Date: 2006-Sep-28, Thursday 17:09 (UTC)
I'd definitely agree with that. I took a-level economics, later graduated with a first in industrial economics, and later still took a masters in crit. theory. When I was studying for my undergrad, everything at A-level economics suddenly looked hopelessly simplistic, neoclassical Ricardian bollocks in thrall to the mystical force of 'supply' and 'demand' and 'the free market' as if such things actually existed! So I thought I was pretty sussed. Then when i took my masters I suddenly realised that my undergrad degree was only marginally less a simplification than my A-levels. In fact that was all bollocks too.

My conclusion is thus: economics is generally bollocks regardless of the level it is taught at. Teach politics, history and continental critical theory to kids instead - all of which involve economics, but as part of a broader sweep. I think even treating 'economics' as a subject in its own right is to fall some way into the hands of those who treat the figure of 'homo economicus' as the very heart of society.
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
Mat Bowles

September 2021

S M T W T F S
   1234
567 891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 2025-Jun-09, Monday 03:43
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios