How important is the study of Economics?

[136or142]

Economics is essential to understanding public administration because so much of government policies is based on macro economics.

In biology and ecology there is something called a 'keystone species'  which is a species that if it disappeared, the local ecosystem would undergo dramatic changes.

I consider economics to be a 'keystone' academic discipline in that the concepts in economics inform all other disciplines (except I guess for languages.)

For one example.  Animals, especially under stress, will minimize the amount of energy they use.  This is pretty much the same as the economics concept of 'scarce resources.'

I would say what a person gets out of studying economics is up to them and their teachers.  

This is an article by by economics professor Robert Franks
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/business/students-ponder-the-economics-of-everyday-life.html

"For years now, I’ve asked students like Mr. Hlawitschka to pose an interesting question based on something they have observed or experienced, and then employ basic economic principles in an attempt to answer it. Don’t try to submit a finished research study, I tell them. Just look around for something that seems puzzling and try to construct a plausible explanation suitable for future testing.

The assignment is my response to the distressing finding that six months after having completed a standard introductory economics course, students are no better able to answer questions about basic economic principles than others who have never even taken economics. In standard courses, hundreds of concepts — many of them embedded in complex equations and graphs — often seem to go by in a blur. In contrast, grappling with questions that students care about appears to be a far more effective learning strategy. And that’s in no small part because the problems they pinpoint are so intriguing."

I think Professor Franks is generally correct, but over-complicates the reason. I think the reason is solely that economics is taught too much by most teachers as a number crunching exercise and the concepts and principles are regarded as a 'social science sideshow.'  When I took economics I noticed that some students could calculate the answers easily but had no idea what any of their calculations meant.  (Of course, this wasn't a problem for every student.)


 

[136or142]

In response to the election of Donald Trump, who should have been completely dismissed as an obvious con artist, I think it is essential that high schools start teaching critical thinking and have the course as a mandate for graduation.

To me, this course would entail teaching the principles and concepts of economics and probability and statistics as well as teaching about logical fallacies and cognitive biases.  Of course, some mathematics would be needed, but as with economics modeling, the math should be as simple as possible to emphasize the concepts are important, not the number crunching.

To make room for this course, I would suggest ending the mandatory teaching of algebra (at least at the grade 12 level) which above roughly grade 10 algebra is useless in daily life.

There are probably around 15 basic economics concept that appear regularly in life.  Since high school students should have observed them in their own life, the purpose of the education would be mainly to formalize the concepts and explain how they work on a macro level.

Off the top of my head, these are the concepts I can think of:
1.Scarcity/limited resources/limited choices and related concept that no choice is perfect.  That leads to the related concept of Pareto Optimality, which is the closest to 'perfection' that can actually be achieved.
2.Opportunity Cost
3.Utility theory (diminishing marginal utility/resources going to those who are best able to utilize them)
4.Difference between marginal analysis and aggregate analysis and why decisions should be 'made at the margins'
5.Externalities
6.Network externalities, or network effects, which I believe is a similar concept as  the 'symbiotic relationship' in nature.
7.Time lags
8.Difference between the short run and the long run.  (People have more time to adjust in the long run and, presumably, learn from their mistakes in the long run.)
9.Market failures
10.Asymmetrical information and the related concept of signalling
11.Sunk costs.
12.Normative vs. Positive Statements.  A good economics teacher will tell you the only appropriate response to a normative statement is "Why?"  (And a bad economics teacher will tell you "Leave Norm alone!")

Not to go off topic from the original question, but these are some lyrics from a couple of my favorite songs that refer to these concepts with poetry:

Utility theory and limited choices: "Since every pleasure has got an edge of pain/pay for your ticket and don't complain" Bob Dylan and Robert Hunter "Silvio"

Opportunity cost: "You give something up for everything you gain" Silvio

Sunk costs: "Where you've been is good and gone, all you keep is the getting there" Townes Van Zandt "To Live is to Fly."

Market Failures (sort of) "Even the swap meets around here are getting pretty corrupt." Bob Dylan and Sam Shepard "Brownsville Girl"

[136or142]

Anybody who seriously argues that gold has seen 'stable production across time' clearly knows nothing about history.

Now that the entire world has been 'discovered' it's likely gold discovery and production is and will continue to be much more stable, but I think we've also discovered that independent central banks do a far better job at regulating inflation and the money supply than gold ever could.

[136or142]

Anybody who seriously argues that gold has seen 'stable production across time' clearly knows nothing about history.

Now that the entire world has been 'discovered' it's likely gold discovery and production is and will continue to be much more stable, but I think we've also discovered that independent central banks do a far better job at regulating inflation and the money supply than gold ever could.

Um... I should point out that a gold-to-silver ratio of backing alongside the "independent central banks" would make it easier on the latter to properly manage the monetary supply.

No, it wouldn't.