Harvard Revolt Against the "Free Market"

[marmar]

from the Working Life blog:



Harvard Revolt Against the "Free Market"

by Jonathan Tasini
Monday 07 of November, 2011


Ah, it's Monday, and I'm walking the tip-to-tip--from upper Manhattan all the way to Wall Street--support march for #OWS. So, I feel optimistic--and here's another little tidbit of news: the youthful economists-of-the-future are giving a big thumbs down to the teachings of the so-called "free market". They staged a walkout last week--which only got modest attention so I thought I'd give it a little more air.

I have been arguing for a long time that very little has changed in the system--and nothing can underscore that problem than the continued chatter about the "free market", cutting taxes for business and passing even more foolish so-called "free trade" deals.

A small part of the problem--though I think it has significance within the hall of policymakers--is that we have continued to turn out newly-minted economists who are schooled, relentlessly, on the glories of the "free market". Those same people, even the so-called "liberals" end up as staffers for members of Congress, including, I'm guessing, some of theStupendously Stupid Sixty Democrats who put their names on a dumb letter supporting a push to get the Catfood Commission II to "go big" and cut $4 trillion from the federal budget--lunacy.

Which brings me to this event at Harvard:

On Wednesday, about 70 students walked out of Economics 10, the introductory class Professor Mankiw teaches, to protest at what they called a bias towards a destructive brand of free-market economics.

“We found a course that espouses a specific – and limited – view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today,” they said in an open letter to him . “There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.”

Prof Mankiw, who served as chairman of George W. Bush’s council of economic advisers and is an adviser to Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential contender, acknowledged that his résumé probably contributed to the decision to target his class, which at 700 students has the highest enrolment of any undergraduate course.

.............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=15334

[Sabriel]

1. That's excellent

If they keep using the free market system against him and take other courses, eventually his department would have to cut that one because of low enrollment.

Ironically sweet.

[MADem]

2. Bunch of elitists walk out of an elitist's class....!

Who are those kids kidding--they are at Haaahvaaahd to "make connections" with their peer group.

They could get the same quality of education at a state or community college in many cases.

It's all about getting to know the movers/shakers at those Ivies....

I suspect not many of them have to worry about their tuition costs.

[ChicagoRonin]

5. Not a helpful attitude

I don't know those students or what they are like in person, but we should still hold out hope that folks part of the upper socio-economic classes are turning to see things our way.

Plus, I disagree on your assessment of the quality of education at Harvard or similar elite level institutions. Yes, there are some people there who are no smarter than folks at other less expensive institutions. But places like Harvard are still hotbeds for accomplished researchers, scientists, authors, etc. There are incredible resources available at these places that cannot be discounted.

Plus, remember, not everyone at Harvard is a whitebread rich kid elitist. One of my cousins went there, and our parents are first-generation immigrants with no connections. President Obama went there, and he's definitely not from an elite background.

Overgeneralization is another form of prejudice. Just as unhelpful from the bottom-top as top-bottom. We need to be open minded about all types of people.

[OneGrassRoot]

6. Very thoughtful reply. Thank you. :) n/t

[redqueen]

9. +1

[MADem]

14. Let me speak to you in straightforward fashion.

In my wayward youth, I knew a lot...and by that, I mean a LOT...of Harvard students. I spent a lot of time in "The Yaaaahd" and elsewhere with a congenial crowd of idealists, back in the very dark ages.

Many of these youthful Haaahvaaahd idealists were anti-war, anti-poverty, pro-civil and human rights, all the "good stuff."

Unfortunately, as they aged and settled into their high-powered and well-connected careers, many of them either sat back on cushions of their "old money," or left their idealistic views behind in search of their Gordon Gekko-esque dreams of Big Money and "Greed is good."

I can count on one finger of one hand how many of my die-hard, lefty-freedom-loving-stop-the-war "friends" have anything in common with me at this advanced stage of my life. I don't think a single one of them would vote for a Democrat with a gun to their head.

The apple does not fall far, I fear. Money does, indeed, change everything.

So again, forgive my cynicism, but it has a solid basis in first-hand reality--not "overgeneralization."

[Uncle Joe]

20. The Curse of Ham or if you prefer Curse of Canaan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

The Curse of Ham is a possible misnomer,<1> for the Curse of Canaan. The curse refers to Noah cursing Ham's offspring Canaan, for Ham's own transgression against his father, according to Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. The debate regarding upon whom the curse fell has raged for at least two thousand years, as early as Classical antiquity. Most commentators agree with the literal text of Genesis that it was Canaan who was cursed for the sin of his father, Ham. Interpretation remains divided as to whether or not Ham himself was actually cursed,<2> having himself committed the offense, which is only vaguely specified.

