Harvard students walk out of Econ class

[pcaz]

<p>Students</a> Walk Out of Ec 10 in Solidarity with 'Occupy' | News | The Harvard Crimson</p>

<p>My son just told me about this. Not to open a can of worms, but I think this could be the early beginnings of a trend across the U.S., especially given the number of young people in the Occupy Wall Street movement.</p>

[glido]

<p>This reminds me of the of the angry mobs in L.A. and Detroit who burned down their own neighborhoods in protest of one thing or another - college students denying themselves education to protest the government bailouts of bank shareholders.</p>

[MomLive]

<p>I think we are beginning to see a lot of signs of civil unrest. It often starts with the younger generation who have little to lose.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@article

… said Alexandra E. Foote ’15, who is currently enrolled in the course. “I don’t know very much about economics, and it’s not really fair that I’m getting a skewed perspective.”

</p>

<p>Huh? How does the student know that the perspective is skewed if she does not know very much about economics?</p>

[vlines]

<p>LOL UCB…are you questioning a Harvard student? LOL</p>

[JHS]

<p>Civil unrest often starts with educated, energetic young people who can’t get jobs. That’s a real recipe for trouble – in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Spain, and here.</p>

<p>NPR was all over this story yesterday, and had an interview with Mankiw, who sounded surprisingly moderate in his views. For me, the whole walk-out was another example of Harvard students taking themselves way too seriously.</p>

[rockvillemom]

<p>

For me, the whole walk-out was another example of Harvard students taking themselves way too seriously.

</p>

<p>JHS - I agree. How many of them have wealthy families and might even be among the “1%”.</p>

<p>Ranks right up there with Kanye West’s participation!</p>

[TatinG]

<p>The OWS crowd in L. A. have closed down the farmer’s market that usually used that space, hurting small vendors in vegetables. </p>

<p>The OWS crowd in Oakland vandalized stores and closed a port hurting working class people like truckers and port workers. </p>

<p>Maybe the econ class ought to study that.</p>

[alh]

<p>Are you only allowed to support OWS if you are part of the 99%?</p>

[dstark]

<p>What did Mankiw say that was moderate?</p>

<p>nevermind…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.swlearning.com/economics/mankiw/principles2e/principles.html[/url]”>http://www.swlearning.com/economics/mankiw/principles2e/principles.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[dstark]

<p>I think the students who are walking out know enough…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/economy/10view.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[fogfog]

<p>Do you think students recognize that the 99% goes up to 500k annually…?</p>

<p>[HICKS:</a> Some belated parental advice to protesters - Washington Times](<a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/18/hicks-some-belated-parental-advice-to-protesters/]HICKS:”>HICKS: Some belated parental advice to protesters - Washington Times)</p>

[alh]

<p>dstark - thanks for the links. Do you think that link is moderate or not? I am sorry to be so dense.</p>

[menloparkmom]

<p>the guy is spouting the republican "keep your hands off my money or I’ll stop spending it " canard. It is not moderate in my book. No wonder students walked out.
See the disclosure at bottom of the editorial-
“N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President George W. Bush.”</p>

[dstark]

<p>I do think there are some moderate things in Mankiw’s list in the first link…</p>

<p>I also think his love of markets and his knock on government are not only not moderate but are too rigid.</p>

<p>I think Mankiw’s editorial in the NY Times is exactly what the 99% is railing against.</p>

<p>Here is this guy complaining that he can afford a tax increase, but if his taxes are increased his kids will get less inheritance…</p>

[NJres]

<p>dstark - thanks for that link. The professor states that higher taxes will make him work less. The students complain:</p>

<p>"It’s a class that’s very indoctrinating, and does not encourage diversity of views. "</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>

According to those who walked out, part of the discontent with Economics 10 stems from what they say is the limited number of opportunities to express skepticism toward the material taught in the course.

