Ross Gittens (1 Viewer)

[gnrlies]

Can I just say something about ross gittins.

He is a good writer, he has a good style, and is generally fairly thought provoking (for which case Ive stuck up for him in the past), BUT I wouldn't read his articles to get an objective view on anything economic related.

He is a very left wing economist (by economists standards). This doesn't mean he falls into labor's lap, because he doesn't. But what it does mean is that he is more likely to criticise the government because their ideology is not in line with his. Thats his pereogative, BUT the biggest problem about this is that just about every economics teacher in the state spoonfeeds students his articles.

The HSC economics course is incredibly left wing in nature, and the education system is full of socialist lefties. Whilst teachers are meant to remain politically impatial to their students, this doesn't stop them from drowning their students in socialist propaganda.

See whilst ross is more than happy to point out the negatives, he is very reluctant to provide the reasoning behind government decisions. This weeks budget is by no means a perfect budget, but all I am saying is that the best thing you can do is treat it and everything else that goes on in the economy with the most objective mindset possible.

Reading ross and religiously counting on his everyword is a mistake. He provides a perspective, but only one perspective. Id recomend reading articles from the Australian. They give a far more balanced view (although I acknowledge that most of gittens work is opinion, but this isn't helped by teachers pushing it as fact).

 

[Sparcod]

You just reminded everybody that economists and journalists are biased in some way.

 

[Sarah168]

I'm not sure how many teachers out there are pushing Gittin's work as fact (this doesn't make sense since economics is a hugely debatable field anyway). If you can get past his leftist tendencies, Gittins has a knack for explaining economic theories and concepts in a way that is easily comprehensable to a reasonably intelligent audience (HSC level economics students included).

Also, I think teachers might push kids to read him because he is somewhat entertaining and it helps keeps some real interest in the subject cos no matter how much you love that stupid Dixon textbook, economics can get dry sometimes.

 

[gnrlies]

Theres a lot of teachers out there that give his articles out. Not all but many. And whilst they may not comment on his words being gospel, they rarely provide the context of his words, or "the other side" of the equation. He is definately the most read writer out there, and considering his articles are never objective in nature this represents a fundamental flaw (which is why I started this thread).

Its not just the teachers, its the whole "hsc economics" industry. All the textbooks use his articles which sends the wrong messages to students. Almost like "well if his words are in print then everything he says must be correct". All of the major textbooks (that ive come across - i.e. dixon and riley) are not as impatial as I would see fit for an HSC course.

I would also challenge something you said. A lot of economics IS debateable. In fact it is incredbiliby debateable. The debates of Protectionism Vs Free Trade, Economic Rationalism Vs Socialism, Keynesianism Vs Neo Classical Economics, Globalisation Vs Anti Globalisation etc etc

These are some of the hottest political debates going about, and are often the ideological grounds which fundamentally differentiate the major political parties in Australia. This is why it erks me that students learn a subject which is subtly slanted in a left wing direction.

 

[absolution*]

i) Dixon is by far the WORST eco hsc textbook available.
ii) With respect to the last point made in the above post, there is nothing at all about the current course that is left-wing. It is considerably neo-classical.
iii) A range of perspectives is good for your overall understanding. I cant think of anyone who believes what they read straight away without some form of cognitive process. The same applies to Gittens.

 

[Sarah168]

I would also challenge something you said. A lot of economics IS debateable. In fact it is incredbiliby debateable. The debates of Protectionism Vs Free Trade, Economic Rationalism Vs Socialism, Keynesianism Vs Neo Classical Economics, Globalisation Vs Anti Globalisation etc etc

Umm I said it IS debatable. I'm doing 2nd year neoclassical economics and have studied 1st year political economy, so I do know a little about those debates.

i) Dixon is by far the WORST eco hsc textbook available

:uhhuh: :uhhuh:

 

[gnrlies]

i) Dixon is by far the WORST eco hsc textbook available.
ii)

In your opinion

With respect to the last point made in the above post, there is nothing at all about the current course that is left-wing. It is considerably neo-classical.

BULLSHIT!

