story

After an anonymous A&M professor posted an Op-ed in the Batt, a named student sent a response - that the Batt refused to publish. The proposed Op-ed should be required reading for all current students.

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

The Batt is an insult to fish wrap.

Wild how they'll run an oped by an anonymous professor, but won't print an oped signed by a student.

The professor is a coward, like all leftists.

Vepp said:

---

Wild how they'll run an oped by an anonymous professor, but won't print an oped signed by a student.

---

Yep, tells you all you need to know. The Batt is propaganda and should be shut down.

For reference, here's the link to the professor's original article.

https://thebatt.com/news/anonymous-professor-calls-on-students-to-be-agent-of-change/

When was the original article and do you happen to have a link? I would love to see what the man with the chalk had to say.

EDIT: Nevermind

Windy City Ag said:

---

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

---

Huh?! I read it and it's a mixture of facts and conjecture which is an opinion piece. And the author provided his name unlike the prof which hid their name.

I can only assume you made a negative comment because you didn't like what the author had to say.

Rocky Rider said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

---

Huh?! I read it and it's a mixture of facts and conjecture which is an opinion piece. And the author provided his name unlike the prof which hid their name.

I can only assume you made a negative comment because you didn't like what the author had to say.

---

Exactly that.

Just look at his posting history.

Windy City Ag said:

---

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

---

Which one Professor?

Nanananananananananananananannaaa batfish

Rapier108 said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

---

Huh?! I read it and it's a mixture of facts and conjecture which is an opinion piece. And the author provided his name unlike the prof which hid their name.

I can only assume you made a negative comment because you didn't like what the author had to say.

---

Exactly that.

Just look at his posting history.

---

Well he's proud of Chicago so that pretty much tells you everything you need to know

Quote:

---

Huh?! I read it and it's a mixture of facts and conjecture which is an opinion piece. And the author provided his name unlike the prof which hid their name.

I can only assume you made a negative comment because you didn't like what the author had to say.

---

No . . . I just found it to be one of those pseudo-intellectual rants that don't hold up to to any sort of analysis. It is like a distillation of too many zero hedge rambling protest articles. But to his points

I agree with the intro . . that profs are detached from reality although he lays it on a bit thick with the generational nature of society's problems.

He then claims he is forced to take pointless courses . . .no one is forcing the kid to get a degree or even get a degree at A&M. From what I have read of the author, he is a psych student at A&M so I can understand why he is angry . . .he opted for a pointless degree from an unrespected psych program nationally. I agree with his comments on the book grift though.

So what does he blame it all on? Indoctrination?

I have not studied economics for a few decades now but I am calling flat bulls%it on an econ program only promoting Marx and Keynes - which are two massively different things by the way. He confuses money printing with deficit spending. Why does he make this point? Because he can't buy a house? This section is just straw men and hasty generalizations

Can't comment on psych . . . .seems like he is appealing to ignorance through.

The literature section is stupid. No literature curriculum has replaces Shakespeare, Dickens, or Dante. A&M lit class has an entire dedicated class to Shakespeare.

Can't comment on sociology but I have read and agree with the points he is making.

I could go on and on . . .each section rests of fallacies and appeals to ignorance.

The conclusion is just bad . . China dominates us in energy, AI, and manufacturing? No . . . they have sucked up most of our low margin manufacturing for sure but the other two points are not defensible.

This op-ed was a poorly reasoned wannabe polemic rant that no one is going to listen to.

Quote:

---

Well he's proud of Chicago so that pretty much tells you everything you need to know

---

Why does this place constantly avoid actual discussion and instead resort to attacking messengers.

And this is why The Batt got moved to online and only prints on Thursdays.

Windy City Ag said:

---

This op-ed was a poorly reasoned wannabe polemic rant that no one is going to listen to.

---

Yes the profs op-ed dripped with the usual academic poltroonery.

Quote:

---

I have not studied economics for a few decades now but I am calling flat bulls%it on an econ program only promoting Marx and Keynes - which are two massively different things by the way. He confuses money printing with deficit spending. Why does he make this point? Because he can't buy a house? This section is just straw men and hasty generalizations

---

Then you might be ignoring the real, left-wing indoctrination of academia that has occurred in the last few decades. Considering Keynes is the dominant, mainstream Economic theory and practice in this country (unfortunately) and considering Marxism is the desired economic theory of the left who dominates academia, I would be very surprised if anything but these two are taught.

I'm going to assume the Austrian School is either not taught or skated over as obsolete in most programs unless you are attending somewhere like Hillsdale.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he's proud of Chicago so that pretty much tells you everything you need to know

---

Why does this place constantly avoid actual discussion and instead resort to attacking messengers.

---

I am truly blown away.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

And this is why The Batt got moved to online and only prints on Thursdays.

---

Well damn! How are today's dorm dwellers supposed to fill up a vacationing hallmate's room with crumpled up Battalions NOW?!?

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

And this is why The Batt got moved to online and only prints on Thursdays.

