Rethinking Economics Is Really Economics Denial

Not in the river in Egypt sense.

So, this Rethinking Economics thing. You know, the student led mission to change what economics is taught, how it is taught, in order to make it all more relevant and so on. Given that financial markets crashed this is obviously relevant, right?

The core point being this:

Particularly notable are the low levels of teaching of non-mainstream economics in mandatory modules. Only SOAS and University of Greenwich devoting significant time to the teaching of ecological economics in mandatory modules. 60% of universities (12) do not introduce students to economic theory outside of the neoclassical paradigm (such as ecological economics, marxist economics, feminist economics, post-Keynesian economics) in mandatory modules.

Now, for something sparked by that financial crash I take this complaint to be relevatory. Because that financial crash is well explained - wholly explained - by standard neoclassical economics. Even the post-Keynesians have nothing interesting to say about that little hiccup and the marxists, feminazis and ecologists absolutely nothing at all.

That is, of course, just me being my usual rude and dismissive self. Perhaps. But:

Recent atrocities in Gaza have provided a timely reminder of the ability of such pedagogies within economics to actively reproduce violent, colonial modes of operation- an idea equally applicable to the continued and disproportionate destruction brought about by climate change. In light of this, over the past year, we have questioned our universities’ claims of ‘academic neutrality’, whereby ‘neutrality’ appears to serve merely as a justification for sticking to the status quo.

A truly critical education should breed a generation of disobedient learners who are sufficiently equipped to challenge the status quo and think beyond the rigid pedagogies of the past. This should involve the unlearning of colonial logics, and transcending the positivistic illusions that attempt to take economics outside of history. For our planet, and the majority of its inhabitants, these efforts are not mere theoretical play, but a matter of survival.

Sammi Dé, Global Development BSc, University of Manchester

The only way for economics to look forward is to systematically change how curriculums are designed, and which ideas are considered important. Sustainability needs to be embedded across the curriculum, instead of being presented as an optional class, because we cannot opt-out of the climate crisis.

Economists need to take a broad view of sustainability, not limited to carbon emissions and market-based solutions, and include issues like planetary boundaries and global climate justice.

The way to create a truly forward-looking economics is integrating student voices, treating us as partners instead of receivers in education.

Shloka Murarka, Economics BSc, SOAS

Yes, you’re right. Rethinking Economics is being driven by the desires of fuckwits. Not for the first time in history the home of at least some of those is SOAS. For those who don’t know SOAS is, to the rest of London University, somewhat akin to Patrice Lumumba U was in relation to the rest of the Soviet education system. An ideology factory for foreign duskies rather than an actual institution of education.

Rude, dismissive, from an LSE graduate. Obviously.

But there’s something real going on in the background here.

As it happens most economists are really rather lefty. I am not an economist, merely someone who writes about matters economic, but I am gargantuanly a leftie. Most economists would like the poor to be richer. I absolutely insist that that’s the very point of our having a civilisation even, let alone an economy. So, Lefties R Us and all that.

But, economists also suggest that the way to make the poor richer is all that markets and prices and capitalist competition and all the stuff that makes ignorant lefties vomit in disgust. Like, y’know, that’s expropriation!

To which the correct answer is who gives a shit? No, really. The capitalists take perhaps 10% of everything. Circa, about, roughly, the capital share is 20% or so, half of that is the depreciation that has to be paid in any economic system whatsoever. The capitalists walk away with one loaf in ten of the bread baked.

OK. Here’s a list of countries by GDP per capita at PPP. Not an exact measure and all that but a really pretty damn good guide to how well off the people of those varied places are. Sure, sure, argue with me but the first one I can see on that list that isn’t some form of capitalist free marketry is Belarus at number 61. The ones that are really, wholly, not capitalist are down at 113 - Cuba. On a list of mebbe 180, 190.

Which is why all us good lefties support a generally free market and capitalist society. That’s what makes the poor rich. Even if there’s expropriation, inequality even, that’s still what makes the poor rich. Applying a good hefty dose of that neoclassical economics to the population makes those poor rich. Huzzah! Job done, trebles all ‘round etc.

But this causes headsasplodey among the committed - some would say ignorant - and ideological left. It is the exploitation, the expropriation, the inequality, that must be fought. Even, among the more retardedly unthinking, the very ideas of markets, prices or even personal property that must be organised and struggled against.

Therefore if we’ve a science that says here, do this stuff to make the poor rich but that make the poor rich stuff isn’t the policy set desired, well, whaddareyagonnado?

Mainstream neoclassical economics dominates the economic theories taught. Of the 480 theory modules we graded, 88.3% of them included mainstream neoclassical economic thinking focusing on rational, self-interested individuals. They are almost entirely taught through quantitative technical skills.

Well, you’re going to demand that no one teach the effective economics that makes the poor rich. Far more important that what is taught is ideologically pure than that anything effective is taught. Obviously.

Which is also the explanation for SOAS of course.

These fuckwits are demanding that physics courses stop teaching Newton because apples drop out of their mutual love for Gaia.

Sigh.

And now for the true proof they’re all fuckwits. So, the aim of going to university is to gain more education. To be taught more things about how the world works, even, how we might make the world a better place. That desire to make the poor richer - works for me. So these children signing up - paying £30,000 even - to do this, demanding to be taught more about how the world works, how we might make the poor richer, are whining bitterly about being taught how to make the poor richer because the methods that are effective do not accord with their prior prejudices.

Fuckwits or what? What in buggery are you doing at a university if you’re not there to learn? But the demand is that what the university teaches must change rather than teenage Trotdom be disproven.

Tempora, fugaces, eheu etc etc. How did we end up with a generation insistent they must not be educated? “We don’t need no education” was a fun song but near adults insisting upon it? Whut?