This course is full of keynesian theory, yet it provides no mention of the chicago school of thought. No mention of friedman or monetarism! Neo classical? bullshit. The only thing that is neoclassical is the year 11 course where they first introduce the supply and demand curve! From there on its all about messing with the economy! In all honesty, the left wing-ness is more about the way its taught rather than the actual syllabus - which fails to balance it out.

iii) A range of perspectives is good for your overall understanding. I cant think of anyone who believes what they read straight away without some form of cognitive process. The same applies to Gittens.

Absolutely, but when you are an impressionable year 11 and 12 student, and you only hear one side of the story it can be severely damaging to the way that a person develops their own understanding.

 

[michael_77]

Gittens is a good writer and is able to convey simplistic economic theory to all students with relevant examples. However he is no genius, he has not come up with any of his own theories or made an influence in the world economic stage.

 

[gnrlies]

Umm I said it IS debatable. I'm doing 2nd year neoclassical economics and have studied 1st year political economy, so I do know a little about those debates.



:uhhuh: :uhhuh:

Apologies. Misread what you said....

 

[Mr. Sabuncuoglu]

yeh my teacher gets us to get gittins articles... no mattr what... for our budget task theres two components, one on the budget and the other a media file.. and in his setting out, he clearly states at least one GITTINS article... to me i think its just ridiculous, cuz i hear many other ex-students comment on him saying his full of shit etc... very vague comments, so realli... although my teacher pounds us to read gittins articles, i didnt realli go by what he says... i do cut and paste a gittins article... but i never read, analyse, evaluate the things he's got to say... he's just another SMH critique like Phil Gould lol....

just thought id comment...
cheers all..

 

[gnrlies]

yeah, I guess the reason I started this thread wasn't to say dont read gittins, or that he is bad etc etc, but more so to actually identify that he is reporting from only one perspective, and that the other perspective rarely gets told, so for the benefit of a prospective student, it is better to read widely.

Ive heard of teachers demanding that their students purchase one of ross gittins books as part of their textbook list. I mean the book had nothing to do with the HSC!

This is the kind of stuff that annoys me....

 

[sunjet]

The reason teachers use his articles, because he explains economics easier to some people and gives a good rundown of current events (eg. useful figures)

 

[Rafy]

It is considerably neo-classical.

The last two topics (esp) look considerably keynesian.

 

[sanshi]

yeh my eco teacher like gitten article ; he wants us to use his articles for our assignments etc
his articles are ok ; there very long ....
i like th eother eco writers better

 

[sanshi]

hmm
John Garnaut i like his articles !

 

[Sarah168]

Matt Wade is also pretty good though I get confused easily over his jargon I'm used to the Gittens "watered down" style haha

 

[gnrlies]

There is no such thing as left wing and right wing economics, by the way.

left wing = communism, right wing = Liberalism

Communism <---Protectionism---Keynesian-------------------Neoliberal---Orthodox--> Liberalism

Neoclassical economics is orthodox economics.

The reason you aren't taught Friedman Chicago School et al is because of the complex mathematics, which is also the reason it isn't taught at undergraduate level and keynesian economics is taught instead.

You are actually incorrect....

There are a few models out there which attempt to explain what left wing / right wing actually means but most of them do have an economic dimension to them.

I dont know what you meant by "left wing = communism, right wing = Liberalism" but those are actually concepts to do with economics.

The typical political compass (see www.politicalcompass.org) will rate left wing and right wing as the "economics axis" which represents what approach to markets that you take - i.e. how much do you believe in free markets. So the extremes of this axis is communism which is full government intervention (left wing) and liberalism which is no government intervention (right wing).

This is fundamentally an economics concept. A left wing economist will tend to reject economic rationalism, whilst a right wing economist will tend to believe that the market will prevail. This is where the whole concept of keynesianism comes into play. Keynesianism did not put faith in markets and believed that equilibrium would be achieved below full employment and therefore governments needed to intervene. This is why this is normally assosicated with the left. Of course margaret thatcher and ronald reagan were of the right wing persuasion and believed that the market would prevail.....