---

That and everyone's on their phones in class instead of doing the crossword while ignoring the Prof.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he's proud of Chicago so that pretty much tells you everything you need to know

---

Why does this place constantly avoid actual discussion and instead resort to attacking messengers.

---

do you want to start a discussion then instead of just hand-waiving away the points that the student, quite clearly, articulated?

you cant just say DEBOONKED and claim that you won the argument.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he's proud of Chicago so that pretty much tells you everything you need to know

---

Why does this place constantly avoid actual discussion and instead resort to attacking messengers.

---

More black youth die in your city than anywhere else and nobody ever does anything about it. We don't like racist cities.

Windy City Ag said:

---

That op-ed was one extremely long set of red herrings and fallacies.

---

Quote:

---

But I may have no choice but to leave. Continuing to serve you and to serve society through you now carries real risks to my career, my reputation, and my security. Worse still, outside actors may be willing to put you in harm's way if that is what it takes to drive me out.

---

Well good-bye, there are literally hundreds of qualified applicants willing to take your position.

Kid has more to lose than Prof. But has grande juevos. Sign your name, Prof.
I used to get those anonymous phone calls about what happened up at the school. I told them to meet me at the office and write a complaint. No one ever showed .
Prof = Mrs Gravitz.

Great rebuttal. Crazy that they won't run it.

Quote:

---

I have not studied economics for a few decades now but I am calling flat bulls%it on an econ program only promoting Marx and Keynes - which are two massively different things by the way. He confuses money printing with deficit spending. Why does he make this point? Because he can't buy a house? This section is just straw men and hasty generalizations

---

So admittedly you haven't taken the classes for a few decades, but you can immediately dismiss the observations of a current student on the content of those current classes? Sounds like your argument is sound...

When I considered an economics minor at Texas A&M, I asked if they taught Austrian economics as a course and they said no. This was back in 2010.

TheMasterplan said:

---

When I considered an economics minor at Texas A&M, I asked if they taught Austrian economics as a course and they said no. This was back in 2010.

---

There you go.

Thanks Ron Paul Revolution.

Quote:

---

When I considered an economics minor at Texas A&M, I asked if they taught Austrian economics as a course and they said no. This was back in 2010.

---

That is not just an A&M thing. You would be hard pressed to find any econ department anywhere that provides a focus on Austrian school econ. George Mason is really the only one.

It is because economic schools are not really a focus at the undergrad level. If a school of thought is mentioned, it is to reflect the underlying thoughts economic logic rather than say one is right or wrong. You don't start with the Chicago school and then conclude with Quantity Theory of Money . . . you may get a reference to Chicago school as the origin of that theory.

And I guess that makes sense because the Austrian school is basically a rejection of theory based decision making with an alternate focus on historical precedent. Today's economic field is all about big data and stochastic models and no one is looking to hire folks who just read books about the crash of 1873. Almost every undergrad economics department focuses on the mathematics, models, and decision rules that can get you a job. You have to get to the high powered masters and PhD programs to have the flexibility to explore, expound upon, or critique the Austrian school.

Do you suppose the anonymous prof was Chalky the Clown?

Another issue is that their is no settled definition of Austrian Econ.

The works of Mises were one big rejection of neo-classical economic philosophy. Hayek took another tack, accepting most of neo-classical while trying to destroy or marginalize what he viewed as the most misguided of Harvard/Cambridge Keynesian approaches that were the nearly sum total of government policy in the wake of WW2.

The biggest issue to me as to why it is not taught is that the rise of Chicago School forced most schools to co-opt or ingest the salient theoretical points that were part of Mises and Hayek's arguments. If you compare what was being taught at MIT econ in the 60s versus today, you will see that most classical Keynesian theory has been either ditched or diluted. A lot of valid theoretical conclusions of the Austrian school are not just standard features in neo-classical frameworks, so there is not a lot of utility to having a pure focus on Austrian theory.

TheMasterplan said:

---

When I considered an economics minor at Texas A&M, I asked if they taught Austrian economics as a course and they said no. This was back in 2010.

---

I majored in Economics 2 years prior and it was all Keynesian. I even took a class called "Economic Development" and it was just this grumpy old white guy defending USAID as a necessity.

I wrote a paper critiquing USAID at the time and asking why it was necessary by asking what the US receives in return and if the ROI was worth the investment. The premise was that if we had been giving "aid" to countries since 1961 and they are provably no better off than they started, what is the point?

I was given a C because it was "not in line with current policy or economic thinking". And this was when USAID was not the slush fund it was just a few years ago.

The things that make you go "hmmmm".

Ok - then teach both of these in one class if that's the case.

The sum of Austrian is the Austrian business cycle
Theory and why the fed vreaes bubbles with low interest rates/excessive spending and when rates go up those areas where the cheap money flowed through were never good investments so they crash.

See wind/solar projects since COVID.

The broken window policy is also a thing. It's similar to opportunity cost but irs not applied to how excessive spending creates fake demand where growth would've happened somewhere else. Keynesian's simply can't understand this.