Re: Samuelson and 'dumbed down' economics

Andrew W. Bacdayan (bacdayan@ALPHA.NSULA.EDU)
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:08:22 -0500

Kudos to Professors Ransom, Nair and many others out there who feel the
same way. What has always distressed me in more than 20 years of teaching
from dumbed down versions of the dumbed down Samuelson economics is the
fact that we spend a whole term talking about scarcity in microeconomics
and spend another term in macroeconomics talking about fiscal and monetary
policy as if the economic problem never really existed. Is it any wonder
most college graduates who after going through a sequence of contradictory
courses will tell you what they most remember about their college economics
is it never made any sense? Is it any wonder that we end up basing public
policy on the Phillips curve which, according to "dumbed" down economists,
is a choice between compassion (low unemployment) and non compassion (high
inflation)?

----------
> From: GBRansom@aol.com
> To: tch-econ@lumen.elon.edu
> Subject: Samuelson and 'dumbed down' economics
> Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 7:48 PM
>
> Samuelson's _Economics_ was the original dumbing
> down of economics. As Samuelson himself reports, it was
> designed originally to be entertaining and attract to
> freshmen interested in careers as engineers. Samuelson
> supplied the perfect economics for these engineering
> wannabees. The error concerning socialism and comparative
> economic systems was an intellectual error that comes
> naturally to the Samuelson approach to 'doing economics' as
> a 'tool' construction game .. and engineering project of tool
> making. In the process of making 'tools' on the engineering model,
> Samuelson successfully transformed economics from a
> successful explanatory enterprise which provided plausible
> contingent causal explanations into a engineer's game of cartoon
> mathematics and cartoon 'models' -- most of which are
> incoherent from the point of view of humans and the market process ..
> as well as inconsist with one another in important
> ways. (Recall Lucas's famous remark about the incompatibility of
> what economists teach on M, W, F in micro with what they
> teach in macro on T, Th). At the L.S.E. in the 1930's the principle
> textbook used for introducing students to economics was
> Frank Knight's _Rish, Uncertainty, and Profit_. A generation of
> great economists came out of the L.S.E. during this period.
> In the period since Samuelson, economics has triumphed as a formal
> engineering technology, but not as an explantory science. Indeed,
> in many ways, contemporary economics is not even as logically sound
> as it was in the age of Knight.
>
>
> Greg Ransom
> Dept. of Philosophy
> UC-Riverside
> gbransom@aol.com
> http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm
>
>
> In a message dated 97-10-10 15:42:33 EDT, you write:
>
> << Reading Rik's comment about dumbing down economics I was asking
myself:
> so,
> what else is new? I have used several editions of Samuelson's Economics.
In
> the thirteenth edition there is a claim that the book is "authoritative,
> comprehensive, and clear." Since
> Nordhaus joined Samuelson, I note considerable dumbing down of the
world's
> greatest text book in economics. In the Chronicle of Higher Education
> (October 10, 97), Samuelson is quoted: "There always were rumors that a
> little old lady in white sneakers really wrote my book." I suspect that,
of
> late, it is a little old lady in white sneakers who has been writing the
> book.The pity is that Samuelson
> is not even aware of it. I have used several other text books. In 1995
when
> the fifteenth edition came out, I thought: Why not, again,
> go for the real thing? I did adopt the book. But when I read it in the
> summer of 1995 I was disgusted. It has not only been dumbed down
> but there are gross errors in it. A couple of the gems hidden in its
> pages:" Tiny Hong Kong, with a land area one-millionth that of
> resource-rich Russia..." That would make Russia's area about 400 million
> square miles,more than twice the surface area of the entire earth. This
is
> what professors in many countries where the book is available in
> translation (46 languages) will be teaching economics
> students. (See page 532, column 1.) Then again on page 715: "Some
> economists claimed that socialism could not work. The Soviet
> experience proved them wrong." THIS, IN A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1995! But
then
> turn back to page 263. "By the end of the 1980s,
> socialist Eastern Europe and the Soviet empire were in ruins..." Did the
> same author write this book? On page 370: "The slope of the
> line is -45 degrees." I was thinking: Why pick on poor Mankiw for
dumbing
> down economics lessons?
> I paintakingly collected all such rare wisdom in the fifteenth edition
of
> Samuelson and Nordhaus and sent it to McGraw-Hill's
> economics editor. When I did not hear from her I called. I was assured
that
> my comments would be passed on to the authors.I called
> many months later. It was still sitting in the editor's office.
>
>
>
>
> Ravi Nair
> Professor of Economics
> Box 80
> West Virginia Wesleyan College
> Buckhannon, WV 26201
>
> nair@wvwc.edu
> (304)473-7780
> >>