<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ed board endorsed biased bull</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andrewgolis.com/blog/2005/03/15/ed-board-endorsed-biased-bull/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andrewgolis.com/blog/2005/03/15/ed-board-endorsed-biased-bull/</link>
	<description>mostly links about digital media.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:14:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Schachter</title>
		<link>http://www.andrewgolis.com/blog/2005/03/15/ed-board-endorsed-biased-bull/comment-page-1/#comment-954</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Schachter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agolis.wordpress.com/2005/03/15/ed-board-endorsed-biased-bull/#comment-954</guid>
		<description>Looks like somebody is taking US Social Thought.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Regarding Economics 10, it is noteworthy to point out that in the same Crimson where Mankiew was reported to be taking over the course, there was an article exploring Psychology and Economics, a field that reflects the variability and inconsistency of self-interest across different contexts. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Crimson Editorial was correct to say that basic principles of economics are value-neutral and can be used to pursue different ends. However, I agree with Andrew that the course does not effectively demonstrate this point at the moment, and the Crimson Editorial fails to urge a more explicit emphasis on that point in the future. Anyone who has taken Economics 10 is familiar with the Sourcebook&#039;s tendency to choose a straw man article to represent the liberal point of view, usually put up against four solid conservative articles.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Sumner and Ward show how value-neutral principles can be used to achieve different ends. Economics 10 must do a better job of illustrating that significant and essential point.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;m</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like somebody is taking US Social Thought.</p>
<p>Regarding Economics 10, it is noteworthy to point out that in the same Crimson where Mankiew was reported to be taking over the course, there was an article exploring Psychology and Economics, a field that reflects the variability and inconsistency of self-interest across different contexts. </p>
<p>The Crimson Editorial was correct to say that basic principles of economics are value-neutral and can be used to pursue different ends. However, I agree with Andrew that the course does not effectively demonstrate this point at the moment, and the Crimson Editorial fails to urge a more explicit emphasis on that point in the future. Anyone who has taken Economics 10 is familiar with the Sourcebook&#8217;s tendency to choose a straw man article to represent the liberal point of view, usually put up against four solid conservative articles.</p>
<p>Sumner and Ward show how value-neutral principles can be used to achieve different ends. Economics 10 must do a better job of illustrating that significant and essential point.</p>
<p>m</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

