[davidw]

That's a good one. A lot of 'free' econ materials on the internet are there to Push An Agenda and often in a not very subtle way. That "intro to econ" book seems fairly neutral in comparison and more like a standard introductory text.

[littlestymaar]

I don't think there is any «neutral» way to talk about economics. At the lowest level, how you model the human behavior is not neutral : if you think of humans as rational beings trying to maximize their well-being, you'll talk about price, market and competition : you're describing the world in the classical / liberal point of view. On the other hand, if you describe them as social creatures under the influence of social forces, you'll talk about wage slavery, alienation and class conflict and you'll see the world in a socialist point of view.

Both aspect are interesting to learn about but none of them is neutral and they both come with a bunch a ideology. Even if the first usually hides it, pretending to be a neutral and rigorous analysis of the world. Introduction to Economic Analysis is clearly in this category.

[Retric]

As neither of those models actually work 100% of the time, I don't think they have much to say about a neutral point of view. Any serious work is going to say ~"This is false, but..."

A neutral POV might be Humans are computationally limited mostly independent actors who's actions are based on updatable heuristics. This much more closely matches things like asset bubbles or creation of unions, but also preference for name brands.

PS: The truth is not trying to tell a story. Suggesting the truth is biased is suggesting the world is also biased.

[amelius]

Then a neutral approach would cover both viewpoints (?)

[JumpCrisscross]

No, it would cover the models that work. The reason any respectable economics text starts with frictionless markets of rational and then immediately talks about market failure is because to recognise the latter as a divergence you need the former as a baseline. Looking at things and asking "how does this make you feel" isn't scientific. Learning models that, while not great have shown some predictive power, is better. Economics pedagogy is far from perfect, but backing into the model by studying deviations seems like the wrong way to do it.

[littlestymaar]

> Learning models that, while not great have shown some predictive power, is better.

The problem is that theses models have a predictive power approximatly the same that Aristotle Law of free fall. They describe a world that seems intuitive but is totally wrong in most cases. For instance the diminishing return hypothesis comes from Ricardo's studies of agriculture in the UK. Since then this hypothesis is almost always used when studying the law and supply and demand. The problem is : it's almost always false unless you're harvesting a natural ressource.

Teaching a model which is known to be a pretty terrible representation of reality is not a good thing because it gives a false sense of understanding, which is dangerous from a democratic point of view.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The problem is that theses models have a predictive power approximatly the same that Aristotle Law of free fall

Having done exercises of rolling carts down inclines and comparing the measured velocity to predicted velocity, and having taken supply schedules and use those to predict price variation, I can say one set of calculations was more accurate than the other. (No doubt this was due to data quality.) Simple regressions of supply and demand curves have uncanny predictive power.

They are not a terrible representation of reality in the same way that rigid bodies are not a terrible representation. They are a limited representation that naturally extends itself. Don't confuse modern macroeconomic models with the terrifically-successful microeconomics early econ tends to focus on.

[littlestymaar]

> and having taken supply schedules and use those to predict price variation, […] Simple regressions of supply and demand curves have uncanny predictive power.

Do you have access to the actual data you worked with ? I personally attempted to study real world data to get an idea of the actual elasticity of basic products (gas, real estate, tobacco) and I've never found a single relevant measurement. I'd be really interested to see a real life example of this phenomenon.

[littlestymaar]

Should we teach both evolution and intelligent design for the sake of neutrality ?

A scientific theory shouldn't pretend it's «neutral»: biology isn't «neutral» since it's clearly again the religious believes of huge part of the humanity. What's makes a science true is its ability to explain and predict the real world.

The socialist view of the world doesn't even pretend to be scientific : it doesn't give any predictions. (unless you consider that Marx predicted the communist revolutions, but it looks more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than a prediction).

The classical/liberal view pretends to be a scientific point of view, despite being unable to predict anything accurately and having almost all the founding hypotheses proved wrong. Historically the reason the classical economic theory became popular was because the classical economists where against the corn laws[1] and they convinced the nascent industrial bourgeoisie that the free market would be good for them. Then the Anti-Corn Law League was born, and The Economist and the political destiny of the classical economics.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

[TheCowboy]

I'd drop the word "neutrality" and replace it with what is trying to be expressed that economics aims to do: make positive statements, attempts to describe something, makes statements that are falsifiable/testable.

Political economy is where the value judgments and arguments about why we should implement some form or system of economics.

Economics doesn't disappear under socialism or communism. Many basic principles apply depending on what form of socialism is adopted, such as supply and demand. Socialists tend to run into problems when they decide economics is some 'tool of the bourgeoisie' when it is a tool for everyone who want to solve real problems involving the distribution of society's wealth.

[yorwba]

> Should we teach both evolution and intelligent design for the sake of neutrality ?

Since both of them are influential in society, I think it's appropriate to address both of them. My high school biology teacher did a short session on intelligent design before proceeding with Lamarckism, Darwinism, Mendelian genetics and so on. Of course we mostly just mocked biblical literalism, which I think is not the intention of those who want intelligent design taught in schools, but we did talk about it.

[nimish]

This overweights viewpoints that aren't actually relevant.