Just curious as to who has subjected themselves to this punishment besides myself.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I was a year from finishing an economics degree when I discovered Human Action.
By then the sunk costs made switching unrealistic.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
My major was Agricultural Economics. I enjoyed it because it was heavy on application and light on Econometrics I have thought about doing graduate work in Economics, but I do not want to waste time with Econometrics. I am not afraid of the Math; I would probably enjoy it. But, I just do not find it useful. If I do pursue a Master's or PhD it will be in Philosophy or History so that I can make Austrian Economics the center of my program. At least, I hope I will be able to do that.
GilesStratton, what is driving your curiosity?
If you count an MBA as an economics degree, then yes. It's a good thing I didn't discover Austrian economics until my third year, because these days I find it hard to follow along with what is being taught. Every time I come across an assumption or conclusion that doesn't make sense I drift off on a tangent trying to figure out what would change if the analysis was done properly and miss the rest of the lecture. I can't imagine the pain I would have to go through if I had learned about ABCT before I had learned and promptly forgotten about so called "Modern Macroeconomics".
It's not all bad though. Some classes included subjects that actually helped me understand Austrian economics. Examples:
Introductory micro:Supply and demand analysis is useful for anyone interested in economics. For the first time thinking about price AND quantity as combinations. Learned what marginal means. In addition, learning about the ceteris paribus principle and axioms (even if not the action axiom). I liked this class back then. Even though his methodology was neoclassical, I suspect this teacher was probably the most (classically) liberal I've had, although I can't remember much of the lectures anymore.
Investments:Present value calculations made sure I knew exactly what the D in DMVP means and explained how capital could be priced. This class also made time an important concept in my mind when it came to investments.
Macroeconomics:Obviously horrendous. But at least I learned about how fractional reserve banking works. Introduced to Friedman's quantity theory of money, which was useful at least concerning the relationship between the price level and the money supply.
Finance Watching the teacher struggle to justify "internal pricing" methods, which means determining what price to use when selling to a vertically integrated part of the same company, made the impossibilities of a global monopoly (or socialism) as described by the Austrians more clear.
Intermediate micro:The textbook had an example of Crusoe economics where it proved (through algebra and diagrams unfortunately) that if we regarded Crusoe's actions as a producer and consumer as separate, prices would be formed that would make it possible to achieve the most "optimal" allocation of resources. This was extrapolated to illustrate how economies with more than one person would reach "equilibrium". This really reinforced my notion that economies are natural systems that occur only because people choose to specialize and that price formation is necessary for the correct goods to be produced.
International economics:
Or as Rothbard would label it "the economics of location and spatial relations" was absolutely horrible. The professor was a complete technocrat. How anyone can find any interest in this subject is beyond my comprehension. What does it matter within whose borders capital and labor is located? Only politicans would need this information. Not strange then that the book was written by a professor who at one time held a post at the government (until he was forced to leave after buying an expensive piano and a hi-fi system using the taxpayers money). Still, the introductory chapters to the textbook explained how minimum wage leads to unemployment, how labor unions increase wages by excluding members and also how this decreases the wages of workers in other industries. In addition, competitive advantage was explained. Those were the only bright spots though.
Still, I'm happy that I have gone through the course so far, because 1) it actually got me interested in economics in the first place and 2) none of the subjects were complete or fit together (sometimes even contradicting eachother) which led me to discover Austrian economics.
Also, it feels great when you get an A on a really mathematical micro course. Then you're sure you like Austrian econ because it's better and not because you misinterpreted the alternative. :)
workin on one, got 1 more year left after this one.
You do gotta swallow alot of keynesian bullshit, but I was able to find someone in the department to be my advisor who's more sympathetic to free market economics, so it helps to have that.
I had a class called "global financial markets" taught by a current employee at the Federal Reserve.
Do I win?
I got a BA in economics at Columbia U, entered at age 30 and graduated in 2005 (same year I went to Mises U.).
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
BobT: I had a class called "global financial markets" taught by a current employee at the Federal Reserve. Do I win?
Nope, you tie with me, except my class was called "Monetary Economics and the Global Economy." Nonsense from start to finish, but still good to know why Keynesians think what they do.
GilesStratton: Just curious as to who has subjected themselves to this punishment besides myself.
I did. My advice to people thinking of doing them same- DON'T.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat:I did. My advice to people thinking of doing them same- DON'T.
I second that, it's not even the Keynesian nonsense that bothers me. It's the maths and statistics, both of which I'm quite competent in also, so it's not my lack of abiltiy.
My advice is to go where the money is.
GilesStratton:My advice is to go where the money is.
please tell me where the money is
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I'm considering the option of doing a master's degree in economics and specializing on finance and accounting early on. That way, I would get in touch with mainstream schools of economics to better understand their position, but hopefully not so much that it bores me, while at the same time pursuing something that is actually in demand on the job market.Any thoughts on that project?
nirgrahamUK: GilesStratton:My advice is to go where the money is. please tell me where the money is
Economics graduates have a very high earning potential. They typically rank in the top 5 regardless of the source. So cheer up your love of the study of production ,consumption and distribution could make you some money after all.
That doesn't sound too bad. I'm still thinking about doing a masters in finance, it definately doesn't sound as bad as a bachelors in economics. As you say, it's still in demand on the job market.
Shawn77: Economics graduates have a very high earning potential. They typically rank in the top 5 regardless of the source. So cheer up your love of the study of production ,consumption and distribution could make you some money after all.
Indeed, on the other hand I'm aiming to do a masters in law, which seems less dull and it seems as if lawyers earn more than economists.
There is not a requirement for a doctorate in law before you can practice?
Shawn77: There is not a requirement for a doctorate in law before you can practice?
I don't know, I'm not very knowledgable about this. I'm just going on what I've heard, which is that a bachelors in economics is a good lead on to law.
Here in the US you must complete a 3 year doctorate in law before you can practice. Your avatar being what it is I assume you are perhaps from the UK in which case this could be completely different
I'm a Finance- Eco double Major. I have been toying with dropping the Economics part just for the sake of graduating early. Both share virtually al the same math courses. Not really a big deal. Id like an MBA but will wait after a year or two of work before doing it. (maybe have an employer cover some or all of the cost). Some B-Schools prefer that anyways.
I have been planning to go into economics. I know I am going to learn a lot of keynsian garbage. But my plan is to transfer schools after 2-4 years. I plan on going somewhere cheap for my first few years. I don't think I will be able to learn much Austrian econ. my first few years in college, no matter where I go. So, once I have taken the required classes, I want to transfer to a different school where I can learn Austrian Economics until I finally get a PhD.
Is this a good idea? I don't mind leaning Keynsian/neoclassical economics for a while.....as long as this will allow me to take classes on Austrian Economics.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap