Good for you for not swallowing the bullshit.
I try to change people every day. Do You?
Good for you, setting a brushfire!
You might want to check out The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, devoted to countering the current state of affairs by promoting principles of liberty on college campuses. This includes but is not limited to support of undergrads up against what you've experienced. http://home.isi.org/about (While preserving trad'l values, one of their six principles, might not always match a libertarian perspective, you'll see from all their resources that that is not the primary focus of the group.)
They have a great book catalogue. You might want to get yourself on their mailing list (no charge). One offering is a recommended "Core Curriculum," a guide for undergrads to assure themselves a worthy curriculum through selection of key courses w/in their major and also via electives; there is a general guide and also specific guides (about $6 each) for each discipline, including Economics: http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=c4130aec-1f9a-4b...
Unrelated to undergrads, per se, here are some general book titles re Economics: http://www.isi.org/books/titles.aspx?Sby=Subject&SFor=499e08...
Also, ISI members can avail themselves of many resources, such as these on Economics: https://home.isi.org/experience/economic-liberty
I first came across the ISI because of its wonderful guide to colleges. Every parent of teenagers here at the DP should get a copy! (I read ours cover to cover.) http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=ac1284a7-fdd5-43...
I then contacted them when I joined the tea party. I wanted to promote the college guide at our events. Also, they worked with me to recommend some core books re liberty principles and offered a discounted group rate for a reading group we were starting. They're really nice people to work with.
P.S. They also have a great on-line "civics test!"
Again, thanks for speaking up!
When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir
I love that he tried to bring up Paul Krugman, as if he were some kind of untouchable messiah of economic theory. As a professor, he survives intellectually off the prestige that title bestows, yet when confronted, his ideas simply don't hold water, just like Paul Krugman's.
Prestige is something bestowed onto somebody from those in power and should never be mistaken for respect or something worthy of respect. It's akin to celebrity.
Your opinion doesn't matter because you don't have any prestigious awards, so he (and Paul Krugman) win the debate without needing to defend their broken ideas. It's way to maintain control over people by making them feel like something less, that they can never win, that they're outmatched, yet pull back the curtain, and you'll always find the same kind of covetous self serving liars.
I distance myself from anybody handing out prestige. Respect works itself out.
... that you might consider.
If someone says, "Are you going to argue with Paul Krugman (or any other perceived authority)?" just respond that such a question is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy and not valid in a debate.
Since your prof. loves FDR, learn a little about FDR and the Democrats BEFORE he took office. When he was running for office, he was talking about REDUCING the size of government. The Democratic Party platform in 1932 was similar to the Republican Party platform today.
Here is a good article on the subject:
If your prof says that economists (or gov't or the Federal Reserve) "should" maintain unemployment at "acceptable" levels, ask if that includes rigging the employment numbers so they don't look as bad as they would if the unemployment reporting formulas were the same today as they were 20 years ago.
If your prof says that economists (or gov't or FR) "should" maintain inflation at X level, then ask him why he advocates the destruction of purchasing power for poor people.
Just keep in mind, when you take the tests, that he still has the power over your grade. Feed back what he wants to hear on the tests, while challenging him (and waking up your fellow students) in class.
BTW, I had an econ prof who was exactly like your prof. I had NO CLUE that there even WERE different economic theories, much less how to evaluate them. You are so far ahead, just remember you still have a "job" to do (get the grades).
Absolutely OUTSTANDING job standing up for principles and LEADING the discussion in what is truth vs. what is dogma. And ESPECIALLY outstanding in shutting down the person behind you who refused to think for himself.
Many of us have dealt with a mob of people who parrot the standard line, but few of us have had to do it in front of 150 people and a professor. So, congrats.
One reason that Keynesians get it wrong is that they view the economy in the aggregate, almost like a living, breathing thing. But the economy is NOT an aggregate. We use aggregate numbers to try to understand what is going on, but DECISIONS are made at the individual level, and often at the margin. So, Keynesians are constantly trying to "push on a string" and do not understand HOW they could be wrong, much less that they are wrong.
You might try the old natural disaster argument with the professor or class. Ask if a hurricane were to hit and destroy homes, there would have to be construction workers going in to clean up and rebuild. Ask: Would that disaster ultimately be a positive thing for the economy?
They are likely to say, yes. Then ask, but what about the OPPORTUNITY COST? Opportunity cost is something experienced at the individual level, not the aggregate. And it is something that is at the margin. Plus, it is literally impossible to calculate, so it does not resort into nice, academic formulas (which allows professors to write papers and books and get brownie points within their own subculture).
If insurance companies have to pay out claims for the hurricane, then premiums will rise for everyone else. If people have to pay costs such as insurance deductibles, higher premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses, then they lose the opportunity to do something else with the money, such as buy a new car, or take a vacation, or send their kids to college, or donate to charity to help the poor, or invest their money in the capital markets which would contribute to liquidity which makes it easier for companies to raise capital and employ more people.
