worth studying a BA in economics at university in a socialist country?

Economics Economics Questions
1

Hello,

I’m Australian and 24 years of age. Since leaving high school I have travelled the world and lived in China for two years teaching English as a second language. During this time I have educated myself through the internet and books. Most of my interest has been with philosophy and economics. I have been passionate about Australian economics and the libertarian school of thought for nearly two years now. I am currently making my way through Mises’s treatise, human action.

Now I have come home from overseas and find myself in quite a dilemma. I would love to go to university and study economics but I have some concerns. Australia is a very socialist country and after looking at the curriculum for the BA in economics there is a lot of learning about governments role in the market and Keynesians school of thought. I am not sure if they will teach any of the principles of the Austrian school of thought at all. On the other hand maybe it will give me a good forum to debate issues with people and look at all sides of economic arguments and learn how to do market research etc…

Anyway I would love some recommendations or advice about undertaking a degree in economics given my backround. Also if anyone has actually studied economics in a socialist country, I would really love to hear about their experience.

More than any other experience at this stage in my life, including travel, I want to learn and improve my knowledge, for I believe it is ideas that change the world.

I would really appreciate any responses,

Nick

2

I don’t recommend Griffith University.

It will be hard to find a university in Australia that would be inclined towards teaching real economics.

3

According to Heritage Australia is the 3rd freest economy in the world: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

I received a B.A. in economics from an American university and I would say it wasn’t worth it. I wish I would have majored in something more marketable like finance or accounting. With that said, if you want to pursue a graduate degree in economics studying economics or math as an undergrad could be useful. You can learn Neo-classical and Neo-Keynesian economics on your own, so I wouldn’t use that as a primary reason.

4

Why study economics? It is not as if there is a demand in the economy for more of them. Study a double degree in finance and mathematics. This will allow you to become a data analyst and earn 150k + a year. If that is not a price signal, I don’t know what is.

5

I am studying Finance and Economics in a Keynesian university. I wouldn’t advise studying just economics. You would maybe enjoy doing a degree with both philosophy and economics. I find that Finance can be quite boring but it helps you understand alot of thing being talked about on the news. Although I enjoy economics, I am now in my final year and I am begining to find the subject a bit boring (but two of those modules are maths and the other regulation). But would definitely advise you to study economics if your interested in it. You will at the end of your degree, at the very least, have a greater understanding of Keynesian economics, and have a better ability to critique it. I would also strongly advise against choosing a subject to study just because there are lots of jobs for it. People who do this usually have a horrible time in university and end up dropping out.

6

Firstly just want to say thank you so much for replying so quickly everyone!

Luckily I live in Sydney so won’t be going to Griffith, thanks for the heads up though, have heard many bad comments about that uni.

I am sure a degree in Finance and Maths or Engineering would be far more stable and secure financially than economics or philosophy. However my priority/interest is not money or job security. My interest is extending my knowledge further in the fields that I am passionate about. The issue of doing what the economy demands is a valid one though, and something I have been considering a lot. I don’t want to learn something useless. Being a practical person, I am not sure if I will maintain a high level of motivation learning something I don’t feel has any value or benefit to society in a practical sense. I am not too worried about what happens after the degree but I do want to have a fulfilling experience while I am there which for me means I must be learning something productive and engaging. As I said I am older now and do have some life experience, so the decision to go there is fully my own and not from any external pressures.

Thanks again for the responses so far, very thought provoking. I really appreciate all of your input. I am fully welcome any more opinions or advice that anyone else may have based on what they have heard or experienced.

Nick

7

Worth studying a BA in economics at university in a socialist country?

As far as I can see from the question, you imply that in a more liberal country (of course, on margin; if Australia is called socialist, I wonder whether such a country that we would call liberal exist) economics that is taught in the universitiies is different. Maybe I am wrong, but in our age Keynesianism is taught everywhere. What makes a difference is the university faculty, in my opinion. If you want to study economics from an Austrian perspective, you should come to the universities where Austrian professors work. Otherwise the question boils down to this:

"Should I pursue BA in economics or finance/engineering/etc?

8

Can we get over this idea that everything not Austrian is automatically ‘Socialist’ or ‘Keynesian’? For a start, Keynesianism is not socialist - it is mixed economy capitalist. Secondly, the mainstream economics taught in most uniersities is Neo-Classical, not Keynesian. You get the odd exception here and there, I’m sure.

9

G’day Nick.

Just a point of reference, hit up la.org.au and mises.org.au (if you’re on facebook, search out the private mises seminar group). Should get a better response in terms of responders having local knowledge.

10

Consumariat

In Keynsianism, the state owns the power to produce money. its monetary socialism.

Also, you write that mainstream is Neo-Classical and not Keynesianism, but doesnt this ignore the Neo-Classical synthesis, or in otherwords,
theirs keynesianism well mixed into the neo-classical orthodoxy.

11

In Keynsianism, the state owns the power to produce money. its monetary socialism.

This is a very vague definition of both Keynesianism and Socialism. By this definition, Monetarism is Socialism, Feudalism was Socialism, the Roman Empire was Socialist. We have special terms for a reason, and the reason is to add clarity.

All that is being done here is a crude reduction of language that muddies the distinctions between different perspectives, theories, and systems. It is self-imposed NewSpeak, and that’s a shame because language is more powerful when it is rich and varied. Orwell would be saddened.

Also, you write that mainstream is Neo-Classical and not Keynesianism, but doesn’t this ignore the Neo-Classical synthesis, or in otherwords, theirs keynesianism well mixed into the neo-classical orthodoxy.

Good point. There are certain influences from Keynes in the Neo-Classical synthesis; that’s why it is a synthesis after all. But this just proves my point above about the importance of using concise terms that contain specific meanings. I should take my own advice and be more rigourous in my choice of language.

Keynesianism influenced the current mainstream, but that doesn’t make the mainstream Keynesian. After all, Keynes was influenced by Malthus, so extending your logic we could conclude that Keynes was a Malthusian, and therefore the current mainstream is too. How far back in western thought shall we trace the names of ideas? Are economics degrees to be considered bastions of Platonism?

Maybe I’m just a pedant though.

12

Hey guys,

Sorry for being vague and unclear about my request. That is my fault and reading over my posts it seems quite obvious that I was thinking out loud. I will try to clarify what information i hope to ellicit now.

I am clearly unsure about university but I am ready to give it a go. The question is not about which degree I should study. The question is, would studying economics be productive, fullfilling and engaging? Would I learn lots about the economy and expand my knowledge? Will I have the ability to debate? Will they be open to all forms of research on economics and all questions i.e Austrian school? Will it be very one sided with an ‘government is the only option agenda’ to it? Could anyone who has studied economics at university please share their experiences or anyone who knows about please give me their opinions on this question specifically. That is my request.

Further, I will add in a bit more detail about my self-conducted (ongoing) research on economics and maybe those who know could also distinguish what the material/content would be like at a university institute to give me a better idea. Would the content radically be different? Will I find anything I have already been studying at University? Will others be able to recognise with these ideas and economic theories I have been contemplating?

I have thus far read;

Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, Virtue of selfishness (I know it is philosphy but holds aspects of economics)

Murray N Rothbard: The ethics of liberty, Man state, economy

Currently reading Mises - Human Action (big book, can only do a few pages each night before my brain is fried, so many new words etc, love it)

Henry Hazlitz - Economics in one lesson

Thats about all from the books and a whole lot of movies, discussion on the internet, I have seen Milton friedman, Doug Casey, Steven Shwarts, Staffan Molyneux and others giving long speeches on free market economics and debates.

As you can see I am still fresh to this stuff but the seed of libertarianism has certainly been planted in my brain, haha.

So will uni send me mad or will I learn a lot. I am very open to new information by the way, provided it makes sense.

Thanks so much for you responses, I think we veered off topic a bit, I think that is in part my fault for not being specific. What I mean by Australia being a socialist country is that the universities are heavily funded and monitored by the government (as far as I know)

Cheers,

Nick

13

Oh sorry forgot to mention,

Thanks so much for those links Conza, will check em out now mate.

Nick

14

“Can we get over this idea that everything not Austrian is automatically ‘Socialist’ or ‘Keynesian’? For a start, Keynesianism is not socialist - it is mixed economy capitalist. Secondly, the mainstream economics taught in most uniersities is Neo-Classical, not Keynesian. You get the odd exception here and there, I’m sure.”

Whilst I agree with most of what you said in terms of Keynesianism V. Socialism this does not change the fact that Austrians inherently have reasons to oppose Keynesianism. More importantly you are only partly right. Keynesianism isn’t really an “economic” ideology as such, it is a macroeconomic set of beliefs and has little intersection with microeconomics, conversely the Neo-classical isn’t really a macroeconomic school, except insofar as it intersects with Keynesian beliefs, it is much more microeconomic. Most of what is taught in universities is neo-classical in terms of microeconomics, and Keynesian in terms of macroeconomics. Macro 101 is almost entirely Keynesianism. or things which don’t conflict with the Keynesian paradigm

15

I’m not familiar with the Australian educational system, but does it have something equivalent to a community college?

If so, I would recommend taking these two particular first year classes: Principles of Macroeconomics and Principles of Microeconomics. Take these two classes by themselves, without enrolling into a full degree program. This should give you a general idea what to expect, and not have to pay full tuition.

Furthermore, it is very possible you can look up their syllabuses on the college’s website. If you really want to save money, find out from the syllabus what the mandatory textbook is, buy the textbook online, and read it by yourself (without enrolling). Then you’ll know exactly what they’ll be teaching.

Else you can ask the professor if you can sit in a class for one day. Possibly, there may be an audit option, which you can attend the class without earning a grade.

Lastly, there are some distance learning courses from some reputable universities, which you can take these above classes by themselves.

Edit: Replaced “Microeconomics” with “Macroeconomics”

16

Another option is a distance course from the University of London. They have been running these courses for 150 years (originally I think it was a scheme for folk who were stuck out in the nether-regions of the Empire, so perfect for an ex-con such as yourself ), and the qualification is apparently quite well respected.

You can enrol on individual modules and get access to some online material. You don’t get any tuition as it is all self-study. But then you don’t get tuition fees either; it’s a matter of learning the material and then doing an exam when you are ready. You can even use the modules as a contribution to a degree if you want to. The course material is the same as what you would do if you went to the London School of Economics, I think.

The main benefit of doing it this way is that it is mind-bogglingly affordable compared to other options. You can get a degree for a little over £3,500 at 2011 prices (I don’t know if the fees are rising this year, however, so you need to be careful. Fees have trippled for normal degrees here in the UK due to government cuts)

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/prospective_students/undergraduate/lse/economics/index.shtml

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

ETA: Apparently Israel Kirzner got his degree though the UoL International Programme

17

We have something called a TAFE. They mainly teach subject which enable people to become employable. Math, English, IT, Business, Accounting, Trades, etc. I don’t think they teach economics.