So there you have it. Another question is, does it matter?
EVENTS: PodCamp Boston Coming in September!
2 years ago
February 26, 2012
Where is GDAEman?
OK, there are a couple of reasons I've not posted in so long. First is the Google login change, which I found to be a royal pain (royal in the sense that these big corporations are a throwback to times of monopolistic monarchies). The second is named Violet... it's hard to trouble-shoot stuff with a cutie in your arms. A third, and it's really no excuse, is that I've become a bit more smart-phone-oriented... if I could have gotten the damn blogger app to work, and the Google login change didn't help that, I might have been more active over the last half year.
So there you have it. Another question is, does it matter?
So there you have it. Another question is, does it matter?
November 4, 2011
Open Letter from Harvard Econ 10 Students
The following letter was sent to Greg Mankiw by the organizers of today’s Economics 10 walkout.
Wednesday November 2, 2011
Dear Professor Mankiw—
Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.
As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.
A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.
Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics. Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics 10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must take an introductory economics course—and the only other eligible class, Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics, is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to avoid this class—or the whole discipline of economics—as a method of expressing discontent.
Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.
We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.
Sincerely,
Concerned students of Economics 10
Sources:
Thanks to William Black's Blog for the lead on this.
Wednesday November 2, 2011
Dear Professor Mankiw—
Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.
As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.
A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.
Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics. Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics 10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must take an introductory economics course—and the only other eligible class, Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics, is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to avoid this class—or the whole discipline of economics—as a method of expressing discontent.
Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.
We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.
Sincerely,
Concerned students of Economics 10
Sources:
Thanks to William Black's Blog for the lead on this.
October 15, 2011
Murdoch Pattern of Misconduct
Open Letter to the Federal Communications Commission:
Dear FCC members:
Forget the political implications for a moment and envision what you'd LIKE to do to the Murdoch media syndicate.
The Occupy movement is your signal that the time has come to act on visions like that prompted above.
Paul Krugman is right, again: Pattern of Misconduct
Now it's time for the FCC to act.
Dear FCC members:
Forget the political implications for a moment and envision what you'd LIKE to do to the Murdoch media syndicate.
The Occupy movement is your signal that the time has come to act on visions like that prompted above.
Paul Krugman is right, again: Pattern of Misconduct
Now it's time for the FCC to act.
To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Julius Genachowski: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov
October 8, 2011
End Corporate Personhood
Take it from a Tennis Ball, we need to end corporate personhood. This could be a tangible demand of the #Occupy movement, that is, amend the constitution to Get Corporate Money Out of our elections.
The following 4-min video is a remake of the VlogBrothers 2007 YouTube call-to-action ala the Nerdfighters "Project for Awesome".
The following 4-min video is a remake of the VlogBrothers 2007 YouTube call-to-action ala the Nerdfighters "Project for Awesome".
September 21, 2011
September 20, 2011
Banking Establishment Ripoff Exposed in MSM
Thinking Americans know the sordid story:
Perhaps a more interesting story is that this is featured in a mainstream media article; Time Magazine, September 26, 2011, "After Three Years and Trillions of Dollars, Our Banks Still Don't Work."
I could take issue with the phrase "our banks;" yes, we should "own" them having bailed them out, but frankly, instead of we owning the banks, the banks turned the US Treasury and Federal Reserve into lending institutions for the benefit of the banks and the people reaping profits from those corporations.
But, don't let me tarnish the good news with side issues. Time Magazine deserves credit where it is due.
Since the financial crisis, Bank profits are UP 136%... But Bank lending is down 9%.
Perhaps a more interesting story is that this is featured in a mainstream media article; Time Magazine, September 26, 2011, "After Three Years and Trillions of Dollars, Our Banks Still Don't Work."
I could take issue with the phrase "our banks;" yes, we should "own" them having bailed them out, but frankly, instead of we owning the banks, the banks turned the US Treasury and Federal Reserve into lending institutions for the benefit of the banks and the people reaping profits from those corporations.
But, don't let me tarnish the good news with side issues. Time Magazine deserves credit where it is due.
September 10, 2011
"We Didn't See it Coming"
For Some reason, my comments on Paul Krugman's blog don't seem to stick. Below is my comment on his post entitled: How We Failed
The "We didn't see it coming" thing drives me crazy. My experience in seeing it [the bubble burst] coming is reflected in three clear memories.
First, The Great Unraveling by... some economist from NJ, pretty much had me change my ARM to a fixed rate mortgage a couple years before the bust.
Second, people with good jobs in my solid middle class neighborhood were saying, "If I had to buy my [modest row] house today, I couldn't afford it." I remember exactly where I was, walking my dog.
Third, it was going to by systemic: "Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFEHO," February, 2003, which lost Armamndo Falcon his job. http://www.ofheo.gov/Media/Archive/docs/reports/sysrisk.pdf
The "We didn't see it coming" thing drives me crazy. My experience in seeing it [the bubble burst] coming is reflected in three clear memories.
First, The Great Unraveling by... some economist from NJ, pretty much had me change my ARM to a fixed rate mortgage a couple years before the bust.
Second, people with good jobs in my solid middle class neighborhood were saying, "If I had to buy my [modest row] house today, I couldn't afford it." I remember exactly where I was, walking my dog.
Third, it was going to by systemic: "Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFEHO," February, 2003, which lost Armamndo Falcon his job. http://www.ofheo.gov/Media/Archive/docs/reports/sysrisk.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)