• SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I don’t remember them saying that specifically. But we did spend a lot of time on supply and demand curves which heavily implies that.

      To be fair to my econ101 class for a moment when I took that class it was during the Obama years and that was a bit before progressivism made the come back it has now. A lot of people were still Fukuyamaists.

      I think economics is a pretty complicated subject that is deeply intersecting with ideology. It maybe impossible fully to disentangle how the economy works with how it should work. To expect kids just out of high school to critically examine all the nuances of a field beyond the assumptions they grew up with, while simultaneously learning the basics of that field is a pretty tall order. And if the experts at the time are moving away from that way of thinking anyway, why bother?

      Of course in retrospect they probably should have bothered. But that’s just how the flow of history has to work I guess.

      Edit: There’s some nuance and detail I could probably add to that conclusion. But I’m running out of steam for tonight.

      • eskimofry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        My problem with economics is that it takes economic theory and tries to prescribe it to reality… rather than explain the reality of it. It is also quite vague about what happens when institutions that deliberately meddle with fundamental assumptions like that of a free market… like Multimillion dollar MNCs that manipulate governments and essentially are policy makers who shape the market itself.

        Does economic theory hold good when the free market ceases to exist as described by it?