Why I can’t teach economics anymore

I’ve been trying to describe to people why I’m no longer teaching economics to undergraduates and why I feel so sad and angry about the subject in general. Sometimes I say it’s because economics doesn’t include any history. But that isn’t quite right. I mean, it’s true. I did an undergraduate degree in economics without learning any history, which seems odd. But that’s a vague critique. There is a more precise reason why I’m pissed off with economics.

Here are some of my economics textbooks. Look how vague the covers are. What’s in the bag Varian? Nothing. What’s on the bag? Nothing. What’s in the textbook? Lots of equations. Ok.

It’s not so much that it doesn’t talk about any history. It’s because it doesn’t talk about war — or the violence and oppression that has so shaped our history and economic systems. Economics speaks in equations. Neat and tidy equations, that lead to neat and tidy concepts. Concepts frozen in time, in the present, with no mention of the past.

Even if you haven’t studied economics you will be familiar with these concepts because they are bandied around with such frequency on the news; labour productivity, GDP, growth. The concepts enable economists to create a parallel view of the world which is a lot more palatable than the real world. In this parallel world the wealth of countries like the UK and the US is cos we are more productive than other countries. This means in Britain we can tell ourselves we are rich because we work hard, we’re industrious and inventive.