Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

I came across this idea in a forum thread and would like to know more about it.

 

Hahahahaha no. Economics, at least here, is taught with a complete right-wing bias. It's basically free market worship, where supply and demand are gospel and everything is analysed in terms of the market rather than human impact. You can literally tell at school if someone is an econ. student when you're debating them and they regurgitate free market talking points.

 

First of all, it would be a good idea to know what "left-wing" and "right-wing" is.
I have examined the differences and they come down to the economy and cultural identity. Right-wing has two concepts, Free market capitalism(private property and profit motivation) and a single cultural identity(monoculturalism and nationalism). "Left-wing" opposes free market capitalism. That is enough to show that economics isn't taught with "left-wing" bias. Most economists favor capitalism as an economic system, so it is mostly a right-wing perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

Do they teach negative things about socialism?

 

They do in Australia. Mention full employment on fulltime minimum wage with an unemployment rate of 2% and your lecturer will shriek "NAIRU! NAIRU!" and drop dead of apoplexy.

That's why I was surprised to read US economic faculties are Left wing: I'm not hearing it in the economic commentary coming out of the US at all.

 

They aren't left-wing, the liberals here in the U.S. are actually farther to the right in global standards. Economists accept capitalism, and a Harvard professor even said that when people study economics at a university, they come out more right-wing than before(considering that most have left-wing views before entering a university). Sure, they may teach minimum wage and common sense regulation, but teach positively of capitalism(just as universities teach Darwinian evolution as fact). In my World Book encyclopedia, it mentions apparent problems in communism(which is left-wing) even though the encyclopedia is supposed to be unbiased and factual.

 

Yep, mostly, though sometimes it depends on the individual teacher. We did Nazi Germany this year in history and my teacher kept using the full name "National Socialist" and talking about how Hitler was a socialist and socialist ideas and "morality" (!!) influenced Nazi policy. But she's an unusually bad case.

 

The more economics you take the more fiscally conservative you become. The reason is very simple, economics deals with math and numbers and theories and we have lots of different economic models to study throughout history. People that don't actually study economics only look at it from and emotional standpoint and don't understand how things really work. We have tons of cases of leftist fiscal policy to look at and by and large they are all failures. If you want one of the best examples you could compare Latin America in the early and mid 20th century with Asia and how the leftists IS (import substitution) model which relies on tarriffs and protectionism ala Trump and progressive Democrats, was a complete and utter failure everywhere it was tried. Meanwhile growth and export models which rely on minimal trade barriers and free and open markets allowed Asian markets to boom.

My university is extremely liberal and at least one of my economics professors was a hard leftist but even he rejected liberal protectionist economic ideology as "stupidity and nonsense" in his own words.

 

I thought EVERYTHING in academia was presented with a 'left wing bias'..

They are steeped in progressive, socialist ideology.. how can they NOT promote their worldview with bias?

 

The Nazis just grabbed and borrowed from a all over the spectrum to suit their needs at any given time. They are a unique ideology unto themselves and cannot be placed in a box. They started off socialist but then adopted more "right wing" stuff to garner support from the middle of the road voters (remember they didn't just take over with guns right way they got themselves voted into office) and also did this on their stances with religion as well.

 

Fact is that there is no developed nation that operates on anything close to freemarket economics

Fact also is that the asian countries you admire are ONLY in favor of free markets for their exports

No pure economic ideology works... Not pure socialism, nor pure free markets. Heck, adam smith himself recognized there were limits to free markets

 

There is a movement among young economist to include historical events and patterns within the standard economic model.

Currently economic models are patterned on the concept of rational self interest, with very loose correlation to real world events. Everything works perfectly within these models because they do not have to cope with the very real irrationality of human behavior. Historical events, even regularly recurring ones, that seem to contradict the standard model are considered aberrations that must be discarded.

The new economist may be considered left wing. Hyman Minsky is a good one to look up if you want to understand this leftist plot.

 

Shock! Horror!

These young fools want to pollute our lovely Neoliberal models with irrational variables like "history"?
What next? "Reality"?

You'd like Bill Mitchell. He's a professor of economics - teaches MMT.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

 

I noticed that almost everyone thinks that mainstream academics are opposite of their views. Like, many on the left believe that universities have a right-wing bias, and many on the right believe universities have a right-wing bias. The truth is, a lot of it is mixed, but overall, there is a right-wing bias(most university economist professors would probably agree that capitalism is the best system). Of course, that is just economic/political views.

 

Wow! I've come across that on this forum. A few posters defined fascism with citations and got nowhere, but to have your teacher say it is frightening.

 

True that the US is no longer a free market and hasn't been for a while but the fact is that the more free your markets are the better they perform. This is one of the reasons that the US hasn't seen decent growth in over 10 years because we insist on propping up failing industries for no good reason. Ironically if you want a great example of how the free market is a success you need to look at Silicon Valley in California at least in regards to how businesses operate there. Businesses start up and fail constantly in that area sometime very big businesses but as we see the ones that fail have their capital both human and otherwise quickly absorbed into more competent companies. That is how it should be in the rest of the US but it isn't because we insist on bailing out failed companies like General Motors.

Heavily regulated and controlled markets have failed each and every single time they have been tried and they have been tried countless times in different variations. I wish the US would operate more like Singapore or Switzerland which is less regulated than the US.

 

I fail to see why we would be so much better off i chrysler and gm failed along with a large portion of our banks. A frankly dont see the obvious advantage of all bank deposits being lost and people being unable to transact business because the economic system froze. But, i do hope some candidate for president runs on this platform so that we can vote on it

Regarding singapore, they have a fairly large and intrusive government... And the government plays a significant role in strategic economic planning

The public sector is used both as an investor and as a catalyst for economic development and innovation. The government of Singapore has two sovereign wealth funds, Temasek Holdings and GIC Private Limited, which are used to manage the country's reserves.[57] Initially the state's role was oriented more toward managing industries for economic development, but in recent decades the objectives of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds have shifted to a commercial basis.[58]

Government-linked corporations play a substantial role in Singapore's domestic economy. As of November 2011, the top six Singapore-listed GLCs accounted for about 17 percent of total capitalization of the Singapore Exchange (SGX). These fully and partially state-owned enterprises operate on a commercial basis and are granted no competitive advantage over privately owned enterprises. State ownership is prominent in strategic sectors of the economy, including telecommunications, media, public transportation, defence, port, airport operations as well as banking, shipping, airline, infrastructure and real estate.[58]

As of 2014, Temasek holds S$69 billion of assets in Singapore, accounting for 7% of the total capitalization of Singapore-listed companies.[59][60]


To maintain its competitive position despite rising wages, the government seeks to promote higher value-added activities in the manufacturing and services sectors. It also has opened, or is in the process of opening, the financial services, telecommunications, and power generation and retailing sectors up to foreign service providers and greater competition. The government has also attempted some measures including wage restraint measures and release of unused buildings in an effort to control rising commercial rents


This is what you say is a government that is uninvolved in the economy?

And now we come to your beloved switzerland
I am quite sure you will support their policies here in the us

On the 10.11.2002 the economics magazine Cash published 5 measures which political and economic factors were suggested to implement so that Switzerland would once again experience an economic revival:

1. Private consumption should be promoted with decent wage increases. In addition to that families with children should get discounts on their health insurances.

2. Switzerland's national bank should revive investments by lowering interest rates. Besides that monetary institutes should increasingly credit consumers and offer cheaper land zones which are to be built on.

3. Switzerland's national bank is asked to devalue the Swiss Franc, especially compared to the Euro.

4. The government should implement the anti-cyclical measure of increasing budget deficits. Government spending should increase in the infrastructural and educational sectors. Lowering taxes would make sense in order to promote private household consumption.

5. Flexible work schedules should be instituted, thus avoiding low demand dismissals.

These measures were applied with successful results along with the government's policy of the Magical Hexagon which consists of full employment, social equality, economic growth, environmental quality, positive trade balance and price stability. The rebound which started in mid-2003 saw growth rate growth rate averaging 3% (2004 and 2005 saw a GDP growth of 2.5


I am correct i assume... These are policies that you endorse for the usa, correct?

 

Further on Switzerland What is your guess... Do they have an intrusive system of mandatory medical insurance? Do they have environmental protection laws like we do? Do they have irritating unemployment programs, , car safety laws? Do they have a central bank? Do they have bank deposit insurance!

ARE ALL THOSE PROGRAMS part of your idealized free market?

 

Nothing but the sound of crickets, Ardy.

I don't think ReallyBigJohnson supports those policies after all.

