RoR: Forum

How funny. If Krugman thinks there is a dominance of free market thinking in American universities, he is paying them a compliment they do not deserve.

Post 1

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 1:58am

Verily.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 4:18pm

I am sorry but so far, no one in this post seems to be in touch with current practice. I know that we all thrive on being outcasts, flogged for inventing the lightbulb and all that, but, gentlemen, I just finished five years of college and university education from an associate's, through a bachelor's, to a master's. I had economics classes at the undergrad and graduate levels. I assure you.

No one is for 100% laissez faire.
Hayek and von Mises are marginalized... literally mentioned in sidebars at the margins...
... as is Marx.
Keynes gets a couple of pages and a lot of "yeah-buts."

The high ground is held by Milton Friedman: Milton Friedman holds the commanding heights of university economics.

In my graduate class, the professor warned another student who was a vocal communist, that any other professor in economics -- except two: himself and another -- would fail the student, claiming that citing communist ideas would be proof that the student failed to learn the material. All the other profs were "free market" in the Friedman-Becker-Buchanan range. Even Friedman allowed the need for anti-trust laws and even von Hayek allowed that assuring the basic needs of all citizens at some minimal level was a duty of government.

I went to a couple of midrange midwestern schools. If you want to believe something else, you need to do an actual statistically valid survey.

Paul Krugman might be trashy -- no actual citations were offered -- but, in truth, the center of university economics belongs to the market center. You all can stop feeling persecuted... if you dare...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/29, 4:21pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 5:08pm

Michael:

I am sorry but so far, no one in this post seems to be in touch with current practice....

I had economics classes at the undergrad and graduate levels...

I went to a couple of midrange midwestern schools. If you want to believe something else, you need to do an actual statistically valid survey....

So how are your beliefs immune from this requirement? A couple of classes from a couple of schools gives you more insight than an actual statistically valid survey?

Post 4

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 6:48pm

Mike,

According to a little research by me on the subject, the top 2 college econ textbooks in existence today include one written originally in 1948 by a guy who may have been accused of being a communist (McCarthy era?), and one written by a guy who appears to be a Keynesian at best. Samuelson might have been accused of being a communist, something that no Austrian economist would be thought to be accused of; and Mankiw, according to his blog entry "Vote with your Feet", seems to be okay with the current, draconian regulations on business in New York and Massachusetts, which is -- all by itself -- a terrible evil. On top of that, in his blog entry, Economists on Ebeneezer Scrooge, the top entry is for Paul Krugman. Click on that link. If Mankiw sanctions that then he's evil.

Did you have one of these top 2 college econ textbooks where you went to school?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/29, 6:52pm)

Post 5

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 7:28pm

"...I know that we all thrive on being outcasts, flogged for inventing the lightbulb and all that..."

That's a bit condescending, don't you think, Michael? Or, were you just speaking for yourself?

Post 6

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 9:33pm

Michael, I have a Masters Degree in economics, and I have never seen a widely used macro text that is not predominantly Keynesian or neo-Keynesian. Samuelson, Gordon, Mankiw, Froyen, Schiller, Dornbusch and Fischer -- these all stress the dominant Keynesian and neo-Keynesian paradigm. Some are admittedly better than others, but even when they pay their respects to the classical, monetarist, and rational expectations schools, etc., these other schools still occupy a subordinate position in their treatment of the subject. The Austrian school and its emphasis on the various stages of production as they pertain to the business cycle is rarely if ever mentioned.

To be sure, microeconomic theory has a bit more agreement on various market-based principles, like price controls and utility theory, but macroeconomics still enjoys a proto-Keynesian bias, and it is the macroeconomic side of the profession that Krugman is referring to.

Post 7

Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 7:46am

Bill I have a Bachelor's and my experience was similar to yours. But what do we know? We don't have an actual statistically valid survey to go by, whereas Michael went to a couple of colleges and took a couple of classes which means he therefore knows more about this.

Post 8

Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 8:04am

JA: So how are your beliefs immune from this requirement? A couple of classes from a couple of schools gives you more insight than an actual statistically valid survey?

John, I am only saying that my experience was different from the Original Claim, I believe that my experience was in no way special. I went to Washtenaw Community College and Eastern Michigan University, not Hillsdale, Claremont, or George Mason. I agree that a statistically valid survey would be better than these convenience samples.

The collectivist bias in post-secondary education has been reported in statistically valid surveys published in peer-reviewed journals.

How Politically Diverse are the Social Sciences and Humanities: Survey Evidence from Six Fields ("forthcoming" since 2009) by Daniel Klein and Charlotta Stern. (Read here: html or pdf.) And the easy answer is that they are not politically diverse.
Politics and professional advancement among college faculty by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte. The Forum 3.1 (March 14, 2005) "A multivariate analysis finds that, even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats. This suggests that complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study. The analysis finds similar effects based on gender and religiosity, i.e., women and practicing Christians teach at lower quality schools than their professional accomplishments would predict."
(Readable here.)

As skewed as the distributions are, economics (along with engineering) is one discipline where the collectivist bias is not overwhelming. Of course, we here would point out that adding Christians to the mix does little for the basic problem, which only reflects a broader societal bias, rather than a crisis unique to higher education.

ET: Did you have one of these top 2 college econ textbooks [Mankiw and Samuelson] where you went to school?

Ed, I had Samuelson when I first took economics in 1971. A few years ago, I bought a copy used for a dollar, just to fill in the library. The consequences or influences of a "best selling textbook" may be hard to gauge. Sir Anthony Giddens is the author of the world-wide best-selling sociology textbook for undergraduates. Marxist John Macionis is the author of the best-selling undegraduate sociology (series) in the USA. One day, leaving Sociology 101, going down the staircase, the girl above was saying to her friend "America sucks, America sucks, week after week it's the same stuff." She wasn't buying it. In my graduate econ class in multinational corporations, I was the most free market person and we had a guy so interventionist that I got off a joke at his expense. But the professor was shocked when in one week's essays none of the students identified the harms of MNCs, preferring instead to write about the roads and hospitals they build. (I and others had a different topic.) He was dismayed that his teaching was being rejected. I am just saying that people are not blank slates who absorb what they are told, but rather they accept what they want to believe based on who and what they are. In my first university class in criminology, one of the officers to be cautioned me that he had not spoken up in class in two and a half years. Just because you have silenced a man, does not mean you have converted him.

I agree that people with weak beliefs are easily influenced. Looking for certain findings in criminology last week, I chanced upon an undergrad paper loaded with post-modernist malarky. So, when it comes to college books and professors, it is more like the Jedi Mind Control that works on the weak-willed.

MEM: "...I know that we all thrive on being outcasts, flogged for inventing the lightbulb and all that..."
SW: That's a bit condescending, don't you think, Michael? Or, were you just speaking for yourself?

We know in criminology that you really only need to ask one question:
True or False - Most people are basically honest.
My belief that most people generalize by projection is only my own projection, of course. But if the shoe fits, wear it.

WD: I have a Masters Degree in economics, and I have never seen a widely used macro text that is not predominantly Keynesian or neo-Keynesian. ... To be sure, microeconomic theory has a bit more agreement on various market-based principles ...

You got your degrees back when I had Samuelson for 101. Times change. Friedman and Hayek got Swedish Reich Bank ("Nobel") prizes, as did Buchanan and Becker and a few others perhaps not so free market. I agree 100% that macro ecoomics is by its very nature interventionist. And that was my personal experience: my undergrad macro prof was an open socialist... who nonetheless was dismayed that his neighbors in the housing cooperative wasted the heat they did not pay for and wished the co-op could bill them for it to provide incentives to conservation. In otherwords, ideologically, he was backed into a corner and he knew it. He still thought that Sweden is Utopia and, truth to tell, both of us are members of the Ann Arbor Peoples Food Co-op. To me the motto is "Co-op: We own it!" In years that they make a profit, the AAPFC pays annual dividends to members. I think that this kind of material success teaches lessons to the educable. (In fact some mental institutions find success with chits and tokens -- even among those who think they are Napoleon.)

We hold the commanding heights of economics. We earned it.

Cheers!

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/30, 8:07am)

Post 9

Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 8:42am

John, I am only saying that my experience was different from the Original Claim, I believe that my experience was in no way special.

Except your previous posts indicated otherwise. But whatever, you say that's not what you meant so no point in discussing it further, maybe you can try to be a little more clear on your positions next time and tone down the condescension?

Post 10

Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 6:11pm

"...I know that we all thrive on being outcasts, flogged for inventing the lightbulb and all that..."

Actually, I thought this was some of Michael's good humor, not a flip condescension.

Post 11

Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 6:22pm

Teresa,

I took it to be condescension lightly wrapped in humorous phrases, but still condescending.

Here is what Michael said in reply:
"We know in criminology that you really only need to ask one question: True or False - Most people are basically honest.
My belief that most people generalize by projection is only my own projection, of course. But if the shoe fits, wear it. "

I don't know about you, but I didn't find that to be satisfying as a reply. I'm quite happy having Michael wear his own strange shoes about whether they fit or not.

