come to think of it, and without seeing the syllabus and whatever normative claims they make, the stimulus package is probably a pretty good case study for students and teachers. it demonstrates the fundamentals learned in high school economics (national income accounting, aggregate demand/supply and equilibrium analysis) and definitely vindicates the syllabus.
Last edited by funkshen; 16 Jul 2012 at 10:07 PM.
5.11.2 waste from resource use
a) relate pollution to contamination by unwanted substances
b) identify excessive use of fossil fuels as a contributing factor to a
c) discuss strategies used to balance human activities and needs in ecosystems
with conserving, protecting and maintaining the quality and sustainability
of the environment
realistically you would have spent about 1 or 2 lessons on it in year 10
also hey what happened to rep
But bias can exist both ways, I know as a fact that the two teachers who taught economics at my school had a very obvious anti-labor bias. The fact is, whatever you do to the syllabus, there will always be some form of bias inherent in some teachers imo. I guess the point of view that students end up adopting may be influenced by this, but in the end an able student with the capability to think independently should be able to form their own opinions regardless of the bias of their teacher
You would think that independent thinking would be encouraged, but it rarely is. Not until you get to uni and you discover that ticking the boxes doesn't cut the mustard. It's because of the nature of schooling in Australia. How well you perform in the HSC governs what uni you get into/what you study etc and a lot of the time, students just want to tick the syllabus boxes. How many times were you in class and someone asked 'which dot point is this?' ?
How do you study for the HSC? you go through the syllabus dot points.
Rote learning at it's finest.
The raccoon is often called a 'robber' for its foraging habits, the mask.
like markings on its face, and its illegal acquisition of blue period Picassos
i think your concern about 'actual effects on inflation and costs as well as if any realistic or sustainable growth can be ascertained' aren't realistic or relevant. no one would argue that the stimulus package pushed headline or CPI inflation beyond the target 2-3%. as for 'realistic or sustainable growth', well, we've returned to (new) trend growth, so whats your gripe? the syllabus teaches fundamentals, theory, and intution, not empirics and rigor.
i'm not saying it's all peaches and cream. it just sounds like you heard something you didn't want to hear. kinda like an LNP member not wanting to hear climate science taught in schools.
Last edited by funkshen; 17 Jul 2012 at 8:31 PM.
1) the RBA cut the cash rate from 7.25 to 3.0 between september '08 and april '09. not by unprecedented amounts - the largest cut was 100bps which has been done quite a few times - although the overall effect, halving the rate in 6 months, was unprecedented. but first of all, lending rates are obviously multicausal. like all banks, australian banks borrow heavily from overseas, and interbank lending froze up (i.e. credit crunch). so, compounded by uncertainty and fear both domestic and international, we didn't see a commensurate fall in domestic borrowing costs. secondly, to quote milton friedman, "monetary policy works with long and variable lags." that is, the effect of monetary policy is delayed (by, say, two quarters at least). or monetary policy works with long and variable 'leads' instead, where the transmission mechanism of monetary policy is understood as expectations of future GDP, looser policy leading to higher expectations of future GDP, leading to an increase in current AD and GDP. but the point is the effects are delayed, and you have problems in the meantime related to falling aggregate demand and consumption (e.g. unemployment)There are a myriad of other, more sensible reasons for these things though. The fact that the RBA cut interest rates by an unprecedented amount (can't remember the exact figure) overnight, combined with China not being as adversely affected as the rest of the globe's economies and still demanded all of our minerals (wassup two speed economy) and stuff like the government not securing losses for banks throwing cash into bad borrower's laps all had a more important and stringent effect than the stimulus that was handed out. Literally none of these things were even mentioned when I learnt it, which means they either were or are not included in any syllabus relevant to learning about this type of economic management, which is ludicrous.
2) china was in the midst of a slowdown as well. economic growth fell off a cliff (from 12% to 8.5% or so). they instituted a massive stimulus package - 14% of GDP compared to 5.5% for the US and 4.6% for australia. this shored up demand for australian minerals and commodity prices in general.
3) the government did secure losses. an emergency scheme in 2008 covered deposits up to $1mn, and this was only reduced to $250,000 in February this year. obviously this was just to deal with uncertainty and a potential run on the banks. no deposits were actually secured since none of our banks went bankrupt.
the handouts, and later the school building program and other spending programs, had a real, immediate effect on aggregate demand. you can't simultaneously argue that our economic stimulus didn't work and then thank chinese demand for our mineral wealth, because chinese demand was shored up by their massive stimulus package. and because monetary policy works with long and variable lags, the virtue of an immediate cash handout program has instant and real effects.
i get that. i agree that the syllabus could probably do without a valorisation of the stimulus package. but it's a great case study, and should still be taught. and you're still going to have people who complain about it.My gripe isn't with pointless ideology, it's with providing a better education about serious issues, further than "look the science just isn't in".
Last edited by funkshen; 18 Jul 2012 at 7:34 PM.
Gillard will be gone within 4 weeks. Thee evidence against her misconduct in the mid 90s is about to boil over after it has been simmering for the past year.
Solo, you're an idiot. Just, in general, an idiot.
MEcon @ UNSW I
Even the left media is all now reporting on Gillards fraud from the mid 90s; she has even lost the support of Leonore Taylor and Michelle Grattan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)