The narrative of Ham's transgression giving rise to the curse, can be found in Genesis 9:20-27, as well as in the Book of Jubilees 7:6-12. A brief retelling of the narrative was also discovered in the Dead Sea Scroll, Qumran 4Q252, Fragment I, Column II, Lines 6-8 .

[MADem]

23. I think those guys I knew had fun "playing poor" in their misspent youthful days, and

decided, as they aged and acquired "stuff" and responsibilities, that "rich is nicer."

I doubt they regard their choices to take the easy road as curses handed down from Pops. They just like living large and comfy, and they have no problem tossing their idealistic notions in favor of fine homes and expensive cars and access to the rich/famous/powerful.

Some people have a sense of entitlement from birth. Others acquire it through association. The kids I knew were a lot more "active" than those who believed they were doing something major by simply walking out of a class (oooooooh!) and refusing to listen to a professor with whom they disagreed. Personally, I think the gutsier thing to do would be to stay and confront the guy--argue him down, point by point, rather than do the childish little "Take ball, go home" routine. That tactic is intellectually lazy, IMO.

I have to wonder if a favored sports event was on TV at the same time as the class, or if some bar was having a drinks special....

[Uncle Joe]

25. The analogy of my post "curse" wasn't aimed at the older generation

which disappointed you, it was aimed at your generalization of this younger generation because of your experience with the previous one, "Sins of the fathers" being passed on to the sons and all that.

Your out of hand generalization of this generation is the curse.

You may be correct, but don't write them off too soon, perhaps they will have more idealistic staying power than their parents, and next time maybe they will stay and debate to change the world for the better.

[MADem]

27. My observations were not "generalizations" They were VERY specific to my experience.

I frankly do not find anything heroic in a bunch of kids walking out of a class conducted by a teacher they don't like. That's fucking LAZY if you ask me. It's an Ivy League representation of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEEEAAAAAR YOU!!!!!"

Why not stay and challenge the guy? Argue him down, point by point. That would impress me.

A small percentage of kids walking out of a class their parents are paying a bundle for is now considered "brave" or "meaningful?"

All they're doing is lowering their QPA. They'd better drop the course while they can still get a "W" instead of a crappy grade.

I still would like to know if there was something more "fun" going on, that made an "opportune walk out" a viable course of action.

[Uncle Joe]

30. They were generalizations of this younger generation's motivation of which

you don't have first hand knowledge.

Perhaps some of them will read this thread and stay to debate next time but at the very least walking out was a sign of disrespect for their teacher, speaker and/or current economic curriculum and tying it to the OWS movement will surely give others pause to think, particularly if those numbers grow.

[MADem]

34. Wow, from whence did you pull THAT completely unfounded assertion?

My commentary regarding seventy kids in a single undergraduate Econ class at "the" Ivy League college in the USA, where the elite DO--like it or not--meet to be educated and make connections in a rarefied environment, walking out on a BushCo-era prof because they suspect they won't like what he says, translates, in your head, to an indictment of "this younger generation's motivation?"

Gee, all those kids at community colleges and state universities, those kids who are at tech schools, who can't afford to go to any school at all, or who aren't quite bright enough to qualify for any sort of education, and are working in shitty little entry-level post secondary jobs or pounding the pavement looking for work....they aren't part of your "younger generation," apparently? I guess we can cut all those 18-22 year olds serving in the military out of your definition of this generic "younger generation" you claim I am dissing, too.

You plainly have determined that seventy Harvard kids trotting out of an entry level economics class translates into a representation of "this younger generation." Their motivations are the motivations of all people of their age and stage of life, in your view.

Good thing you aren't the guy who picks the experimental and control groups in scientific experiments. We'd end up with some pretty interesting results that would surely have absolutely no basis in reality.

FWIW, I don't think we have hordes of Harvard Undergrads farting around on this board all day--they have studying to do and lives to live.

I also think you'd be the first to excoriate a group of wingnut kids at, say, some holy roller school, who would walk out on a progressive professor, say, Al Gore talking about our environmental future, because they might not like what he has to say.

Sauce for the goose, after all...

