In my microeconomics class, we've just started in on the Ten Principles of Economics. I was surprised because, for the first few principles at least, I really felt like my textbook was holding up Capitalistic economic standards. This being a college economics textbook, and my teacher being a Krugman fan, I was all ready for a blatant liberal bias. I was surprised then, because we talked about how people respond to incentives. How if the government focuses on 'equal pieces of the pie for everyone', the economy slows down because people don't have positive incentives to work anymore. We talked about equality versus efficiency, and which is better for the economy. The first economist we learned about was Adam Smith. Adam Smith, the rocking Scottish father of modern Capitalism! The only logical conclusion to be drawn out of that discussion seemed very clear to me! That is that focusing on equality is not as good for the economy as focusing on efficiency is. And isn't that one of the basic standards of Capitalism? Of course the principles we covered were general, and it was only the second day of class, so I am still expecting things to go downhill from here. I wouldn't be surprised if my professor's definition of Capitalism is very skewed. So I will definitely be keeping a record of what I am learning from here on out. Things should get interesting quickly, considering the current economic state of the country and the fact that my professor likes to discuss that type of thing.
Also. Two of my professors (including Mr. Microeconomics) have already clarified that they are NOT 'tea party people', and it's only the fourth day of class this semester. Is it really necessary for them to announce that? I really couldn't care less either way. It does say something about how influential that particular movement has become, however. Or maybe it's just saying that college professors are super weird. Maybe it's both. Something to think about!
No comments:
Post a Comment