even then as 15/16 year old I could see where it was going.
Maybe it was to do with my working class background because no-one had taught me about these things or the reasons as to why they were right or wrong.
My fear is that this imposed chaos that we live with is now so normalised that people think that there is nothing we can do about it. That is really scary and may explain why PQE and other good ideas meet with so much resistance. Our own inability to think beyond the Thatcherite paradigm is like a cognitive cage that we wrap around ourselves.
Sorry I should have said:
‘Neo-liberalism defined: colonic irrigation of the mouth’
“so normalised that people think that there is nothing we can do about it ”
Pilgrim-I think that is the nub of the issue from a psychological standpoint-anyone under about 50 will have much of a recollection of the keynseian world that started to fall apart (large due to oil quadrupling after the Yom Kippur War) and the onset of globalisation. There is a great sense of intellectual dumbing down and this explains why phrases like ‘we’re living beyond our means’ leaves us so gobsmacked at its crudity and the lack of challenge to it.
Pilgrim, Simon
Being around 50, what you say chimed with me. With the benefit of hindsight we were so much better off then. We had libraries that opened all hours, the streets were kept clean & I paid NOTHING to go to University. They even gave me a beer & weed (oops sorry books & clothing) grant!
as for globalisation, I’ve actually heard some right whinghers, like John Redwood, claim credit. “Neo-liberal economics” he opined, has seen millions lifted out of poverty. Yes, John, millions in China, which is ostensibly still a Communist country, & India. “Communism” may be a bit of a fig leaf but neither China nor India has, remotely, embraced the free-market. The laws forbid non-Indians to open retail outfits! What John Redwood is saying, therefore, boils down to “Neo-liberal economics has seen millions lifted out of poverty in countries sensible enough not to follow it”.
That’s like a football manager saying “I always said my approach would mean goals. We conceded 6 only last Saturday”.
Hi Richard, tell them to read Prof Steve Keens book, “Debunking Economics” then go and study under him.
Tell them to read Prof Steve Keens book Debunking Economics
Did they understand that real economics begins when there is someone who needs something they cannot make or get by themselves and then have to find or ask someone to provide it at a price? Or that it begins when someone sees that something is needed but not available yet, so they set out to provide it at a cost plus a surplus that allows them to continue in business?
If they don’t get that how can they understand the other stuff mentioned in this blog?
I think you’re being a little patronising
And simplistic too
Economics moves way beyond price and markets
Richard, a late reply (fighting off seasonal ‘flu),
You are wrong, wrong, confusing simple an simplistic. That is the whole problem with macroeconomists, they simply do not attend sufficiently to the nature of demand. Nearly every start-up that fails does so because it does not understand the reality of demand, i.e. ascertaining if there is a need, and understanding what that need really is. Sinclair failed with his C5, HP succeeded.
The tragedy of the NHS and social care is largely around this issue. Consequently even macroeconomists as eminent as you are unhelpful here.
Funny that you should think that I am patronising six formers when my MBA and DBA students engaged in really serious discussions on the applications of these points.
Your comment suggested you believe that issue is the main question
I disagree
But I am sure it is on an MBA
So, Richard, just where does real economics begin? I am assuming, even for Adam Smith, there was a need/demand for pins that stimulated his conjectures.
Economics is about the allocation of resources
But markets cannot be the sole determinant of that
John-surely this is a chicken and egg phenomenon-does supply side come before demand, or demand before supply side? The issue of ‘what people need’ is rather more complex. In America, Walmart is devastating the centre of communities by putting smaller businesses out of business. Is this what people need or undemocratic corporate power telling people they ‘need’ it? Does your MBA course examine this issue?
Simon
Sorry this is late. I have been at Twickenham for the weekend.
It is not chicken and egg, and it does not start with allocation of resources. It starts with the (correct) recognition of a need. Without that any business transactional activity is doomed, no matter if it is in the political, social or economic. I really don’t know why that is difficult to grasp.
Yes, many businesses create false demand, and we have the situation today with Apple et al where supply creates demand, unfortunately, thanks to egregious marketing. We have a similar issue with supermarkets, who announce that their customers want cheap milk and packaged fruit.
Don’t you see how this leads straight into ethical discussions that range from considering the supply chains to environmental concerns. Also, please note how the sectors who do not really have customers as such (only users) or any control over the price, such as the extraction industry, create such mayhem with governments, communities and the environment.
This segues nicely into macroeconomic issues.
OK
You have now written it in a way that makes complete sense
In fact, in a way that sounds rather like my book the Courageous State
Thanks
Where has Andy gone? He gave me a great reference, i.e. Frederic Lee. Thanks.