Think about a tenured economics professor. If they have so much to say about protectionism, and why governments should't subsidize or protect and let the free market do all the work, then why don't they lead by example?

Academics are funded by the state, given tenure, long vacations, are flown for free to conferences, and are paid to sit around and think and write all day. The tuition students pay is a lot less than what the university gets in subsidies.

Free market economists should push to dismantle all the state protections that they enjoy, or they can ironically confront this reality and concede their personal dependence on the state. Clearly they're afraid, because unless they publish a good book or are intellectually stimulating enough that students will pay a high premium to take their courses, they would see their wages/benefits decreased.

That's why I find it sad when their influence causes widespread wealth disparity in the 3rd world because of the "principles" the state imposes using tax dollars and military power.

If you've ever taken an econ class you would know that government subsides for education is good because it allows more students into classes and that allows more minds and more taxpayers

I wonder if there is a correlation between being, at the risk of oversimplification here, liberal and working for a public school, and conservative and working for a private school. I know that the higher education system in the United States is so drastically different than that of most other developed countries, where there is hardly the network of private universities that exists in the U.S.

Off the top of my head though, Paul Krugman, probably the best representation of a "latte-sipping liberal" economist, is on faculty at Princeton, a private school with over $15 billion in endowment. He regularly advances views favoring regulation and state subsidies to education.

The head of the Mises Institute, which is essentially the center for Austrian economics studies in the U.S., is Lew Rockwell. A famous economist and noted figure in anarcho-capitalist circles, he is on the payroll of Auburn University, where the Mises Institute is based. A public school that receives funding from the state of Alabama.

George Mason University, a public institution, has the Institute for Humane Studies, a relatively right wing libertarian center based on campus. I don't know any notable figures there but I imagine several prominent free market economists have at some point taught seminars or published work through here.

I don't think that's what you're asking necessarily but it's what I thought of.

Oh, and the idea that being a tenured professor is somehow "anti-market" and thus it is hypocritical for tenured professors to advocate competition in the marketplace is kind of absurd. Tenure is a voluntary institution that universities extend in order to attract the best and brightest minds to their faculty. The schools do it to benefit the teaching quality and prestige of their faculty. The professors do it because it's job security. It is mutually beneficial.


Voluntary actions and association = capitalism

...

EDIT: I also want to point out that yes, I realize the two examples I gave of "free market economists" are pretty extreme in the spectrum of American viewpoints. However, I don't consider someone like Ben Bernanke to be in favor of any kind of free market. Although he has written several textbooks on classical economics and has worked in an administration that is allegedly in favor of capitalism, I just don't buy it.

Bernanke and Greenspan (these days), do not represent a free market ideology. Zay I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say anyone who could ever willingly step foot inside the Federal Reserve to advance their cause has only one goal and that is corporate domination.

If you've ever taken an econ class you would know that government subsides for education is good because it allows more students into classes and that allows more minds and more taxpayers

I don't think I can agree or disagree with this statement, because it's pretty generic. More unqualified and unmotivated people in classes are not necessarily good because it will draw down the quality of the instructor for other students. Or it could lead to a really thought provoking education because of everyone's diversity of experiences.

Either way, I don't really think you can make a blanket statement like that.

http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=protectionismaf0.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=protectionismaf0.jpg)

I don't think I can agree or disagree with this statement, because it's pretty generic. More unqualified and unmotivated people in classes are not necessarily good because it will draw down the quality of the instructor for other students. Or it could lead to a really thought provoking education because of everyone's diversity of experiences.

Either way, I don't really think you can make a blanket statement like that.


You assume that unmotivated people will spend 3 years of their life doing a degree course just because it is cheaper than it was before.

You assume that having more people sit in a lecture will somehow reduce the quality of the one man at the front speaking. You could give a lecture to 5 people or 5000 people, what you say will still be the same and the utility per head will be equal in each situation (providing they can all hear it)

You also fail to take into account any thought regarding division of labour and specialization, which in a post industrial economy requires a large, well educated workforce.


If you've ever taken an econ class you would know