Why the heck does economics education shift towards the right wing

[linchan]

I remember in highschool I took an AP micro economics and macro economics and my teacher looked like a skinnier version of senator Armstrong from Metal Gear Revengence, which didn't take away from his really cheery attitude towards the subjects he's covering, dude was awesome. It was one of the best classes I took during highschool, which either says a lot about my school and myself, but I found it weird how people who took these classes were inclined to conservatism or right wing, *note I'm not really politically well knowledged so I would use these terms interchangably, sorry for the confusion* or become more "conservative" after taking it.

For example, there was an outspoken liberal kid who was part of the democratic club at the school, I think he had a leadership position there. I only know he was "liberal" because he straight up identified himself as one to the teacher before going in a debate with them. He took the same class and by the end of it he went straight A's and I swore he looked a little bit more annoyed whenever he was talking to people who are from the Democrats club I mentioned before.

Within these classes we'd had debate activities where some students were expected to do research and argue for one side. Many of the time it seemed like the "right wing" side of the arguments win when the final vote is taken, minus some debates like "Should the national debt be answered with immediate action" or "Is foreign trade a good thing or bad thing" even then arguably its not contradictive and simply bi-partisian.

Outside of that, I know someone else who described the instructor she had was a "Trump Supporter", which is a weird description because even a lot of economists heavily criticize the president.

Now enough of personal anecdotes, what is up with this? Why the hell is the left-wing so often economically illiterate, likely noticably more than the right-wing or even normies. Like every Tankie or anyone from Breadtube makes statement that makes it clear that they have no understanding of basic concepts of supply and demand. Even my sister who was a liberal arts major had no idea what "capital" actually meant, she just assumed it was just a synonym for "money". Its not like taking an economic education only says that capitalism, private ownership, or free market works and its perfect, you learn things like market failures and externalities by the first few units. And it seems like rarely is there a clear economics counter arguments that are made by people who are left-wing.

I get that a lot of economic theories are often filled with holes and exceptions, and sometimes they do no function in practice, but would that be enough to disregard economic education out the window?

Why is economic education seem to be ignored or not acknowledged by people who identify as left wing?

I understand that rightwing is sometimes straight up defined by their relationship with economics, but the question I'm asking here is about the occasional economic illitricy of the left wing, Additionally, there is plenty of left-wing economicsts, and republicans who are economically retarded and pull policies that makes no sense with it, but outside of that, there seems to be a pattern with this, at least personally. Like its not just college campus socialists exhibiting this even mildly left wing friend I have didn't understand what some economic concepts are.

This question is brought up because of my personal observation, anyone have any opposite experiences are free to share and perhaps show that it may just be my confirmation bias that I came to notice this. I always wondered why "rightwing" is always associated with economics. I apologize if a lot of the premise here sounds like I'm being incredibly ignorant and falsely assumptive.

 

[Marco Fucko]

There's plenty of liberal representation in economics, just look at the Keynesians. That being said, liberals are considered center or center right to the far leftists.

I'd venture hardcore leftists, the true believers anyway, don't understand that just because you take a horse to water doesn't necessarily mean that it will drink. The labor theory of value is completely exceptional because it begs the question "if the workers own the means of production, who organizes that". Then you get "democratic workplaces", so they're essentially voting for an administration for that specific workplace, and that begs the question of democracy in and of itself: is this person qualified or just popular? What about the people who didn't vote for them? If a democratic workplace means freedom of association and engagement, how do you avoid workers walking when their guy loses, or goes too far? These are great questions for intellectual treatises, but the minute you throw this shit into the meat grinder of reality it's going to have to radically change or fall on its face.

Then there's the alternative, which is a more bureaucratic and hierarchical approach. So to these revolutionaries, you've had your government change hands and ousted the bourgeoisie pig oppressors. Congratulations, really. What's really changed if you are still being compelled or even outright forced to become a cog in a machine? Because the boss says comrade? Because the government is allegedly going to pay your rent?

