Teach­ing Eco­nom­ics After the Crash

Flattr this!

The Guardian’s senior eco­nom­ics com­men­ta­tor Aditya Chakrabortty has pro­duced an excel­lent BBC Radio 4 pro­gram on the fail­ure of aca­d­e­mic eco­nom­ics to reform itself after the Crash of 2007: Teach­ing Eco­nom­ics After the Crash. The first inter­view is with Kingston University’s own Devrim Yil­maz. It also includes me, George Soros, Andy Hal­dane, Ha-Joon Chang, the stu­dents who began the Post Crash Eco­nom­ics Soci­ety at Man­ches­ter Uni­ver­sity, Diane Coyle (who played a large role in devel­op­ing the CORE cur­ricu­lum, of which I’m very crit­i­cal), Philip Mirowski (who describes CORE as “lip­stick on a pig”), Rob John­son of INET, and many more. It’s well worth a lis­ten (it opens with about 20 sec­onds of a promo for a later pro­gram on a par­a­lympian):

Teach­ing Eco­nom­ics After the Crash

Keep Rus­sell Stan­dish on the Min­sky Project

Other Amount:

Your Email Address (and com­ment if you wish to add one) :

I also gave a talk to stu­dents at the Free Uni­ver­sity of Berlin yes­ter­day, which cov­ered three top­ics: the fail­ure of Neo­clas­si­cal eco­nomic the­ory to derive a down­ward-slop­ing mar­ket demand curve from its the­ory of indi­vid­ual ratio­nal­ity; the math­e­mat­i­cal fal­lac­ies in the the­ory of “per­fect com­pe­ti­tion”, and the impor­tance of includ­ing banks, debt and money in macro­eco­nom­ics. You can watch it below.

About Steve Keen

I am Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University London, and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous private debts accumulated globally, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.
  • Pingback: Teaching Economics After the Crash | The Money ...()

  • TruthIs­ThereIs­NoTruth

    Stu­dents by def­i­n­i­tion have a nat­ural desire to under­stand how things work. The spon­ta­neous stu­dent drive to change eco­nom­ics think­ing is amaz­ing an inevitable. It does how­ever leave them in a vul­ner­a­ble recep­tive posi­tion.

    I hope, I really hope, with the most deserved respect, that this does not get taken advan­tage of. From what I’ve seen on this web­site there is some inroad into under­stand­ing bank­ing. But it is done from an out­dated anti bank­ing per­spec­tive. From an aca­d­e­mic ‘seek the truth’ per­spec­tive this is an excuse to dis­miss the opin­ion of peo­ple from the indus­try to prop­a­gate your own ver­sion of ‘how bank­ing works’.

    So far from what I’ve seen we are replac­ing ignor­ing the role of bank­ing with a ver­sion of bank­ing with enough truth in it to make it plau­si­ble, but not grounded in real­ity. It is an incred­i­ble sci­en­tific miss to be the­o­ris­ing on a sub­ject with­out study­ing the details. Sci­ence is about details, not slo­gan­is­tic the­o­ries!