Home > The Economics Profession, The Economy > Miscellaneous #1: Public debate; James Galbraith; etc.

Miscellaneous #1: Public debate; James Galbraith; etc.

London School of Economics Public Debate

What kind of economics should we teach?

Date: Wednesday 20 January 2010 
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue:  Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building
Speakers: Professor Geoffrey Hodgson, Professor Albert Marcet, Paul Ormerod, Professor John Sutton   
Chair: Professor Tim Besley

The recent global crisis has lead to questions being asked about whether the kind of economics being taught to students in leading economics departments was responsible for the widespread failure to predict the timing and magnitude of the events that unfolded in 2008.  Critiques range from an absence of historical context in mainstream teaching of economics to excessive reliance on mathematical models.  This panel brings together four leading economists to debate this issue and to discuss what changes in the economics curriculum and the way that it is delivered are desirable.  

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis.


Must Read

Who Are These Economists, Anyway?
by James K. Galbraith
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/TA09EconomistGalbraith.pdf

Reads

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Paradox%20of%20declining%20female%20happiness.pdf

Health care debacle
http://anticap.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/health-care-debacle/

Measuring Progress
http://postgrowth.org/measuring-progress/

‘Unperson’ Economists
http://openeconomicsnd.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/unperson-economists/

More on freshwater economics
http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/tax/2010/01/more-on-freshwater-economics.html

About these ads
  1. Peter Radford
    January 9, 2010 at 4:15 am | #1

    Economics is absolutely culpable. The export of theory as technology seems attractive to economics professors because it is an affirmation of their work. What they forget is that transfer entails a moral association with the end result of the theory. They cannot simply divorce themselves from the consequences of the application, in the real world, of their thinking. If EMH leads to wildly inaccurate risk management models in our banks, whose fault is it that the banks implode? The quants, or the professors who taught them? I say the professors. We should follow the line of reasoning back to its source and lay the blame fully there. Professors who teach theories that lead to disaster should either learn and change, or stop teaching. If you argue your science is a reflection of the real world then accept the consequences. People might be taking you at face value.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,284 other followers