Even if the people who have to pay for the natural disaster just wanted to use that money to pay for prostitutes, the Keynesian is hurting the livelihood of prostitutes and their needs for food, shelter, and clothing (well, maybe not clothing so much). ;-)
It is this opportunity cost that is simply IGNORED in the Keynesian model because it is not something that can be calculated in the aggregate, but it is a REAL factor within any economy.
If the professor thinks the natural disaster is a net positive to the economy, then simply ask him: Why don't you set your car on fire as a means of stimulating the economy?
That is one sexy argument, I am going to steal that!
You should make a thread, 3 questions to destroy a Keynesian.
And who in the world does that benefit and how would he like to be part of that sector?
What a stupid and rotten (mean) thing to promote. Not to mention he contradicted himself with the employment comment during WW2 (acknowledging your comment that the economy boomed) - I thought UNemployment was better for the economy?
I guess the question is better for whom?
Proud of you!
The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul
Economics is by definition "Household Management"
Micro Economics is the Management of your OWN HOUSE, your OWN AFFAIRS.
Macro Economics is the Management of Many Houses, and others Affairs.
'The Economy' is simply the sum of all the individual Economies out there. Sadly, most of The Economy is Macro, or Households managed by someone else.
Micro is Free Enterprise, Macro is Monopoly. Micro is the attempt to Predict the Economic Behavior of others in order to be able to predict the outcome of your own. Macro is the attempt to Coerce the Economic Behavior of others.
The Economy is not some singular entity. It is the combination of all of our Lives and all of our Decisions. What we see today is about 20,000 to 30,000 individuals who have monopolized just about every Resource and Household on the planet.
Are we free to make our own Household Decisions? Not a chance, because too many have been brainwashed into thinking that the Health of the Macro Economy trumps the Health of the Micro Economy. That is Nobility and Serfdom in the practical sense.
If you want to really open your mind, read Hayek. He shows clearly how to look past what is being 'said' to what is actually happening in the practical sense. Calling Serfdom a Federal Republic does not produce a Federal Republic, it produces Serfdom that is a Republic In Name Only. RINO.
"Speak up, speak often and don't worry about those that at this point can not understand as they can never un-hear what we tell them." —Ron Paul
I admire your guts!
If not for you, everyone would stay in a stupor, unaware that there is a harsh world outside of their comfort zone. You've planted a seed that I'm sure will blossom!
I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.
Mighty fine. Well played. Brace yourself for a less than stellar grade on anything other than multiple choice.
....and, it's only because everyone would rush out and buy Alien Ray Guns when the meteor hits...obviously, Krugman has missed EVERY topic of modern society---clearly those will be banned.
for a course in creative writing at the local technical college.
After listening to an hour and a half of him explaining the difference between a transigent and an intransigent verb I voiced to others on our smoke break that I thought I was wasting my time.
'Who cares' they said, 'As long as you can pass and get the credit!'
I never went back.
"Home is where it's hardest."
OMG PANDAS!!! LOCK UP THE CHILDREN!!!
Then ask him how the economy would be doing if we eliminated interest, fractional reserve banking and fiat money.
Then if that didn't shut him up, ask him how perpetual exponential growth can ever keep pace with finite, linear or even declining factors such as resources, population growth rate or energy production.
(For the record, the population growth RATE is rapidly falling and headed lower than the replacement rate. It's currently still above replacement but it will peak before 12B people and then decline uncontrollably. It's only the highest rates of the 3rd world countries that are propping up the cratering rates of the developed world.)
Good advice. And good post of yours I indeed warmly recommend to the OP.
But problem is, meaningful Math or not, on the OP's side...
... Keynesians don't care about FACTS.
Hell, we're lucky when they even do the Math properly.
For, only their wishful thinking matters to them, in whatever equations.
DAMN IT. What SORT OF "equations" could EVER explain or justify THIS, ANYWAY, from 2008 and on - everywhere:
I mean, SERIOUSLY?!
UBER-NON-DIFFERENTIABLE(**) GROSSNESS / FRAUD, if one asks me.
"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.
"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius
Don't stop debating!
Teachers are by and large funded by government, so it's in their best interest to provide the narrative that government is great. It's the same thing as the solar industry(which I work in). Everyone is a democrat. I went to a convention in florida for the industry with all the new ideas and goods coming out... Bill Clinton was the key note speaker. Everyone at the convention was a bleeding heart. I was walking behind a group of guys talking about how the oil companies are so evil and are destroying the earth and how republicans are just their lackies. While there is some truth to it, they see no problem being inculcated in the same type structure. In fact, Bill Clinton's speech was called "public private partnerships" and I posted on my facebook "listening to bill clinton give a speech on the wonders of fascism". Which I also said at the convention to my coworkers who aren't political.
Anyway, I know it's a big aside, but I wanted to point out the financial incentive they have to preach the wonders of government.
No train to Stockholm.
When I left the navy and started college. But I had a little more credence when I spoke as the classes were smaller and I was already 28 years old. Much easier to project confidence to a group who is mainly 8-10 years younger when you are bringing up terms they don't even know. Example: my poli sci teacher was clearly a marxist and he would give us this "obama is doing the best he can, the republicans are blocking this and that" and I would go on to say all the things Obama had the ability to do as the executive that he didn't, especially regarding troop movements and extraordinary rendition. When he'd bring up capitalism he would give it this "and then they think the market will solve blah" and I would go into how capitalism had done a better job in example x of increasing whatever standard of living type deal.