Post 12

Friday, December 31, 2010 - 1:50pm

MEM: John, I am only saying that my experience was different from the Original Claim, I believe that my experience was in no way special.
JA: Except your previous posts indicated otherwise. But whatever ...

Well OK, now we are caught between "priceless" and "valueless." As I said, I went to two typical midwestern midrange schools, a community college and a state university. Saying that my experience was not special means that it was typical, common, and expected.

That said, I agree with you that my convenience sample may be no more accurate than other assertions of what "most" schools teach. We need facts, not claims. So, I posted links to two such surveys. They support my view that while most higher education is strongly skewed to the left, economics is not so. Therefore, Paul Krugman's premise is valid. Do you have other facts?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/31, 1:57pm)

Post 13

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 1:10pm

Michael:

My son recently graduated from UVA with a degree in economics, and he basically agrees with you--- in that context, he did not detect any overwhelming left wing bent, and I assure you, he was sent to college well inoculated.

But I also assure you, the Ivies are different. They are tiny, inbred, and long the target of deliberate attack, for decades. For being such tiny clubs -- for example, Princeton graduates about a 1000 per year, they have a disproportionate representation in the machinery of state. (At least a third of the current USSC spent its formative years being indoctrinated at Princeton...the last two Obama nominees were practically clones of each other, former Princeton radical feminists...)

The Ivies were deliberately attacked precisely because they were small inbred chokepoint access points, easily over-run, access points not only to the machinery of state, but disproportionately to their size chokepoint feeders to the faculty of other universities.

It didn't start in the 70s when I was there, it had long before then started, and it was continuing then, but the pervasive drumbeat of 'capitalism sucks!' at Princeton was impossible to avoid. In Economics...in History....in English....in Anthropology....in Art. Less so in the sciences and engineering school, but only less so, and moot, because of the tradition of making sure all science and engineering majors had their shot at deep indoctrination in the liberal arts, which were thoroughly over-run with left wing apparatchiks.

Please..."Nanook of the North" has nothing at all to do with 'Capitalism sucks!' -- and yet, as just one ridiculous example of many, verifying that very assertion was the imperative on an Anthro mid term in 1975. It shaded every course to some degree, sometimes subtly and sometimes in a transparently clumsy fashion, as in that Anthro course.

And yet, the occasional John Stossel escapes unharmed but not unmolested. However, those places cookie cutter out left wing indoctrinoids like a mini-factory. For every John Stossel that escapes the indoctrination intact, there are a hundred Paul Krugman's launched into the world freshly imbued with their constructivist nonsense.

The nation should be uncomfortable as Hell that such a disproportionate number of its POTUS, Congress critters, and USSC justices are wearing the same short path from those tiny, inbred Ivies. This clear and continuing trend was noticed long ago by smart, totalitarian leaning adversaries who knew exactly how to focus their attack on a free nation with open borders and open universities and a naive notion of 'complete academic freedom' which included the embrace of ideas destructive of freedom.

In the context of freedom, in a free nation, Marxist ideas should have always been freely studied on those college campuses -- just like cancer, with the hope for a someday world cure.

But that isn't what happened. Jarringly and incongruously, those ideas supplanted the foundations of freedom, presented as matters of mere choice 'in freedom,' like 'vanilla' over 'chocolate.'

Pure subterfuge, by smart, freedom eating adversaries who knew exactly where to exert focused pressure in America to implement their state theocracy. ("S"ociety is God, the state is its proper church, and the purpose of universities is to provide indoctrination in proper worship thereof.)

The result is our current theocracy, pushing its centennial.

Long before we were born...

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 1:31pm

I didn't get the overly left wing bent either but even the right wing of this country buys into Keynesian macro theory. For Macroeconomics at least there was basically nothing else I was exposed to at B.U.

Post 15

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 2:53pm

Dammit They Did What I Said

by Dave Schuler on June 16, 2009

As I was making my rounds this morning I found this fascinating quote from one of Paul Krugman’s columns back in August 2002:

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn’t a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

He must hate it when people follow his advice. I trust he’s not cursing Alan Greenspan now. Oh, dear. Here’s Paul Krugman from March 2008:

Oh, and the man who failed to see the housing bubble and refused to do anything about subprime — and has yet to admit to making any mistakes — ends by reaffirming his laissez-faire faith…

Give that man a Nobel Prize in Economics...
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 1/03, 2:54pm)

Post 16

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 2:56pm

Fred,

Your observations in post #13 go right to the heart of the matter.