Without intellectual curiosity, you're just a tool, and it doesn't matter what side of the ideological fence you're on. If you can't defend your arguments, or bear to listen to those--even the stupid or offensive ones-- of others, that says nothing good about your own confidence in your values or beliefs, or your ability to defend those very things. That's my point, and I stand by it. I also relayed some anecdotal history of my own, up-close-and-personal, recollections of those who have been touched by "The Harvard Experience." You don't have to "like" it, but it's my history, not yours.

It's not the indictment you claim it is. Please be more rigorous in reading of what I actually say before you make your intemperate accusations.

[sulphurdunn]

53. A Harvard Grad

was my radio operator in Vietnam. Right out of school he joined the Peace Corps and went to spend 2 years living in a mud hut in Africa. When he returned he took a job as an English teacher In DC. He was drafted at the age of 26, which is getting long in the tooth for a grunt fighting a jungle war. He taught me how to play chess. He taught me about literature and philosophy. He introduced me to the subjects of formal logic, ethics and justice, and how such things are suspended by war. He showed me that what I thought was insane actually was insane over there. The last I saw of him was when I zipped him into his body bag.

After the war I went to college, even graduated and went on to get my Masters Degree. I also did a tour of duty in the Peace Corps. I was a kid who came from a working class family and graduated from high school with a 1.7 GPA. If I hadn't entered the armed forces I would have gone to work on the docks like my father, and that would have been fine, but I didn't. Life is not black and white my friend. It just isn't that simple.

[MADem]

54. Life is not black and white--that's entirely true.

But if you stand in a potato field, what's around you, for the most part, are potatoes. There may be an odd bluebell or a daisy here or there, but the potatoes are the rule, not the exception.

You were lucky to meet up with a bluebell. They're not the norm, though.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. Good ole "Hope."

Aka Sit around and wait.

[patrice]

48. How is your characterization logically necessary? Are other reactions not implied/possible? nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

49. It's not logically necessary.

:shrug:

[patrice]

50. k. Just checking, 'cause I had/have a better opinion of you than that.

:hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. I welcome your better opinion.

:hi:

[patrice]

52. Tks. & I your constructive efforts. nt

[patrice]

47. Bravo! Constructive reaction to divisive/disempowering "othering".Let authentically free individuals

decide who/what people are/are not.

[FrenchieCat]

22. My daughter and her husband both graduated from Harvard.....

And I have to disagree with your broad brush on the young people there.

My SIL (class of 07) has about 70K still to pay on his College Loans, and my daughter (Class of 09)
quite a bit less....

His parents are working class folks from Pembroke, MA suburbs; she's a Special Needs Educator(just got her masters after raising 3 boys), and he worked in airport maintenance for years and years.

I'm an immigrant and my husband was born and raised in the West Oakland Housing Projects.

So no, I don't agree with your characterization of Harvard students. Many of them are there because they worked hard in school, and then dared to dream big by applying to the school that is rated as the best in the world.

Sure, there's legacy kids there as well, but they are not as numerous as you'd would want to believe,
and not all of them are spoiled brats who don't give a shit.

[MADem]

24. There are exceptions that prove the rule.

And there's a huge difference between the grad school population, the extension population, even the business school and law school folks, and the undergrads. They are completely different environments.

Like I said, I knew DOZENS of Harvard (undergrad) students, and only one of them has pretty much stuck by his youthful ideals. The rest of 'em are making money and could give two shits about social justice and all the "good things" that were important to us all in our younger years.

I see some of their names on OPEN SECRETS, giving to GOP piglets hand over fist.

To be clear--not all of my friends were "legacy kids." About half weren't. There were even a few (rare) minorities in our group, and a "Quota Jew" (yes, they used to limit them--about three per class) or two.

Money--and association with people who have money (and access to power)--changes people. Often not for the better.

My characterizations are based on first hand observation. I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I won't bet on it over the long haul.

[jeff47]

43. So what you're saying is you need better friends, then?

People self-select friends with similar world views. If all your friends are assholes, you need to pick better friends.

[MADem]

55. They've all fallen away, save one. I suppose that's self-selection at work...

or just the natural effects of age and distance and years. I mentioned that in my comments.

[newblewtoo]

35. considering Harvard's ample endowment

most of Harvard's students shouldn't even have to pay tuition. The article below outlines the utter poverty they are in with only 27.6 Billion fucking dollars. Talk about the 1%.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-02/harvard-s-crimson-cubs-with-43-billion-dwarf-their-former-endowment-home.html

Of course the guys who use to run the endowment and left are just struggling along with a mere 43 Billion.

[Dems2002]

37. Um, I did

WTF? I was raised by a postal worker and a mom who worked part-time/full-time doing data entry. I didn't attend Harvard, but I did attend a Top 10 School, and I'm proud of it. I worked hard to get in and I thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent there. I also made more money than either of my parents in my second job, at the age of 24 and my debt load hasn't been crushing. (Although I may have another tale to tell if I attend grad school next year)

If I were at Harvard, I would damn well walk out of that class because I agree with the sentiments expressed by the students who participated. If some of them were dressed in designer fashion and drive a Maserati (like my college roommate) what difference does it make? They'd be my friends because we share the same basic belief system. It's not their fault that the system has been kind to them, just like it's not my 'fault' that I was raised by working class parents.

[MADem]

38. You're ONE. One single person out of many. And you didn't attend Harvard.

Good for you that you did so well for yourself, you're quite right to be proud, but Harvard is a thing unto itself. It is not like "the others." Even the kids who are not "legacies" get a legacy attitude pretty quick, once they make the right connections.

And why drag your parents into this? Why even bring them up? You didn't go to Harvard and you didn't walk out of that class, and all the "if's" and "I woulda's" in the world are, well, irrelevant.

Walking out because you "don't agree" is childish. It's the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. It is the total opposite of intellectual vigor to refuse to confront those with whom you disagree. It's chickenshit, frankly, and suggests that those who won't debate either can't come up with any alternative POVs to refute the points the professor is making (and if the guy worked for Bush, how hard could it possibly be?).

If you're not in the room, you can't participate in the discussion. You've basically told the other team that "you got nuttin'!"

That's the real bottom line.

What would you think of people who walked out on, oh, name your hero--Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean--just because they didn't AGREE with them? I'd call 'em wussy losers who were afraid to have their views challenged.

College is a place to LEARN. It's not an echo chamber. If you can't make your case, maybe you don't really have an argument--that's what running away suggests.

[izquierdista]

3. It's not that it's an unworkable theory....

It's that they assume their axioms hold when piles of evidence prove otherwise. Is health insurance a free market? If it was, the barrier to entry would be so low that I, or anyone else, could open their own health insurance company and begin to sell policies.

The problem is that the free market model of economics is like Newtonian mechanics in the 19th century -- it's the only game in town. If there is data that doesn't fit the model, like the orbit of Mercury or the structure of the atom, well, the problem must be with the data, because it's the only model we have.

[bvar22]

8. "Free Markets" and Free Trade" do NOT exist in the REAL World.

That is Faith Based Economic Dogma predicated on the existence an invisible, all powerful deity,
The Giant Invisible Hand.

This Economic Religion is a SCAM invented by the RICH (Corporate Owners)
to allow them to avoid Human Rights, Organized LABOR, and Environmental Protections.
They bought Smooth Talking Politicians to SELL their scam to a gullible America.
The SCAM has worked even better than they expected.

Unrestrained Capital will always be able to outrun Human Rights, Organized LABOR, and Environmental Protections.
It takes YEARS, even Decades, to petition our governments to enact legislation (regulation) that holds Capital accountable.
The Board of Directors of a Corporation can Pack Up and Move overnight,
before any type of regulation, protection, or restraint can ever be imposed.

The invention of an Invisible Deity (The Giant Invisible Hand) that makes Government Regulation unnecessary is a brilliant piece of Marketing.
After the accumulation of 30 years of solid evidence that this Deity does NOT exist,
it is STILL being successfully SOLD to America.
Witness the last 3 "Free Trade" Treaties pushed by the Obama Administration at the request of the 1%.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[izquierdista]

13. Free markets exist

Just not the places that they are claimed to. If you go to primitive places, like the jungles of New Guinea, where everyone does a little farming, a little hunting or fishing, some handcrafts in the home, then you can find free markets. A family with a bountiful harvest of yams will take them to the market to sell and they can use their earnings to buy a pig they want at a market determined price. All the axioms for the free market model to actually apply are present: lots of producers, lots of consumers, low barriers to entry, information equally available to all.

However, when there are few producers and many consumers (like with petroleum and its products), or information is monopolized (as with pharmaceuticals), or the barriers to entry are high (as with most high-tech factory made products), the axioms are not satisfied and it is foolish to argue there is a free market.