Speaking of, if every working citizen is entitled to the whole arsenal of government assistance or outright "free" things, how little is everyone's take home pay and what are your countermeasures to things like black or foreign markets?

I guess I'm being overly libtarded here, but the history of attempt at socialistic and communistic societies basically amounts to conversion into capitalist societies, military dictatorships, or failure.

 

[Reverend]

TLDR: Right wing=fiscally responsible balance your checkbook type. Left wing=Let Gov't do it for you. Personal Responsibility vs. Delegation.

I'm basing my response on the Small/Medium Business level, not Corporate Megaopoly.

Right Wing=Independent Business, Low Taxes, Self-Reliance for Work and Employees, Less Gov't Interference

Left Wing = Gov't owned business, gov't supplied funding, low interest loans/collateral for anyone regardless of business acumen, hiring everyone regardless of ability because everyone is equal, and taxing every business at levels to help fund all the above initiatives.


Left leaning folks today (SJW's and everyone to the left of Mao) want die hard socialism where everyone doesn't have to work, provides UBI, and thinks Robot's will do everything.

Right leaning folks (libertarians to Tea Party War Hawks) believe that you should only hire the best, pay the people who do the best more, and if you succeed/fail it's all your own damn fault, and the gov't can stay the hell out of their business.


The average (AVERAGE)freshmen entering college (17-19) has maybe had a part time job for a few hours, had the parents take care of their household needs, and only lived a life where they had comfort. For them, the left/progressive ideology is something they are familiar with and because they had it, everyone should have it.

Contrast this with people who are returning to college after being in the work force (30s-40s) you'll find they understand society is not free and that you have to work to earn to survive. This can also apply to those that come from rural areas where a hard work ethic is drilled into them day in and day out as if you want to eat you gotta take care of the land.


Those that work hard, earn hard, want small gov't tend to espouse financial responsibility contrast those that believe the gov't and the people should control the wealth regardless of amount of output a person performs.

 

[SmileyTimeDayCare]

Why dis economic education seem to be ignored or not acknowledged by people who identify as left wing?

Why does the education the left wing pushes(especially the further to the extreme you get) tend to focus on things that aren't practical?

In order for communism modern liberalism to be installed you have to uninstall common sense and meaningful education.

 

[Bassomatic]

I'd suggest, instead of me trying to ham fist anything in, you might want to pick up basic economics by Dr. Tom Sowell.

Economics, is a fuzzy soft science of a thing, a passion of mine (as well as educational back round and at times career). I'm more shocked hearing there was more a right bias towards it as the western world loves taking what works best to fiddle with and mist quote economists (not that keyens is innocent)

I really suggest reading the book and others more than I can/should ramble on but the reality is be it trade/buy etc we all are effected by economics and supply and demand, it's all end of the day scarcity.

I've taken an entire class on supply and demand and it still just dents the topic, while it's also something easy to sum up with a single word of "value" Idiots on the net/meatspace/media are no different in their over simple views. These are the same people who think it's simple to win a foot ball game, just throw it to the open guy, or just build that moon rocket and soon we'll be living pretty in space.

The harder leftist ideas, need to deny refuse and ignore economics because, the laws of economics are as rigid as natural laws. While supply and demand shifts, it's real just as much as gravity. We can not make people value things the same way, hence it requires force not economics to make work. So why if you are going to remove a system (and that has failed as well as sprung up black markets that live using... supply and demand) would you bother to learn it? Real leaders/professors etc learn something they dis like to debate against it better, the lost causes screaming (on any side mind you) just say it's bad so there and how it's gonna be replaced.

That all being said, I tried to keep it short since, I didn't want to self stroke too much as well as chime in with my thoughts, but if indeed you were educated about the Austrian and Chicago schools consider yourself lucky like them or not, you are being taught what many of us had to dig out on our own thru love of the field while at a very respected school.