Long, long ago the Fabian Socialists decided that a very slow, steady revolution - one taking many generations - was the way to achieve their goals. They went into the universities and began infecting the transmission of values and knowledge from one generation to the next. And at the same time they ended up forming subcultures - like the one that gives a special elite status that is measured in some fuzzy, unspoken fashion, but will cause bright people like Christopher Hitchens to vote for Obama (a Harvard elite) over McCain, and to do so because Sarah Palin is so lacking any East Coast Elite polishing. The Bushes were Yalies. Look at Bush Jr. and you see a bit of Texas cowboy (more in attitude), deep personal convictions in religion, some very fuzzy gun powder Patriotism beliefs that make a strong core for his version of Conservatism. Then the Yale elitism is more like his secret club of who to trust. Part social conservative with elements of the religious right, mushing in the Neo-Con views of the other Ivies, wave the flag over military events and there you go. Who needs to think with a pre-made intellectual mush like that?

After the founding fathers there has never really been a popular political movement that represented our ideals. Conservatism was started very late in the game as a delayed response to the earlier progressives but it was carefully and effectively weeded of any belief systems that didn't have its roots in religion. Look at how the National Review trashed Rand. Buckley also took it upon himself to rid the Conservative movement of the anti-communist far right by ridiculing them. He didn't need to do that, since he could have brought them 'in' and helped them find a positive set of pro-capitalism principles to go with their rabid anti-communist rhetoric, but I suspect that they didn't match the other unspoken requirement - East Coast Elitism.

Until this Tea Party movement I don't think we've had a political movement with a large, strong popular base that made small, constitutional government with a balanced budget their defining goal.

What is going on now, and the November elections, and the next few election cycles is the urgent portion of the political triage - stop the massive bleeding. The next and more important step (for the long term) is to root out the collectivists and statists from the educational system and replace them with libertarians who see Capitalism as the only moral system. This is a war that is being played out along generational timelines. We need to look at each generation's core beliefs - as acquired from their time in the infected universities - and measure the time to successfully conclude the war as that time when a new generation, graduated from a future university system that has been disinfected, finally comes into power. Until then our society won't have a sustainable mechanism that will protect itself as it regenerates every so many generations.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/03, 2:59pm)

Post 17

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 3:30pm

Steve:

Until then our society won't have a sustainable mechanism that will protect itself as it regenerates every so many generations.

That is precisely, exactly why it was our universities that were attacked. A nation no longer able to intellectually define 'freedom' is unable to defend 'freedom.'

Freedom's global totalitarian adversaries were not fools. They were smart, they knew how to kick the legs out from under a free nation. The once virtues of this nation were turned around and used against it: open borders, open universities, and a bending over backwards policy of complete academic freedom... perhaps too far, in that those policies should have always been within 'the context of freedom.' As such, they should have never embraced deliberately freedom eating ideas...but clearly did.

This is not to say that there aren't voices adamantly defending freedom on universities. But they stand like isolated islands in a theater war, easily ignored.

By focusing so heavily on a tiny handful of inbred chokepoints, freedom's adversaries not only made their task tractable, but highly leveraged. Inbred Ivy league elitism was used as a freedom eating weapon of self destruction, and an asleep at the wheel America let it happen.

Too inbred, too small, too single point of view, too easily over-run, too elitist, and via that mechanism, too easily led around by the nose and subject to indoctrination.

As a result, modern politics, for decades, has resembled more a tag team between two competing fraternities, pretending to offer something other than just a sham to keep the gig going and the elites in power uber alles.

The folks got dangerously close to seeing all the sausage not being made this time, and the elites circled up the wagons to save the gig. That was the crisis of 2008, that was the panic of 'systemic risk.' And...an incredulous Main Street watched all that unsightly thrashing about, and ... scratched its head.

Main Street knows something is afoul, and is just barely getting its anger focused enough to take out the trash, but is freshly having difficulty seeing through the massive smoke screen of crap thrown up to befuddle the victims and keep the gig going.

Hasn't happened yet, and may not, because the carcass carvers may yet learn how to modulate their carcass carving just enough to avoid actual heads on pikes.

Post 18

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 4:41pm

For my 2 cents, I've spent more than a decade inside of institutions of higher learning, and I noticed the "overly left wing bent" which John didn't.

I think John brings up a good point about the Keynesian-ization of academic economics. I never took econ, but I interact with folks who did. Most of them think you can spend your way out of a depression.

Ed

Post 19

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 4:19am