Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

It is all a political kabuki dance performed to convince voters that the RP and DP represent real political opposition. In fact, the parties are just 2 squads on the same team - shirts vs. skins. The RP has nominated many of the worst "liberal" justices. Nixon is the father of the modern regulatory maze. Hoover started many of the federal programs expanded by FDR. What is a "progressive Republican"?

Do you know how many Republican Representatives voted against the 2014 lame duck Cromnibus Bill to fund Obama's program and disenfranchise the newly elected Congress?

 

of course that 100% ignorant. Republicans sign the Pledge and voted 100% against Obamacare, stimulus and nominate opposite Supreme Court Justices for example. If you say there are no differences between liberals and conservative on the Court you must a brainwashed fellow. You think all the fighting is pretend acting?? Dumb beyond belief.

 

The votes against ObamaCare were show votes - they had no impact. Surely you know that.

“A milker bill gives politicians the opportunity to quote “milk”, or squeeze, an industry for money. Whether the bill passes or not, the politicians still Cash in. The best milker bills are those that allow the Permanent Political Class to squeeze two cows at the same time, one on each side of that issue. Nothing beats a so-called double-milker.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, BuyVotes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p/ 80.

Fixing ObamaCare will generate hundreds of millions of dollars of political donations to Republicans and Democrats, especially to the party leaders.

 

exactly, they wanted to show that they were conservatives much like they want to show that when they sign the Pledge, voted against the stimulus and Obamacare, voted for shut downs and caps, Balanced Budget Amendments, and when they nomimate conservative court people like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Radical conservatism would be the law of the land in two seconds if the electorate supported it.

Folk's with very very low IQ's, like the author of your book, don't realize that govt seems not to move only because both sides need the independent voter to win and thus you get a compromise between liberals and conservatives as policy. 1+1=2

 

Hate to break it to you, but economics aint the only thing taught with a left wing bias...

 

yes our colleges and universities are infected with the communist cancer. Most importantly the Ivy League, from which all others draw their inspiration, is badly infected.

 

So, you have figured out what a "show vote" is yet you still pretend that "radical conservatism" is some kind of powerful threat,

Independent voters are for Trump. Schweizer is low IQ? In fact, Schweizer merely documents what everyone with any knowledge Washington politics has known for decades.

“Former Microsoft COO, Robert Herbold told me, “you're crazy if you don't play along. They will go after you.” Ray Planck, the founder and former chairman of Apache Corporation, has seen his company cough up to both parties for 50 years. He told me that campaign money and lobbying contracts are “protection money. It's what you expect from the mafia.” EXTORTION, "How Politicians Extract Your money, BuyVotes, And Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer, HMO, NY, NY, 2013, p. 3.

The DP/RP/MSM political class now share the DNA of the trash heap they operate in.

“After a while, the distinctions between the clans all run together– the journalists, the Democrats, the Republicans, the superlawyers, the superlobbyists, the superstaffers, the supercommittees, the David Gergen's, the Donna Brazile's … they run together like the black tie dinner, or the caricature drawings of notable Washingtonians on the wall at the Palm on Nineteenth Street.” Mark Leibovich, This Town, Penguin Books, 2013, p. 14.

Do you think Leibovich is a "low IQ" "radical conservative"? Do some research.

 

he's very stupid not realizing that conservative and liberal ideas are opposite or that Washington policy is a function of the electorate sending equal numbers of conservatives and liberals to Washington.

 

Perhaps you might be more specific about your concerns. As others have stated, the mainstream neo-classical economics paradigm is solidly free-market, free-trade, and minimal regulation. This paradigm is what is taught in Economics 101.

 

Ted, do you think you really care about those people who died from Maoism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism etc.? Your morality is horse(*)(*)(*)(*), you use it as a mere tool to make your arguement stronger,stop it, seriously, just stop with the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You are charlatan, using a moralistic high horse to justify arguements of a system that is just as bad and even worse in some cases than what we both don't want, Authoritarian Socialism.

Capitalism has killed millions, and continues to do so. Be it 'crony' or not, it will continue to do so.

And yes, economics is not taught in a left-wing perspective. Take a wiff of the Austrian trash spewed in economics 101 or other textbooks, it's everywhere.

 

subject is not whether I care but whether a economic system that slowly starved 120 million human souls to death is a good system. Liberals are stupid, anti reason, anti science and so the debate with utter idiots goes on.

 

capitalism is two guys freely trading to improve their standard of living. hard to imagine how that could kill one person, let alone millions????????? See why we say liberal is anti reason and anti science??

 

I have actually taken Econ 101 and kept up with texts. Most texts tend to be center left with little mention if any of Austrian School, let alone advocacy of it. 1+1=2

 

of course that's 100% mistaken as usual. Econ 101 is center left with full support for hugely anti free market
management and regulation as in Obamacare. Do you understand theses basics?

 

Please explain how private ownership and economic liberty has killed anyone.

 

Do you refer to the standard Mankiw text? Mankiw was GWB's economic advisor and a solid economic conservative. This textbook is standard in most introductory econ courses.

 

Like you know jack squat about anything. What a loser!

 

Solid post. You sound really intelligent.

 

What trash are you referring to?

 

This is inherently incorrect but we must understand the difference before that becomes apparent.

Economics when America was founded was based upon "Title" established under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The king granted "titles of nobility" which included "title" to the land, natural resources, and even the people within the territory of the nobleman.

It wasn't until the Enlightenment period when the "natural rights of the person" were proposed, that opposed the "Right of Title" established under the Divine Right of Kings, that there was a new model for property and economic structures.

The "conservative" (right-wing) by definition seeks to restore, retain, or at the very most make small changes to the existing institutions which includes the economic institutions that were based upon "Title of Ownership" that originated under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

The "liberal" (left-wing) on the other hand seeks to make dramatic changes to any nefarious institution that violates the natural rights of the person.

Unfortunately, when the United States was created based upon the natural (unalienable/inalienable) rights of the person (liberal left-wing ideology), there were no changes to our laws of property that had always been based upon "Title" (conservative right-wing ideology) that we inherited from our period as colonies under the King of England. We retained the conservative right-wing economic institutions based upon Title that had always existed.

Effectively all of our laws remain based upon "Title" of ownership, either written or implied, and they're not based upon the "natural right of property" so all of our education is based upon a "conservative" right-wing ideology because it retains the use of "Title" as opposed to the "natural right of property" in our economic institutions.

For those that don't know the difference here's a quick summary.

"Title" establishes "ownership" without regard for the Natural Right of Property.

No one owns anything under the Natural Right of Property but instead establishes a "Right to use and/or consume" that which is necessary for their support (survival) and comfort and it is pragmatically limited (i.e. you can't have anymore than you actually need for your support and comfort).

We don't even teach the left-wing "Natural Right of Property" in our schools because it contradicts our laws of property based upon the right-wing "Title of Ownership" that our economy is based upon.

 

Austrian economics

 

Yes, I know. What do the austrians teach that you consider to be trash?

 

well the Austrians are mostly about the free market and libsocialists hate that. They look at East/West Germany
and Cuba/Florida and want to copy East Germany and Cuba. Its as ignorant and illiterate as anything can be.

 

Typical trashy loser, with nothing of substance to say. Ugly people really shouldn't be allowed out of their cages.

 

Well, I'd like to hear specifically what the Austrians teach that the poster thinks is trash.