 

[Grotesque Bushes]

Speaking of, if every working citizen is entitled to the whole arsenal of government assistance or outright "free" things, how little is everyone's take home pay and what are your countermeasures to things like black or foreign markets?

Even that's a step to far, let's address a more common problem.
In communist countries you were forced to work, there was no unemployment. That lead to loads of workers doing close to fuckall as they couldn't get fired [or they could get fired, and then would be moved to a different job] and would still get paid. Since everyone is equal, everyone gets paid the same so there's no reason to work harder than the guy next to you. Even one or two bad apples would be able to tank the productivity of the entire factory in just a couple years.
How do you address basic human nature and the problem of people wanting to work as little as necessary to get the reward?

 

[mindlessobserver]

The other problem left wing economics runs into is the idea that all people are interchangeable and have equal value. Part of enlightenment thinking is the idea that all men are created equal and the idea of equal value of labour comes from this.

Unfortunately it's not true. Some people are naturally better then others. Either being stronger, smarter, more skilled, talented, etc. This is the heart of "Learn to Code" incidentally. The left wing economic solution to coal miners losing their jobs is to simply stick them into a completely different field. All workers are interchangeable. If you can learn to go down a coal mine, by golly, you can learn to program!

Ignoring completely factors such as interest. Learning to code is akin to learning a new language. It's time consuming and for someone who doesnt want to do it, boring. Which means they wont be able to do it. And even if they did, they may not have the aptititude for it. Left Wing economics keeps running into this problem. The constant shrieking about wage differences and career choices between men and women being the biggest source of dissonance when it comes to individual choice and interest flying into the face of notions of equal outcomes for all people.

 

[byuu]

The other problem left wing economics runs into is the idea that all people are interchangeable and have equal value. Part of enlightenment thinking is the idea that all men are created equal and the idea of equal value of labour comes from this.

Don't you find that in right-wing economics too? Every economical actor is a perfect rational entity that acts solely out of enlightened self-interest.
It seems to me that every economic school uses an extremely simplified model of human behaviour.

 

[Kornheiser]

Even that's a step to far, let's address a more common problem.
In communist countries you were forced to work, there was no unemployment. That lead to loads of workers doing close to fuckall as they couldn't get fired [or they could get fired, and then would be moved to a different job] and would still get paid. Since everyone is equal, everyone gets paid the same so there's no reason to work harder than the guy next to you. Even one or two bad apples would be able to tank the productivity of the entire factory in just a couple years.
How do you address basic human nature and the problem of people wanting to work as little as necessary to get the reward?

Why did communists value work so much? Was it due to the experience of being unemployed and the rich not doing as much work?

 

[MAPK phosphatase]

Good economics considers the long-run effects on all groups. Bad economics considers only the short-run effects on one group. Modern leftism is all about rewarding one group in the short term while punishing, often knowingly and deliberately, all other groups. Being on the right allows for someone to practice good economics. It doesn't grantee it, as shown by the innumerable republicans who have utter garbage economics, but there's room for it among their other political beliefs.

 

[Bassomatic]

Why did communists value work so much? Was it due to the experience of being unemployed and rich not doing as much work?

That is both the story they sell and reality they lived esp in east europe with serfdom. These are the same people who didn't understand a boom of industry changed how this was, and think Dickens book bad guys are real people mind you. Industrialization makes a large gap in income, but grows wealth and quality of life for all. Yes it sucks kids worked in factories, but made more than those not and lived longer and better. That's the harsh reality, a 6 year old around spinning machines were better off than the kid who was born on the farm.

 

[Christ Cried]

Right wingers build nations and economies, left wingers destroy them

 

[cuddle striker]

some sciences are left biased by the facts; others are right biased. if you have a fairly broad education, you'll get both.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Don't you find that in right-wing economics too? Every economical actor is a perfect rational entity that acts solely out of enlightened self-interest.
It seems to me that every economic school uses an extremely simplified model of human behaviour.

