Required economics classes?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By that reasoning, we shouldn't teach them anything because some of those will be taught by liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberalism doesn't affect math and English as much as other disciplines. Economics is subject to easy distortion that will produce people who think they know what they are talking about but don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]

No, no, no. Typical misconception. The point of applying economics to decisions is to add understanding to why others act as they do and how they will react to you actions; thus making more +EV-plays so to say. You don't have to study economics to realize that you prefer taco to chicken .


P.S. Hope you weren't sarcastic as my detector is constantly off .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if we are speaking past each other here or not! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

My point was simply that economic theory would not predict a substantial increase in the efficiency of an economy associated with teaching people economics. But there still might be many reasons why it would be useful to study economics for people.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I have been conducting quite a few business negotiations, and I think the chapters about Pareto-optimality made me a much better negotiator than an average person. When you have a counterpart that also understands the same, reaching an agreement is much easier than between two people who don't understand this principle (both waste time trying to "win" the negotiations, which is basically impossible).

This reduces transaction cost and thus indirectly increase GDP.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]

I have been conducting quite a few business negotiations, and I think the chapters about Pareto-optimality made me a much better negotiator than an average person. When you have a counterpart that also understands the same, reaching an agreement is much easier than between two people who don't understand this principle (both waste time trying to "win" the negotiations, which is basically impossible).

This reduces transaction cost and thus indirectly increase GDP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you! I'm just saying that basic economic theory does not allow much room for these considerations in assessing the efficiency of economies. Assumptions about rational behavior are specified a priori and those, along with payoffs/utility functions, generally drive the strategic course taken. Economics does not generally allow much room for people to be idiots, or for people to be more consumed with "winning" than maximizing their payoffs. These are important criticisms because, as you rightly note, many people indeed are idiots or prioritize winning over maximizing payoffs.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

What I think is right, is not to view Economics as the universal subject explaining human behaviour (as many economists do), but just view Economics as a sub-subject of Psychology.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]

But people are naturally strategic actors looking to rationally optimize single-peaked utility functions, so giving them knowledge is not going to improve their decision-making capabilities.

Or at least that's what economic theory would say.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just wondering, what are your qualifications for commenting on the qualifications of the nation's economics teachers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal and professional experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on.

[lehighguy]

I'd like to require basic logic classes. Once people understand logic all of the specific subjects will fall into place.

However, I wonder if some people are inherintely logical to begin with.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
Econ was a requirement for graduation at the highschools in my school district....I kind of assumed it was a widespread policy, is it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was required in my high school, as well as my sister's. Same city, but different districts with different central currcicula.