Should I take economics in university?

[RFan]

 

I am going to university soon and I am unsure if I should take economics because they will most likely teach keynesian economics. I really enjoy learning about economics I am not sure if it will be worth taking in university though? I don't know what I want to do career wise. I am hoping that I can figure it out through univerity. I also got accepted to psychology and I am torn between the two. 

I'd love to hear some thoughts about if taking economics in university is a good idea or will be enjoyable.

 

[Existing Alternatives]

You should absolutely take economics in school. Especially, if you are not planning on pursuing an economics-related major (i.e. business). I would not worry too much about Keynesian side of things because, on one hand, it is not likely to be taught on the intro level, on the other, if it is, you will learn enough of it to debunk some of its misconceptions. Keep in mind that Keynesian is just one of the many schools of economics, along with Classical, Austrian, Chicago, Marxist and many others. They all are based on the same foundations and frameworks. Personally, I think, those frameworks will allow you to improve your ability to think critically and rationally.

Although, I would not recommend majoring in it. You will indeed end up having to prove that the state knows better how to manage your money for the next four years. And after that, there are no clear career paths. True, some economists (usually the very brightest ones) end up making a killing working for hedge funds or governments, but the rest get a career in business. At which point, you might as well study business.

Don’t fret, most people change majors through school and end up working for yet something else. For the first two years take anything you feel you have a heart for.

[RFan]

Thanks you for the advice I think you are right, I'll take it and see if I like it. Maybe I will take some business classes too so I can see which one I would enjoy more when deciding on the major. I have already experienced some of the statist influence in my highschool business classes and I am just afraid that statism will ruin any fun I'll have learning.

[Existing Alternatives]

There is no avoiding statism completely. You need a degree to get (most) jobs. You need to take certain courses to get that degree. Any government-funded institution (and most of them are, even the private ones) will ensure that you get enough indoctrination. Your only hope is to be cognizant of this and separate gems from garbage. Good luck!

[kospe]

Here's a link of some of the most free-market/Austrian leaning universities in the US, although for all I know you might be from Canada: http://www.superscholar.org/rankings/economics/top-austrian-free-market-programs/

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

 Keep in mind that Keynesian is just one of the many schools of economics, along with Classical, Austrian, Chicago, Marxist and many others.

 

Really! Just one of many. I guess the truth is just one of many interpretations.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Be very, very careful of the "advice" you accept from a forum.

 

If you wish to know if you're ready to study economics: READ SOME ECONOMICS!

 

If you can see yourself getting mired in the Keynesian lie (line), you may wish to read this:

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/conservatives-are-mostly-not-libertarians/?_r=0

 

"And even the hatred for Keynesian economics has less, I think, to do with the notion that unemployment isn’t a proper subject of policy than about the notion of shifting power over the economy’s destiny away from big business and toward elected officials."

 

What this pundit is saying is that the State should control the economy. And he's been saying it for decades. (Don't take my word for it, look him up: Paul Krugman.)

 

State control of the economy =  communism (socialism) = end of discussion.

 

On the other hand, if you read Mises and Rothbard, you will find yourself in permanent confrontation with the socialist professors in nearly all Universities.

 

The third option is to study the material yourself.

 

I'd surely like to see the outcome of a job applicant who "truly" understands reality vs. an applicant who's been indoctrinated by socialists.

[Pepin]

To my knowledge and sampling of some online economic classes, the beginning courses tend be about what everyone agrees with, which are the principals of microeconomics. It seems like it takes a little while for them to get into the modern economic models, a large reasoning being that: they build upon the foundation of economics, they are much harder to understand theoretically, the mathematics involved are quite complex.

[ThomasDoubts]

As far as I know micro/macro are almost universally the two intro economics courses. Microeconomics is normally quite good, and ought to be taken by everyone. You get the basics on how individuals/firms/agents behave in markets, supply & demand, how prices are determined, etc.

 

 

 

On the other hand, Macroeconomics seemed to me like a total waste of time, with the exception that it was a required course. To condense a semester into one idea, macroeconomics taught me that with an understanding of basic algebra and a 5 data points, I could control the universe. Of course, if you're the type that takes pleasure in agitating professors, macroeconomics would be the place to do it.

 

 

 

Someone mentioned the mathmatics becoming quite complex: that was not my experience. I never saw anything beyond dressed up algebra. You'll get bits and pieces of basic calculus in finance but I never saw much of it in Economics. Which brings me to another point: I would suggest an introductory finance course for everyone. Time value of money is everywhere in your everyday life and you ought to learn to appreciate it and be able to do the calculations. Any credit/debt instruments (mortgages, credit cards, loans, bonds, etc.) are priced most primarily on time value of money and default risk. For any entrepreneur it's vital to understand Internal Rates of Return, Cash Flows, and a half dozen other things you'll learn in an intro finance course.

 

 

 

Best of Luck

[Existing Alternatives]

Really! Just one of many. I guess the truth is just one of many interpretations.