Bottom line, markets are PRIMITIVE. They are found in backward, underdeveloped areas. They are no way to organize a complex, interconnected economy.

[Celefin]

18. You just gave me my new favorite talking point I think

'Markets' are primitive, backwards and completely unsuited to modern societies.

Which, coincidentally, also applies literally to conservative politicians.

Thank you.

[nineteen50]

4. The market economic theory is based on non realistic

assumptions of future expectations it is not reality based.

[AngryAmish]

7. This is what academic freedom and open inquiry are all about

[redqueen]

10. This is wonderful news...

K&R

[mmonk]

11. A set back for those that infiltrated our institutions with a economic dogma

paid for by business and supported by "chairs" instead of the study of economics ever since the Powell memo.

[SpiralHawk]

12. Veritas - Fight Fiercely

[MADem]

15. We used to say Veritas, Move Your Ass, at athletic competitions.

It means "Truth" in Latin.

[Dawson Leery]

16. Harvard Business School along with the Chicago School

could be considered training grounds for economic terrorism.

[MADem]

28. This was an undergrad class. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. this is a very good sign of things to come knr

[Uncle Joe]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[ellisonz]

26. 70 out of 700.

Wonder what the other 630 are thinking...

(ahhh don't rock the boat);-)

[MADem]

29. Maybe they were the ones who stayed and challenged the guy's horse shit.

It's too easy to just leave.

It's harder to challenge and rebut.

[ellisonz]

40. This is organized opposition.

I think it's more likely the one's who stayed could care less about politics: they're going to be rich banksters someday.

[MADem]

56. It's meaningless opposition, at the end of the day.

I'm in the "Stay and challenge" camp on this one.

[firehorse]

36. yes, I wish the numbers were reversed.

[Dover]

31. Wow. They have stopped feeding the beast!!!

The beast will starve without new recruits. This is big.

[KamaAina]

32. What free market?

It exists only in theory, like absolute zero.

[patrice]

33. There is nothing intrinsic about un-regulated "free" markets that insures that they actually be free

. . . nor that they maintain and enhance anyone's freedom.

Inherently selective systemic processes become DEPENDENT upon oppressing & destroying many purposefully-excluded forms of value, i.e. capital, which "Free" Enterprise proponents assume: are value-less; or assumed to be un-acceptable anti-plutocratic competition; or it is assumed that "market forces" will inevitably and appropriately develop ALL latent value(s), whenever the 1% decide to, and that those developments will occur before significant potential values are absolutely lost, especially those lost as a statistically high rate of unknown-unknowns excluded by the hegemonic powers, which losses potentially represent even more significant additional values lost to the gestalt, for example, particular kinds of lost personal labor-capital, LOST WORK, i.e. LOST REAL VALUE, the economic foundation of all systems.

This shows that "free" market assumptions are not necessarily valid, but profits-before-people propaganda supports their high priority cultural status as though they are logical necessities, derived from absolute economic dogma, the sole source of which can only be ROYALTY.

[Crowman1979]

39. Reminds of the Micro-Economics class that required a textbook authored by Bush W's economic adviser.

I dropped that class like a bad habit.

[Nye Bevan]

41. Apparently Keynsian theory comes later in the course.

A former student of Mankiw’s jumped to his defense, pointing out that the students offered little explanation of what they found "biased" in the course, other than the reference to Smith and Keynes. The student, named Jeremy Patashnik, wrote:

Incidentally, the authors of this letter are in for a treat: there’s plenty of Keynesian theory to come in the second semester of Ec 10. In fact, Mankiw is a great Keynes admirer, and once wrote, “If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there’s little doubt that that economist would be John Maynard Keynes.” The only reason that these students have not yet studied the father of modern macroeconomics in Ec 10, of course, is that the first semester of the class is devoted to microeconomics.


http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/07/occupy_harvard_students_walk_out_on_greg_mankiw_economics_class_.html

[Crowman1979]

42. BTW, Prof. Mankiw was also Bush W's lead economic adviser.

[nomb]

44. If they know so much why were they taking Econ 10? :)

[swilton]

45. Not just the economists

The political scientists are also owned by big business and the MIC - The 'virtues' of Supreme Court Justice Powell, author of the Powell Doctrine before his nomination to the Supreme Court - argued for business friendly academia which had heretofore been a primary critic of the Vietnam War. Powell also promoted the notion of corporate personhood.

Big K&R!

[xchrom]

46. excellent! nt