Two Things My Students Can't Grasp

By -
1) That households might be net savers.
Today they had to graph the simple model of the classical loanable funds market for the fourth time on a test, and they still can't believe that changes in households' preferences change the supply curve. I decided that is because it is inconceivable to them that households are ever anything other than massively in debt.

2) How to use a desktop stapler.
Ninety percent of my students hold the durned thing up in the air and then fight for about ten seconds to get the staple through eight pages. I showed one of them how easy it was when you left the desktop stapler on the desk and his eyes popped wide open.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy1:32 PM

    On (1), are your students assuming the government is running a budget surplus? Because Modern Monetary Theory says households can't save on net...

    ReplyDelete
  2. ivanfoofoo2:39 PM

    Does it? I've read some things about MMT and I don't recall of ever reading that!

    Have you ever written something about MMT? I'd like to read your opinion about it, as it seems that Post-Keynesianism, chartalism and MMT are gaining influence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more