I heard a great quote recently that I should have paid better attention to:
“Of all your greatest heroes, none of them would read the comment section.”
But I did anyway, just to see what Crash Course fans would say about the introduction to the upcoming series. In fact, one of the top comments reflected my sentiment in my first post:
This seems like a reasonable request. Richie is asking for polycentric approach to economics instead of defaulting to neo-liberal economics. Someone took umbrage to his comment and wrote below:
To this person, the purpose of this course is to teach “high school AP economics.” In fact, this person seems frustrated that anyone would teach anything other than this.
First, nowhere on the intro video was there mention of this course’s educational intent. As far as we know, the mission statement is “to teach economics.” The series’ creator has complete creative control over the series, and I’m not familiar with any duty that Crash Course has to prepare students for their AP exams.
But poopisnotpoop’s comment begs the question. In other words, since economics is a polarizing topic for some and “truth” is not as clear as in mathematics or physics, how do you approach telling people how economics works? Do you talk about where economic ideas come from, how popular they are, and how they’ve been tested?
Most economists are familiar with the different schools of thought, but I doubt that any of them were introduced to the subject by understanding that there is not one accepted or “true” school. Different schools have different arguments and explanations for their theories, and certain schools and theories are more popular than others.
This is not how high school economics is taught, which is why most people have faith that there is one understanding of how things work, and that the government, who has the greatest control over the levers of the economy, is making the best decisions, given what we know about the “truths” of economics.
Episode 1 of Crash Course gave a brief introduction to how the course is designed, who your co-hosts are, and some basic principles and definitions in economics. There was a mix of good and bad economic conclusions, so let’s dive right in:
How Does Crash Course Define Economics?
Our first co-host, Mr. Clifford, defines economics as “the study of people and choices”. This is a pretty great definition, especially considering the alternatives. Depending on his preferred school of economic thought, he could have easily said economics is the study of “classes and prosperity,” “institutions and planning,” or “statistics and predictions”. Instead, Mr. Clifford went with people and choices which will become important later on when the show gives examples of choices.
The Good
The first example of what a human choice looks like couldn’t be more relatable to the audience: watching a YouTube video. YouTubers compete for your attention, and by proxy, ad revenue. YouTube content is a serious business as our hosts know, and the popularity of some channels over others will determine the actual wealth of the content creators.
Our second co-host, Adriene, even goes into defining opportunity cost: “the cost of watching this video is the video you’re not watching.”
I would have been satisfied with this explanation, but Adriene goes so far as to give a great example of opportunity cost in having a large military state:
Military spending in the United States is over $600 billion per year. That’s close to what the next top 10 countries spend combined…the opportunity cost of [each] aircraft carrier could be hospitals, schools, and roads.
This statement is pretty profound in one sense, considering that some people and economists continue to write that any kind of government spending is good for the economy regardless of what it is, even if it’s for a fake alien invasion.
What is not mentioned, however, is that the opportunity cost of these aircraft carriers could also be non-government spending in the marketplace. In other words, if the money spent on aircraft carriers were refunded to taxpayers (or never taken in the first place), people could decide for themselves what they would prefer to spend that money on. It could be towards their healthcare bills, their kids’ college tuition, or buying consumer goods, any of which might be more important to them than another aircraft carrier.
This is a good example of Bastiat’s broken window argument or “the unseen”, which says that it’s easier to see the stuff paid for (in this case, the aircraft carrier) than that which could have paid for.
The Bad
The YouTube video selection example was a great illustration of the marketplace, but I thought next examples were a little strange.
“But what if I’m watching this at school,” you ask. “What if I’m forced to watch this?” Well, you weren’t forced to go to school. You could ditch, you could drop out, you could move to a country that doesn’t have compulsory education.
Wait, isn’t that a contradiction? Doesn’t something legally compulsory require coercion or force? Parents have a legal obligation to send their kids to school, under the threat of significant fines or jail time, sometimes for the student. It doesn’t matter if school gives you anxiety or you’re being bullied, you still have to go. And you obviously can’t just move to another country; runaways are sent back to their legal guardians.
This is quite different from choosing which YouTube video to watch. You don’t get fined or jailed for not watching a YouTube video. To a child, compulsory education is not the marketplace.
Another problem I had with the videos was a lack of distinction of individual and government action:
Is there a way to ensure there will never be another traffic fatality? Yes, we can crush all the cars, close the roads, and force everyone to walk. Do you want to decrease the number of people convicted of murder? You could decriminalize murder. You want to end the unethical treatment of elephants? You can kill off the elephants, in an ethical way of course.
Are these questions directed at me? I can’t do any of these things.
I can choose one YouTube video over another, but I cannot choose an alternative road system, legal system, or what other people do with their elephants.
You know driving has risks, that you might get in a car accident, but you still drive.
Adriene has now switched the subject to what I personally decide to take as my transportation method. The power to choose whether to drive is different from deciding to crush all the cars and force everyone else to walk. I have control over myself and my actions, but I don’t get to decide how other people act.
Assessment
I was pleased and entertained by the introductory episode of Crash Course Economics. The big economic principles it taught are generally unobjectionable, but some of the word selection and examples are either confusing or misleading. The 10-minute video has a lot more to unpack, and I’ll try to expound on some of the interesting choices of words and implications before the next video comes out. I’ll also include some thoughts from other economists I’ve asked to contribute to the blog.
Like what I wrote? Hate what I wrote? Feel free to comment below.
I’m very happy to announce that Robert Wenzel of Target Liberty and Economic Policy Journal will be contributing to the blog. We’re not sure in what capacity, but at the very least I’ll post his reaction to the upcoming Crash Course Economics videos.
The first video will be released Wednesday, and I hope to have a critique up by the weekend.
I’ve always liked Crash Course. Their unique style that combines textbook subjects with humor and entertaining visual graphics is impressive. I wouldn’t be surprised if a student learns more from one series (which may take about 3-4 hours to watch in its entirety) than in an entire year-long high school course. That’s saying a lot about the gap between schooling and education.
Crash Course announced its next course last week: Economics.
This is great, I thought. Economics is a field that a lot of people wish they understood more about, but are so put off by reading an 800-page treatise that they don’t know where to get started. Instead, many are satisfied with accepting the economic premises and conclusions of whichever journalists they read and move on.
Crash Course could change this, however. With their 3.1 million YouTube subscribers, they have already educated millions on subjects from World History to Astronomy. Finally, a name I trust can explain the principles of economics in an entertaining way.
BUT there is a problem with explaining economics: there are many schools of economic thought. Does the series plan to talk about every subject from the perspective of every school? That’s quite an endeavor, but I’ll wait until I see some of their work before I judge.
But alas! The introduction video has been released, and it’s far from being non-biased or poly-centric in its schools of thought. They come right out of the gate with satire:
Today we peer into a world where shadowy government stooges manipulate the levers of fiscal policy from deep in their evil lairs. They pick economic winners and losers, and control the business cycle creating recessions and controlling inflation to serve their nefarious purposes.
Translation:
You probably think that members of the government use their powers for bad things, like spending on projects in order to help politically-connected corporations and campaign donors. Since we’re using words like “evil,” “shadowy,” and “nefarious,” we’re showing you how silly this point of view is. Governments clearly aren’t evil, so thinking that politicians are influenced by anything other than the public good is ridiculous!
The satire comes to a stop and is followed by the series’s thesis:
Nah. Fiscal policy is a completely legitimate tool used by non-shadowy government officials to correct the economy!
Translation:
Almost got you there! Government fiscal policy is totally legitimate.
I’m wondering: Are all government fiscal policies legitimate, even in countries that spend money in completely different ways? Are all their actions legitimate because they are done by governments?
BONUS: Did you catch the factoid in black that was on the screen for maybe half a second? It says “By law, officers are allowed to shut down lemonade stands.” Are these the corrections in the economy the co-host was referring to?
The introductory video implies a few points:
1. Without government intervention, the economy would need correction.
2. Governments correct the economy by taxing its people and spending it on certain projects.
3. This process is completely legitimate because it actually does correct the problems it intends to solve.
This already ignores at the very minimum the Austrian and Chicago Schools of Economic Thought, which suggest that the economy is necessarily worse off when money is diverted from voluntary action (the market) to government projects. And if the video is arguing for spending beyond the bare minimum (roads, military, courts, etc.), it would be ignoring other economic schools of thought as well.
This blog will review each Crash Course Economics video and highlight some of the premises and conclusions made in the videos. I look forward to the project and I hope you are too!
-Gary
You can watch the full Crash Course Economics Introduction Video below:
