<p>Strangely enough, I enjoyed Microeconomics much more than Macroeconomics. But I disagree with Keynesianism for the most part, so that might explain it. :)</p>
<p>I disliked intro Micro too, I found it boring and too much like business. I preferred Intro Macro and Intermediate Macro, liked International Econ a lot. But I have thought of switching to a Bio major since I love Bio and have done very well in my pre-med classes. But since I want to dedicate the rest of my life to science, why not be more well-rounded and use my Undergrad years to explore an additional interest? I like my liberal arts classes as well.</p>
<p>“Strangely enough, I enjoyed Microeconomics much more than Macroeconomics. But I disagree with Keynesianism for the most part, so that might explain it”</p>
<p>I’m afraid of this as well. I have a freind at Northwestern U, and he says all the content taught in macro courses is heavily based on Keynesian theory. I can’t say I know enough about Keynesian economics to fully reject it, but I have always thought the likes of the Austrian School to be more accurate.</p>
<p>That’s definitely true. I guess that I disagree with Keynesianism and align myself with more conservative financial principles (such as the Austrian school), although I’m definitely open to be exposed to advanced macroeconomic courses with a heavy emphasis on Keynesian theory. But if, I’m not mistaken, there are mainstream alternatives – Greg Mankiw, I think, has written a macro book without an emphasis on Keynesian theory. If anything, the many ways we can view the various economic principles through different schools of thought is what makes economics so fascinating.</p>
<p>The Austrain School is to academic economics as Continental Philosophy is to academic philosophy in America. Both schools of thought are largely ignored in their respective curriculum. </p>
<p>The Austrian School is ignored mainly because it does not have a strong quantitative focus just as Continental Philosophy(Sartre, Heidegger, Nietzsche etc.) is marginalized because it does not have a strong focus in analytic logic.</p>
<p>Not true on Mankiw; see chapters 10 and 11.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Yeah, I’m not too sure about the Mankiw book. I read the Krugman book for Micro/Macro.</p>
<p>Yeah, the use (or lack thereof) of mathematics and econometrics has been a longstanding criticism of the Austrian School. However, I believe that their explanation of inflation is particularly relevant in today’s economy.</p>
<p>Econ is really easy if you have a strong math background. I’d consider it more a long the lines of applied common sense. It tends to give people who have a liberal arts background mroe trouble because they don’t get as much practice with abstract thinking.</p>
<p>Why is everyone hating on keynes? People like macro better? Macro is by far the worst sub-category of economics. Micro and Game theory are definitely better. I don’t understand why people don’t like keynes, I’m going to assume you took more than just an intro class to come to this conclusion. You don’t have to be liberal to at least appreciate keynes. Can people explain why they don’t like his theory and why they think the Austrian school is better? (I saw you already mentioned inflation).</p>
<p>By the way, Mankiw, Krugman, and Levitt (Freakonomics) all have fantastic blogs. Anyone majoring in econ needs to check them out.</p>
<p>Euler,</p>
<p>Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy (“inducement to invest”) through some combination of two approaches: a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure.</p>
<p>I don’t belive inflation (reduction in interest rates) creates any sort of (real) economic stimulation. Recent history would attest to that.</p>
<p>And while I believe investment in infrastructure is good, I belive the free market invests more effectively and efficiently when compared to the government.</p>
<p>funny, econ and philo are my 2 favorite subjects…deciding on a 2nd degree in one of them maybe, but my gut tells me to do econ.
philo for me was easy though and took 2 classes… took another recently and received a 100 perfect a.
not sure how valuable monetarily it would be though w/ a degree in philo. I did MIS and hate IT after 7 years working in it…want to get out, to either mpa/econ or philo…
I am settled on the area I want to live though in sfbay, so that limits me.</p>
<p>I am really interested in econ but I’m curious, how much time do you spend on the mathematics portion of econ vs discussing Keynesian, Chicago, and Austrian school of economics and stuff like that. I read some books by Milton Freidman and they really got me interested in economics.</p>
<p>By the way,</p>
<p>"“all liberals are a bunch of good for nothing lazy, tree hugging, pot smoking, veggie munching pussies who cry about everything being unfair and want to rob hardworking americans of their dollars, and are too pathetically stupid to get real jobs and instead pop out 8 babies and cry for welfare, want a commie nanny government, want to kill babies but save convicted felons and care more about saving manatees than fighting terrorists”</p>
<p>True dat.</p>
<p>^ hahah I just said that to bother LiberalWarrior, I don’t really believe it 
save the manatees?</p>
<p>Gosh, there are two Ron Paul’s and they both want to be Econ majors. The real Ron Paul is an OB/Gyn, you know. He delivered babies and peeked inside vaginas til he got bored and ran for President, true story. </p>
<p>In Intro Micro or Intro Macro we barely did any Math, it was mostly about concepts. There was a lot more math in Intermediate Micro but i’ve heard the advanced classes are where the real math happens.</p>