 

Are we still talking about economics? I mean the social science that attempts to explain productive relationships among people and other agents in a society. If so, it does indeed consist of a number of various and often contradicting schools of thought, with none even pretending to claim being the only true explanation. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but even Mises and Rothbard can only present yet another theory that may or may not be a plausible reflection of truth.

[tasmlab]

Absolutely study economics!  It's wonderful.

 

Classes are only one way to learn something, and for me, usually the most ineffective.

 

There are so many books out there.  Pick some up.

 

Peter Schiff's "How an economy grows and why it crashes" is a delight.  It takes about two hours to read and is fun.  Schiff's radio show is good too for analysis of current events. I actually found FDR through Stef guest hosting.

 

Stef's podcasts on economics are good too.

 

The second book I would read would be either Rothbard's "What has government done to our money" or Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson", and then the fourth might be Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".

 

Amazon sells used books for pennies and a couple of those listed can be downloaded for free.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@Existing Alternatives: Please don't take offense. I was being, slightly, sarcastic. The difference I see in the two major schools of thought is that Keynesians tend to claim absolute knowledge, while Austrians are humble enough to know that human decisions are not quantifiable in a mathematical function. The fallacies of Keynesian theory have been deconstructed to the point that anyone still adhering to them can claim one, and only one, title: COMPLETE MORON!

 

As to a reading list. I would suggest "Human Action", by Ludwig von Mises, and "Man, Economy, and the State", by Murray Rothbard. These volumes will not teach you today's version of economics, they will teach you the TRUTH. You can go from there.

 

Both are available for FREE at mises.org in a variety of formats.

 

Understand, if one were to take up a study of economics in today's University environment, one would be expected to adhere to the Keynesian POV.

 

If one were a free-market sort of person, one would find themselves advocating ideas that are complete contradictions to reality. (See prior post concerning Krugman.)

[Josh F]

 

I am going to university soon and I am unsure if I should take economics because they will most likely teach keynesian economics. I really enjoy learning about economics I am not sure if it will be worth taking in university though? I don't know what I want to do career wise. I am hoping that I can figure it out through univerity. I also got accepted to psychology and I am torn between the two. 

I'd love to hear some thoughts about if taking economics in university is a good idea or will be enjoyable.

 

It is fun, but Keynesianism will be the least of your problem, its mostly just straight up socialists.  Expect a few to hold your view against you and lower your grade.

[Existing Alternatives]

@Existing Alternatives: Please don't take offense. I was being, slightly, sarcastic. The difference I see in the two major schools of thought is that Keynesians tend to claim absolute knowledge, while Austrians are humble enough to know that human decisions are not quantifiable in a mathematical function. The fallacies of Keynesian theory have been deconstructed to the point that anyone still adhering to them can claim one, and only one, title: COMPLETE MORON!

 

As to a reading list. I would suggest "Human Action", by Ludwig von Mises, and "Man, Economy, and the State", by Murray Rothbard. These volumes will not teach you today's version of economics, they will teach you the TRUTH. You can go from there.

 

Fair enough. Offense withdrawn.

 

You are probably right. Having studied economics for quite a long time in the ivory towers of academia, I have never heard of the Austrian school. I came to it only by means of my political exploration. So the bias is definitely there. At the same time, Chicago school (Friedman, Hayek, et al), which in my view is well aligned with Austrian does get quite a spotlight.

 

In defense of Keynes (yes, I just said that), he was a pretty clever man, despite some strange ideas. He himself admitted that his theories (and he had a number of them, often times contradictory to each other) were just that and were subject to rebuke. The fact that statists latched on to it is entirely different story. Sort of like socialists latched on to Marxism.

 

My point here is that it does not hurt to study all of them, at least just to understand what statists are talking about. Although there is no way of ensuring that one discovers TRUTH at the end of this journey. All we can say that Austrians are probably right.

[tasmlab]

I don't think I would recommend "Human Action" as a starting point.  I've had it on my bedside table for about two years and am about half way through it.  Slogging through the first 100 pages on defining praxeology was a bit of a chore.  There is great stuff in it, but I'm not sure it's going to light a passionate fire for the subject as the first book read.  (Personal opinion)

 

I am hoping to read "Man, Economy and State" and I'm assuming that Rothbard will be a bit more fluid in his writing.

[Guest darkskyabove]

I am hoping to read "Man, Economy and State" and I'm assuming that Rothbard will be a bit more fluid in his writing.

 

Just finishing up "Man, Economy, and State". Rothbard's treatment is full of "common sense", and limits the jargon and mathematical complexity so often used in this field. My one quibble is that, for me, the material is somewhat dated. I have been exposed to most of his ideas, in one form or another, through other reading. I think I read it to remain true to the "source". For someone unfamiliar with economics it might be a great place to start.

 

My point here is that it does not hurt to study all of them, at least just to understand what statists are talking about.

 

Excellent point. There is the experimental feature of knowledge. It is possible to learn good stuff by reading authors who promote bad stuff and recognizing the errors. Success rarely occurs on the first attempt; failure helps drive innovation.