As for the other notion of "left wing / right wing" which is often confused, is that of social policy. Some people believe that right wing people are socially conservative and left wing people are socially progressive. Whilst this is normally true (in that history shows that there is a fairly strong correlation in governments who believe in the free market who are also socially conservative). Social conservatives believe that governments should regulate what we do (i.e. anti gay marriage, etc). They on the political compass are actually called "authoritarians" not "right wing" (although they may be right wing as well). Likewise socially progressives who believe in liberalism (as in freedom, not economic liberalism) are actually libertarians.

This is why people get confused when americans call the democrats "liberals", when they are the labor party equivalent and not the liberal party equivalent.

As for the chicago school (monetarism and friedman), the reason high school students dont learn about it has NOTHING to do with maths. Thats a ridiculous thing to say. Its got nothing whatsoever to do with maths. Students learn keynesianism qualitatively (i.e. without maths) so theres no reason why they cant be introduced to monetarism in the same way. There is no mention whatso ever in the course.

Why the section on inflation, or monetary policy if nothing else does not contain anything about monetarism is a complete joke. The maths for basic monetarism is not really that hard either. I mean its probably just above HSC conceptual standards but its not out of reach to these students, considering they already learn the keynesian multiplier (therefore the money multiplier and velocity of money shouldn't be that much harder).

My reckoning is that most HSC economics teachers dont know about monetarism because it wasn't really taught back in the day so they dont include it on the syllabus. And aside from that it is a left leaning course which doesn't even question keynesianism.

Also even if it were too hard to learn, thats no excuse for not mentioning it or teaching students something balanced and incorrect.

 

[gnrlies]

you realise you just spent an incredible amount of time disagreeing with me by agreeing with me?

Notice that I said left and right wing economics and that left wing is communism and right wing is liberalism (economic liberalism, ie libertarianism).

Yes, there is an intense left wing bias in the economics course. Yes, this is because they weren't trained in it. This is because the proof behind the theory was too complex for an undergraduate course, so instead they focused more on keynesian economics.

Critiques of liberal economics rely heavily on false pretences and because they spend no time on the actual theory (which is highly mathematical) they do not agree with it.

So let's rephrase what i'm arguing

monetarism = tough and shiny, hsc eco teachers = left wing, stupid, don't believe in orthodox economics/keynes WAS orthodox when they studied. Now, they can't understand monetarism, so they don't agree with it, therefore it isn't taught.

You do realise how intensely mathematical economics is these days? How can eco teachers learn monetarism without a very good working knowledge of university mathematics? They can't, so they don't.

Well I dont know what the rest of what you were saying was all about, but I do know that I disagreed with this statement full stop:

There is no such thing as left wing and right wing economics, by the way.

Of course there is left wing and right wing economics....

Anyway, we will leave that be....

As for the rest of what you said... Of course monetarism requires a lot of maths. But only if you want to go about proving something, and doing some kind of research in the field. But the exact same thing applies to keynesian economics as well.

The point is that keynesian economics is taught intuitively to students. They dont learn the economic model, the maths etc behind the theory. They just learn about the principles. This can just as easily be achieved with monetarism. Im not even suggesting they learn monetarism. Im just suggesting they be made aware of it, and perhaps throw a little perspective in this course to at least say that keynesianism is not the bomb.

Your reason regarding maths is incorrect. Gimme a class and an hour, and I garuntee you that I can teach em all about monetarism without them even having to get their calculators out.

 

[tepanyaki]

I think Ross Gittins is a genius. He seems to write particularly for the Prelim and HSC eocnomics course, which is fantastic for us, because his articles are easily read and amusing. Some with less intellect may interpret his amusing little comments as arrogance to the point of irritation, or "left wing" but they are just little scholastic jokes and I think we should applaud facetious whenever we can to lighten up the year.
But, to the original question, Riley is quite good, far more academic and verbose, without the comical touch, but detailed.

 

[Riviet]

He seems to write particularly for the Prelim and HSC eocnomics course, which is fantastic for us, because his articles are easily read and amusing.

I heard he has a daughter who did the HSC economics course, and he wrote articles relating to the topics she did over the year. So it wouldn't be surprising if he happens to write an article on the topic that you're just doing.

Wow, 12000th post in this forum.