Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

very very very true. If you look at all the fighting in the Middle East today you see clearly it is liberals who are killing the children, and adults. All the liberal groups are fighting to control the govt so they can control the country and the people. There are no conservative Republicans like Thomas Jefferson fighting for freedom from govt so individuals can manage their own lives. Indeed, liberals have buried the American Revolution. The shot heard around the world is not heard anymore anywhere, not even in America!!

 

All of the economics classes I've seen have been slightly right of center. They incorporate a little bit of Keynesianism for a lecture or two, but mostly they focus on the benefits of free market principles. I don't think I've ever seen a course that actually advocated fully leftist economics.

 

Samuelson's book was/is most popular for decades by far. It said a command economy like the USSR's could out produce our economy. economists would be mostly out of business if they advocated capitalism. They go into the business to interfere with capitalism and make it better not to prove they are not needed.

 

We are not lacking in trees, humanity has not suffered by not being able to cut down more redwoods, and I know of very few people who talk about commons and natural rights of property who see those applying to what they own. Just to what other people own.

 

It doesn't matter if humanity hasn't suffered because of a loss of use of these trees for commercial products but instead that mankind has suffered the loss of the forest of giant redwoods that once existed. We can't even use them for the experience of walking through them because they don't exist.. The forest itself was a very special ecosystem of life and that was all destroyed based upon greed denying all future generations the experience of the massive giant redwood forests that are now gone.

Mankind has suffered a loss simply because they no longer exist. The natural right of property prohibits the destruction of nature and the clear-cutting of the giant redwoods resulted in a massive destruction that nature has been and will be unable to replace.

The Natural Right of property first and foremost limits a person to only what they can use and consume but then it also includes the restriction that "enough, and as good" remain for all other people regardless of whether anyone else ever uses or consumes that which remains. It must remain available for others regardless of future use.

 

So unless one is anorexic and living in squalor, they are violating the common rights of others, tree frogs, and future humanoids? No wonder not that many people embrace this philosophy.

 

An interesting opinion considering that the American ideology as expressed in the Declaration of Independence is based upon the protections of the natural/inalienable/unalienable rights of the person. It is true of course that few people embrace the natural rights of the person because our right-wing (conservative) education system that seeks to retain the injustices based upon our statutory laws of property that violate the natural rights of the person doesn't educate the American people about them. A person must actually take personal responsibility and self-educate themselves about what natural rights are because we don't teach it in our schools.

Interestingly we can note that had our laws of property and commerce changed from "ownership established by title" based the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings that we inherited from our time as colonies living under the authority of the British monarchy and transitioned to laws of property and commerce based upon the Natural Right of Property there would be no working poverty in the United States today,

 

It just seems like a left wing bias, simply because the right is clueless and Causeless about economics.

- - - Updated - - -

why bother when we can, "outsource it" to the right, for free.

 

We make fun of the right wing for that; especially their, alleged subscription to a moral imperative from the Age of Iron, regarding a "work or die" ethic.

They even make it seem like they don't believe in supply side economics.

 

Did they also cover the economic aspect of how the National Socialists were able to, "make do with what they had" to "achieve what they did"?

It was not, true capitalism or free markets.

 

some on the left are advocating for left wing dogma, that claims: supply side economics should be supplying us with better Governance at lower cost.

 

some on the left don't mind outsourcing, fantastical right wing economic paradigms, to the incredible, right wing.

 

It is why some on the left are advocating simply learning how to merely use Capitalism, for all of its worth, in modern times.

 

Only if you include variables for a lot of things. Economics is also about understanding and recognizing a profit motive in any given social dilemma.

For example,

Would the South have had Any excuse to secede, if the Union had provided compensation via Eminent Domain.

 

the problem with socialism is that it requires social morals for free. that is frightening. it may be no wonder why we resort to gods, for our "salvation".

 

We have a relatively free market, within the US.

It was the outright communism of economies; that achieved what they did, not capitalism, during real times of war.

 

There is nothing natural about your concept of natural rights. Coyotes eat the cats that eat the birds that eat the bugs. Neither the coyote nor the cat says, "I have no right to eat this because I am infringing upon its right and by doing so I further deny future generations their right to eat a proper number of offspring." They instead say, "I'm hungry. This critter is tasty enough. Game on."

 

sure but humans decided that was too brutal so created govt power that gave all humans the right to life and to private property.

 

The origin of "natural rights" are not related to the interactions of animals in the wild kingdom.

Of course they're not "My" natural rights but instead the natural rights of all people and you're not debating them with me but instead your debating them with historical individuals like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine or the source of their opinions that came from John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that I would highly recommend studying to gain an understanding that can be used as a grounds for discussion.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

 

thats very absurd of course the Western view of private property was established with animals and then the earliest human like beings on record long long before kings. Animals and humans have private property because it is a requirement for survival.

 

I was forced to read and regurgitate all of them, but of course you left out Hobbes because Hobbes actually came closer to getting it right.

 

When the government decides your right to life or property ends, it ends without recourse.

 

thats ok as along as the govt is tiny and controlled by an American Constitution.

 

The government is large and controls what the Constitution means.

 

you mean the people are liberal and so the govt is too.