by Summary:
There’s been a fun (but silly) long-running debate on Twitter whether economists need to read canonical texts: Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Keynes, etc. What caught my eye is that a mainstream economist compared economics to mathematics — why don’t we learn calculus by studying the history of calculus? Why this is interesting is that is showed a lack of understanding of the situation in both mathematics and economics.Please note that this article is a discussion of the philosophy of teaching at the university level, so do not expect any conclusions that will help make analysing bond markets easier. That said, there is an outline of a critique of the core methodological principles of neoclassical macro.I will first start with mathematics....As an aside, having spent a good deal of time as an
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
There’s been a fun (but silly) long-running debate on Twitter whether economists need to read canonical texts: Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Keynes, etc. What caught my eye is that a mainstream economist compared economics to mathematics — why don’t we learn calculus by studying the history of calculus? Why this is interesting is that is showed a lack of understanding of the situation in both mathematics and economics.Please note that this article is a discussion of the philosophy of teaching at the university level, so do not expect any conclusions that will help make analysing bond markets easier. That said, there is an outline of a critique of the core methodological principles of neoclassical macro.I will first start with mathematics....As an aside, having spent a good deal of time as an
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Another Hayekian Triangle Not Supporting The Austrian School
Joel Eissenberg writes Access to medical care: right or privilege?
NewDealdemocrat writes Production turns more negative
Bill Haskell writes Lawler: Early Read on Existing Home Sales in October
There’s been a fun (but silly) long-running debate on Twitter whether economists need to read canonical texts: Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Keynes, etc. What caught my eye is that a mainstream economist compared economics to mathematics — why don’t we learn calculus by studying the history of calculus? Why this is interesting is that is showed a lack of understanding of the situation in both mathematics and economics.As an aside, having spent a good deal of time as an educator, I think that teaching the history of all subjects is worthwhile, both individually and as a whole in terms of major periods. This should begin in grammar school when the study of history is introduced.Please note that this article is a discussion of the philosophy of teaching at the university level, so do not expect any conclusions that will help make analysing bond markets easier. That said, there is an outline of a critique of the core methodological principles of neoclassical macro.
I will first start with mathematics....
First, it makes a subject more interesting for students being introduced to a subject. Secondly, and it also shows the important of the heritage of knowledge upon which civilization is built. Thirdly, studying the history of the development of knowledge also reveals how social reproduction through culture in contrast to individual reproduction along with other animals makes humanity exceptional. Finally, it shows how different aspects of knowledge interacted with each other historically in a single complex adaptive system to contribute to this phenomenon involving not only human development but ecology. And it does a lot more.
Bond Economics
Reading The Classics: Mathematics Vs. Economics
Brian Romanchuk
Reading The Classics: Mathematics Vs. Economics
Brian Romanchuk
http://www.bondeconomics.com/2021/10/reading-classics-mathematics-vs.html