 

They wouldn't have been lost. You seem to forget that FDIC exists and also that money just doesn't disappear into thin air. Those accounts would have been transferred to other banks just like when every other bank in history has failed the money has gone to another bank. Do you honestly believe that the banks just empty out all of the accounts and then run off to the Bahamas?

I am not sure where you are getting your facts on Singapore on but you are just flat out wrong. Singapore is regarded as one of the most if not THE most open market in the world today. Singapore was run by a dictator who did direct spending to certain areas but that was for specific things like some housing and health etc. The actual market in Singapore is very free from government regulation.

Switzerland is considered one of the most free and open markets in the EU. They have one of the smallest government as a percentage of GDP but provide superior services than most other countries.

I can only assume that your denial of Singapore and Switzerland as examples of free markets is either out of flat out ignorance or because you are just lying about it. Either way you are wrong and a simple google search would have shown you that. I sense that you deliberately passed by the pages of rankings that showed up on google to cherry pick some info in order to try and make your self look smart but it backfired. You

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

They also happen to have among the most efficient governments out there as well.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/efficient-government/

 

I hope no one is getting tired
But we have been hearing how i was wrong in my assertion that all economies are now mixed

But mr johnson the the heffe has proposed his enduring love for the icons of the free market
Switzerland and Singapore

Now mr johnson has proposed that we emulate these countries.., and so now i am in the
Process of examining the policies which johnson the biggey seems so eager to embrace

Returning now to healtcare in singapore, mr johnson proposes we adopt the following

Healthcare in Singapore is mainly under the responsibility of the Singapore Government's Ministry of Health. Singapore generally has an efficient and widespread system of healthcare. Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organisation's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1] Bloomberg ranked Singapore’s healthcare system the 1st most efficient in the world in 2014.[2]


So i have to agree.... We should be more like singapore

 

I quoted all my post from wikipedia
But then truth has a well known liberal bias

What i was trying to illustrate is that there is an abundant amount of government involvement in ALL COUNTRIES including your darlings
Which goes to prove my point that all todays economies are mixed
And
This is the case because everyone recognizes that markets are useful within limits


Regarding banks
Is bank deposit insurance suddenly a free market idea

Seems to me that you are inclined to pick and choose...
Admiring what fits your ideological gratification while discarding other parts that do not fit

Fact is that some banks in switzerland had problems, and the government saved them
... I wonder why.., maybe they figured it was bad pr for a swiss bank to collapse

 

I dont disagree with being more like Singapore in regards to healthcare. Taiwan also seems to have a decent system and yes my fave health care system if in fact Switzerland. You will find though that Obamacare is about as far away from those systems as you can get. Switzerland ties the health care policies to the person not the company and it has some minimum coverage (still far less regulatory than the US) and they not only provide superior care to other EU countries that follow the socialized medicine route but also do it more cheaply. The Swiss system is an open market with some regulations, individual mandage and minimum requirements tact on. The US system is a monsterous blob of private and government insurance with even more intrusive regulations.

All Swiss are required to pay for some of their policy and they can use whatever doctors and hospitals they want.

Never said you were wrong about economies being mixed. I was ridiculing your nonsense about Switzerland and Singapore not being free markets because you cherry picked some stories about government intervention. If you actually took any international economics studies you would have know this from the get go as this is 101 stuff.

I am philosophically opposed to Federal mandates (note that I don't have an issue with a state doing it, I just don't like the idea of the Feds doing it) but that battle was lost long ago and they are here to stay. So if we have to have them then at least do it right like the Swiss do.

 

Switzerland is well bellow the usa in ease of doing business ranking

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index


Singapore has an admirably efficient government
But one way of accomplishing this is to believe in good governance
Which is not the same thing as less governance

 

Yes they are indeed, but somehow, so many people seem to overlook this and we end up with this "Capitalism versus socialism" dichotomy in debate.

I suppose it comes in useful: the government uses it to justify saving some "in the national interest" while letting others sink "because they aren't competitive" and we all lose sight of the fact political choices were made.

 

Is it right wing compared to Marx? Sure.

But is it right wing compared to Mises and Rothbard? Not at all. Mainstream economics is Keynesian, and interventionist. Markets should be allowed to operate, but not without strong government oversight, and especially with central planning in money. If you want to line that up with the mainstream political ideologies, it's in the center, and depending on the country, center-left or center-right.