by the time i got to the end, i had a mild headache. and it didn't tell me what i was. i got 45/100. since austrian = 4, chicago = 2, keynesian = 1, and socialist = 0 and there were 25 questions on the quiz, 45/25 is a little less than 2... so i'm somewhere between keynesian and chicago, closer to chicago.
and i still don't know what "chicago" means, except that it is a town in illinois and it is the name of a movie that won some oscars. i just kind of picked the answers that seemed to fit with the voices in my head when i think about economics, fully knowing that i don't know shit. i certainly didn't learn anything in ec 10 - did either of you? i didn't think so.
it's too bad that there wasn't a choice E in any of the questions - i would have picked E most of the time. please see below:
E. like, i don't know, dude. and i don't think economists know either. economists are like weathermen -- always trying to make sense out of a chaotic system of infinite variables. they try to sound smart, but they're usually wrong, or at least off. and when one is right, once - it's like he's "pope awesome the I" instead of someone who got lucky that one time in the right set of circumstances.
all i know is that most of the "austrian" answers seemed to be written in an overly positive tone (that implied an underlying break from reality), and every single "socialist" answer was written in a shrill and negative tone. gee, i wonder if the people who wrote this came from the "austrian" school - oh yeah, of course.
so, what i've learned from this little exercise is that the austrian school of economics think the socialists are morons.
sorry, i'm ignorant. sue me.
6 comments:
yep you guessed it. i mean, this quiz was designed by the von mises institute after all, so the language and tone was horribly biased.
i got a 29/100.
and yes, it was too fucking long.
i didn't take ec 10 by the way. classes with a thousand students really turned me off.
oh they were great. i slept on the balcony during lectures. no one noticed.
the professor was really famous. i forgot his name. a great student i was. :)
i don't think economists know either. economists are like weathermen -- always trying to make sense out of a chaotic system of infinite variables. they try to sound smart, but they're usually wrong, or at least off. and when one is right, once - it's like he's "pope awesome the I" instead of someone who got lucky that one time in the right set of circumstances.
That's the most anti-intellectual thing I've read in a while. Economics as a discipline is about far more than short-to-medium term forecasting. And most economists, certainly the good ones, are aware that their models simplify the complexity of economic life; in fact, intellectual models and concepts are always useful because they simplify the complexity of the object of study. Good models have better explanatory power and do less "damage" to the complexity of empirical reality. Now, you may feel that certain models are bad ones or veer too much toward positivism - you can even find Economics boring, uninteresting or over your head. But "trying to sound smart"? I challenge you to read Brad Delong or Marginal Revolution and say that with a straight face.
Let's leave the know-nothing sentiment to the Right, which seems to be wallowing in it so well.
yes, you got me. i find economics to be boring, uninteresting, and pretty much over my head. *shrug*
that was kinda the point of the post. or really, there was no point.
and if it was "anti-intellectual" then i guess i accept my anti-intellectual tendencies. i just thought it was funny, that's all.
Post a Comment