Keep it up, some may even end up agreeing with you and just don't know they were allowed to. I didn't convert anyone but I did put up the bulwark of forcing the professor into an argument every time he tried to insert his very obvious bias.
Later I went to a community college in the town I grew up in, Kingman AZ. I had an economics professor who was a republican glenn beck type and a history teacher who was a michael savage/thomas sowell type. Neither were libertarian but I spent the entire class trying to convert them over to free market capitalism as opposed to the "we hate democrats" ideology. I wrote about the reagan revolution, the great depression, I cited Murray Rothbard's "America's Great Depression", I used Peter Schiff's books, I spoke out in class every time another student wanted to schill for one of the two parties. I remember some older guy smugly trying to say look at the deficits under clinton then under bush, and I said out loud "yeah, but those were completely fake, debt went up every year" and then told the class to google it with the computers in front of them. My teacher, hating democrats, did it and found out I was right. So it's those little victories, and everyone hearing you bash republicans and democrats equally. It's usually the first time they ever hear the perspective of "both sides of these losers are responsible for all this garbage". Keep the narrative on economic facts and ideas, keep the partisan crap the joke it is.
It is highly likely you inspired quite a few of your classmates to think deeper even though it appeared they were all against you...at least the more intelligent, open-minded ones.
You did very well, thank you for standing. Hopefully, one or more of your classmates will ponder about it on their own and start looking and researching for themselves, away from THE LIE...
By the way, did you know you won the argument by their own COMPLETE COLLAPSE on this one:
Him "Are you willing to argue with Paul Krugman?"
(the class laughed at me)
Do you know how that's called? It's called "argument by authority".
Do you know what it's intellectually, rationally, logically worth?
NOTHING. NADA. It's SURRENDERING on the debate by trying an (arrogant) escape trick, which is, well... INDEFENSIBLE.
Argument by authority is a major INTELLECTUAL WRONG DOING, in whatever domain. Yet, your so-called "professor" seems unaware of this most essential among the basics.
Can't talk about your classmates, but I can confirm you one thing FOR SURE - just by them trying using this technique against you, in the middle of the argument, hoping nobody would notice:
liberal or not, doesn't matter - your professor is A LOSER.
the same kind of FRAUD as Mr. Krugman is.
When I was 21, I was a complete liberal, head to toe. I voted for Al Gore like my life depended on it.
Then I went to a State University to match my idealist beliefs. And then I had two professors who were self professed Marxists...
I finally woke up, and said to myself, "How in the hell can a professor of economics be in favor of Karl Marx?"
So in a very important way, I think it's a good thing to challenge students who have already made their minds up after high school and community college. They're set in there ways...
I was a, "died in the wool liberal," until my economics, and Chinese history professors enlightened me towards the path of conservatism with their own communist beliefs.
Attending a liberal college turned me into a conservative.
Never be afraid to ask simple questions.
Most of them are just empty vessels...never having experienced much in life due to their endless brown-nosing and lack of physical activity.
Way to get your feet wet. People should enter these courses particularly for such reasons.
I avoided all social science classes like the plague, when I was in school. Stick to the hard sciences, they can't make shit up nearly as badly (except for theoretical physics), since it has to be backed by experiments. Plus, you can get a useful job later.
“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
Well done! :)
In my Microeconomics class the prof was going on about the Constitution supposedly giving us the right to public education. After class I went up with my pocket Constitution and asked him to show me where it said that. He flipped through the pages looking and looking... :). Think he ended up eventually muttering something about the general welfare clause.
The Harvard Crimson to scheming conservatives: Don’t apply to Harvard
Good job man! You did better than i would have done, i think the right stuff but i get too mad when the ignorance/lies are in front of me and it overwhelems my speaking skills. You might have lit a spark in some/any of the silent people....Way to Keep the Faith....
*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"
Maybe a bit off topic debating economic theory in a history class, but that took guts and obviously the professor needed to learn about the repercussions of spreading Keynesian crap in the presence of an Austrian bull.
I pulled a similar stunt when I was in college by debating political-press theory with my journalism professor. When I stumped him on a question, he said he'd get back to me later. He never did.
which is why they resent you for being so strong and cunning in front of so many folks.
The keynesians have no idea what money is... which is why they see money as a commercial power rather than an individual protection
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford
Excuse me if you are too much of a wussy to stand up for your beliefs in front of 150 people.
I'm thinking this particular disease is quite possibly the worst killer in the history of man.
Thanks for sharing the story.
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
First of all, the professor is a professor of history, not economics, right? If so, you probably know more about economics than he does.
Don't worry about the sighs and comments from other students who sit there and say nothing. They are like the rest of the zombies doing what they are told.
Kudos for standing up. Keep educating yourself so that you are confident you know more in the area of economics than your professor.
Hardly a "Ron Paul" moment, though.
Edit: good on ya again for changing the title. That moment was all yours, congrats.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: