In response to:

Teaching Economics

Richard111 Wrote: Jul 03, 2012 9:39 PM
Roe v. Wade was passed in January 1973, so those aborted would have been 0 to 39 years old. They would have required that schools were built, roads were updated, required a larger energy grid and that at least 20 million more homes/apartments were built. They would have gotten married, had children, raised families, bought a house or rented an apartment, bought clothes, bought food, bought refrigerators, computers, cell phones, books, washers, dryers, dish washers, furniture and many more products that would have caused more factories to be built to manufacture these products and more stores to sell them in.
Dick 2992 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 7:34 AM
What the hell does this have to do with the subject of the article? Go Away. And no, I haven't read your ramblings. Just read enough to decide to stop.
Richard111 Wrote: Jul 03, 2012 9:39 PM
Now, because of Roe v. Wade, we have had over four years of recession with no sign of an end. In fact, we are looking forward to ten to twenty years of more of the same.
To fix the problem, we need to reverse Roe v. Wade and it would help to instill better morals in all our citizens. GOD is punishing us through the use of simple economics. The application of Keynesian economics IS NOT the solution!
Want to know more about this, go to:
Having taught economics at a number of colleges for a number of years, I especially welcomed a feature article in the June 22nd issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, on how economics courses with the same name can be very different at different colleges. It can also be very different when the course is taught by professors in the same department who have different approaches.

The usefulness of the three approaches described in the article depends on what the introductory course is trying to accomplish.

One professor taught the subject through a steady diet of mathematical models. If the introductory economics course...