</p>

<p>I can see why students would get frustrated after reading that essay, where he uses himself as an example of one, to prove his assertion that higher taxes will make high earners work less. I could just as easily… perhaps easier, find someone earning in the 250,000 to $300,000 range who would complain that higher taxes will force him to work MORE to maintain or improve his lifestyle.</p>

<p>Frankly, it’s disappointing to have a Harvard professor waste my time by writing an essay with no research, no data to support his assertion, merely using his personal preference as an example. I would walk out too.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Lower taxes made me work less…</p>

<p>I can’t be the only one who decided to work less because after tax income was higher… :)</p>

[DocT]

<p>Good to see the 60’s coming back - I do miss that decade</p>

[DocT]

<p>My daughter had Mankiw for econ 6 years ago - (when he showed up for class). He was a bonehead then and still is.</p>

[JHS]

<p>Here’s the transcript of most of Greg Mankiw’s NPR interview yesterday. I would characterize this as moderate right:</p>

<p>

MANKIW: Oh, there’s no question that the gap between rich and poor has risen substantially. It’s been a long term trend since the 1970s, with pretty steady increases. And I lecture about this every year. It was a pure coincidence that I was lecturing on this topic the very day they decided to walk out.</p>

<p>INSKEEP: So you say that it’s definitely risen, but is it a matter of concern, and is it something that the government has made worse?</p>

<p>MANKIW: Well, I don’t think it’s primarily being driven by government policy. I think it’s primarily been driven by a variety of forces in the economy including, for example, technology. But the question of whether it’s something the government should worry about is an issue of political philosophy, as well as economics. And that’s one of the things I talked about yesterday is that there’s different perspectives on this.</p>

<p>I mean if you took a different political philosophers like, say, John Rawls versus Robert Nozick, you get very different perspectives as to whether it’s a different - about what problems that the government should be worrying about.</p>

<p>INSKEEP: Is this something that’s hard for conservatives to address, because the argument ends up just leading in directions that makes conservatives uncomfortable? You end up talking about things like a progressive income tax, higher taxes on the wealthy, government intervention in the economy. That sort of thing.</p>

<p>MANKIW: Well, I think conservatives and liberals have different perspectives as to what things should be done. I think the liberal position is more to try to address the outcomes through a progressive income tax. And I think the conservative position is due more to try to address the causes. And one of the primary causes, according to some economists, is the educational system.</p>

<p>My colleagues, Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz, have a book called “The Race Between Education And Technology,” that says the problem is that we haven’t been producing enough educated people to keep up with the increasing demand for high skilled workers.</p>

<p>INSKEEP: So you would not be fiddling with the tax code if it were up to you and you wouldn’t accept those who say that, for example, President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, along with other Americans, exacerbated this problem in the last decade.</p>

<p>MANKIW: Well, if you look at the data, one thing is very clear is that the changes in the tax code - even between, say, the Clinton era and the Bush era - are very, very small compared to the huge changes in inequality we’ve seen. So very little of the changes we’ve seen are due to taxes. It’s almost in data quality, almost all in before-tax incomes. So, you know, we can debate as to whether we want an extra few percent at the top or not, but that’s not really going to do much to change the long-term trend.</p>

<p>INSKEEP: Are you a disturbed about the trend just the last few years, where you actually have seen corporate profits increase, and some people continuing to make an awful lot of money and yet unemployment is at around 9 percent?</p>

<p>MANKIW: The (unintelligible) has been very, very difficult for the economy. There’s no question about that. These are very, very tough times. I don’t think inequality has particularly increased. In fact, some of the evidence that we’ve seen suggest that incomes at the top have fallen disproportionately relative to the middle.</p>

<p>So I think rising inequality is really a long-term, you know, like a 40-year trend since the 1970s. And the short-run business cycle that shows that it’s a different problem. I don’t think it’s related particularly.</p>

<p>INSKEEP: Although we - so you don’t - you’re not worried about the short-term trend, but you do recognizes this 40-year trend and staggering incomes in the middle of the bunch…</p>

<p>MANKIW: I’m not worried - I’m worried about the short-term trend and the overall economy. And I think the fact that you have tremendously high unemployment is a major problem. That’s why I’m very supportive of a fairly activist Federal Reserve. And I’ve been very supportive of, say, Ben Bernanke, who’s been trying to get the economy going again and taken some extraordinary measures.

</p>