Re-Learning Economics

I certainly agree. Econ is not my subject area, marketing is. But I feel basic marketing texts try to cover too many bases. What we need is a good "reader" with maybe 8-10 classic articles and a text of no more than 100 pages, with 20 pages of introduction followed by 20 pages on each of the 4 Ps, then QUIT! Add in one currently topical book on something controversial, like perhaps "The Death of Demand."

Robert Frank should think again. There's a strong contradiction in his statements.

Economics is so poorly instructed in most schools and universities because of the very nature of modern economics itself. In general, CEO's and business owners, especially those in the bigger companies, cannot afford to pay any serious attention to any other values than shareholders' value and their own income. They will rather look at all the short-term figures than seek ways for their corporations to add sustainable value to the people that work for them or to society as a whole. It's only natural for them to try to influence educational methods in schools and universities. They do so, claiming that students and teaching methods need to be aligned with the needs of the corporations they lead. They are quite successful with that, too, as most school boards and teachers willingly comply. That's why economics is instructed so poorly, with way-too much emphasis on figures and way-too little on meaning and human context.

So, Robert Frank should think again when he says that top-earning CEO's are worth their ever increasing salaries. It means that he favors the same money-driven mentality of CEO's that is at the very root of the teaching deficits that he has been talking about.

I would like to hear from Robert Frank how he thinks the gap between general economic thinking and meaningful contribution can be closed.

I'm a third year economics student and I guess I've been well taught according to Professor Frank because I answered the door question accurately. There are more answers to that question as well. Usually the owner of the business is not the owner of the building and the owner of the building isn't going to want to have to change the door if they lease the building out to somebody else. What both the door question and the bride dress question suggest in their answers is the need to think in terms of full analysis, or logistics. That is, in terms of the door question, don't just consider the needs of the company that is operating the building, but also the needs of the suppliers of that company. When considering the needs of the door manufacturers, the answer becomes obvious. I don't know if economics courses do that well enough, certainly it helps if a person can consider the door manufacturers needs from a mathematical perspective (i.e how much more expensive is it for them to make specialty doors than what they normally manufacturer). I think my also having a background in accounting helps me in regards to thinking through the full analysis. In that regards, I would suggest that an accounting course for economics students be required. I would certainly encourage a lesser emphasis on more complex mathematics like calculus, though of course it has its place, especially differential calculus in regards to finding maximum returns. (Of course, as somebody who has failed integral calculus 3 times, I have a personal interest here). The question I would ask the students, to get them thinking, would be to take a bottle of water (not tap water in a bottle) and ask them to think of how many companies it took to create that product, after the bottled water plant was built (so not including the companies that built the manufacturing facilities). Clearly it would be a fairly large number and that can get into all sorts of discussion regarding the free market system and how all these companies work in ways that more or less facilitate each other without requiring some overall central authority.