Sure, but this a breakdown at the micro economic level. On average at the macro level trends follow that way. It may not predict everyone's behavior individually, but it does okay on the aggregate. Left wing economics is the exact inverse of this. At the micro level an individual would benefit a great deal from things like free education, food and shelter, and would happily say so to the cameras. But at the macro level such individual outcomes breakdown.

The key difference though is a failure of micro economics leads to shitty outcomes for a few people while a failure of macro economics leads to a shitty outcome for everyone.

 

[Reverend]

Why did communists value work so much? Was it due to the experience of being unemployed and the rich not doing as much work?

Because Communists value the output of things. The more widgits come out of the factory the better their metrics and results were the more likely they are to move up in the system. Communism is based on productivity of a thing because money is irrelevant as the worker has food, lodging, vodka, and a pig to fuck (NAME THAT MOVIE!) . Why does a worker need a piece of paper to acquire assets when the state provides all the assets for them?

 

[Harvey Danger]

Because Communists value the output of things. The more widgits come out of the factory the better their metrics and results were the more likely they are to move up in the system. Communism is based on productivity of a thing because money is irrelevant as the worker has food, lodging, vodka, and a pig to fuck (NAME THAT MOVIE!) . Why does a worker need a piece of paper to acquire assets when the state provides all the assets for them?

Work is taking resources, applying labor to them, and producing something of higher value. If you own the resources and provide the labor, you should reap the increased value as wealth. Money isn't necessary in any of these steps, but it makes them way more efficient.

Under capitalism, someone else may own the resources, which are called "capital". A factory owner owns the machinery; a landlord owns the land that grows the crops; etc. A "worker" can provide his labor and produce value, but the capital owner reaps part of the wealth too. Arguably, this is unworkable without having money as the common unit of measuring wealth.

Here is where the temptation to bleat about "balance between rewarding labor vs capital" comes in, but TL;DR there's no conceptual balance, and no way to calculate an optimum for the ratios. You can summarize the entirety of political economics as a running argument over what the equation of the two should look like.

So capitalism, as an ideology, is basically the claim that the "invisible hand" of the market should determine what the reward balance should be.

Proper Communism thinks that money, and capital generally, is a way of siphoning off an unfair portion of the resulting wealth away from the worker. In theory you could eliminate capital lending/renting and communally hold all the resources; in practice, that results in famine, poverty, and death.

Which brings us, finally, to the labor theory of value. It's straight up romanticism. It feels good to say the worker puts more of himself into a product than the absent landlord who inherited his capital. It may even be true. But economically, it's a moot point. The worker's labor is valuable in proportion to how scarce labor is, but capital's value is also in proportion to its scarcity. Marxism conveniently ignores the way capital is created, because that torpedoes the whole scam.

(Revolutionary Communism adds the twist of "seizing the means of production" from the people who already have it. But that's a political mechanism, not an economic one. You can get away with that exactly once, and then you have the same problems as above.)

TL;DR The entirety of lefty economics is an attempt to justify forcibly allocating wealth distribution according to empathy, not economics. That's popular for the people who prefer empathy. It's not popular with the people charged with making real world economic decisions... including those lefties who wind up running their own business.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The short answer is reality

 

[Drunk and Pour]

The more left you go, the more you get into Marxist/Communists territory and they are less concerned with how and why wealth is generated, and more with people with wealth got it at the expense and oppression of others, therefore it's justified to take their wealth away.

 

[Billy "the Bot" Bobson]

Economics at even the most advanced level is merely an abstract grammar. It's completely useless without understanding governance, politics, society, culture, and history (a good understanding of statistics and finance is also really helpful, though the statistical aspect of economics is derived more from the financial aspects and not actually the principles). You're getting the underlying rules without the actual understanding of how it breaks, bends, and burns in the hands of the men who created it. Just like a language is both created and uncreated, so too are the rules of economics (see: Stagflation).

At its core, Economics is just the statistics department of the social sciences.