Is it possible for an econ professor to commit malpractice?

[regexcellent]

By which I mean, my microeconomics professor mentioned today that she eats locally grown organic food. The previous class she told us that the theory of microeconomics encourages conservative thought because government doesn't play a huge role in the theory. Because of this she gave us a textbook that she describes as "ultra-liberal," "for balance."

This is going to be a very long quarter.

Seriously now? Locally grown food? That's ridiculous even if you're not an economist.

[kentonio]

What's ridiculous about locally grown food? It's a bit worrying btw that you're using terms like 'malpractice' in relation to someone expressing views you disagree with. The point of college is supposed to be to open your mind.

[The Mad Monk]

What's ridiculous about locally grown food? It's a bit worrying btw that you're using terms like 'malpractice' in relation to someone expressing views you disagree with. The point of college is supposed to be to open your mind.

This.

[The Mad Monk]

Hey, we agreed again!

[snoopy369]

Unfortunately, no.

Freakonomics did a podcast about why locally grown food is not environmentally beneficial, sometime back in like May or June (unless you live in the food basket in CA, anyway, in which case you're probably eating locally by default). Economically speaking, and environmentally speaking, it's better to eat widely - supporting Chilean grape farmers or whatever is more valuable than supporting local grape farmers, particularly when grape farming in whereveryouare is probably inefficient and requires all sorts of pesticides and soil erosion and potentially invasive grape species or whatever. Chile is a great place to grow grapes, doesn't require pesticides or whatever because local Chilean grapes are properly adapted to the local pest culture. (Example partially made up.) Just because it might travel across a long distance doesn't really contribute all that much to environmental harm - there are potentially more greenhouse gases used to provide the chemicals you'd use locally (even organic stuff involves some chemicals, and watering, and other necessary transport).

[regexcellent]

The reason locally grown food is dumb is because more people live in New Jersey than in Iowa.

I should say, rather, that's one of many reasons.

[snoopy369]

I assume he's referring to the Professor characterizing Economics as default Conservative and thus choosing an ultra-liberal textbook for balance, as an expression of her shown liberal tendencies (using the locavore example to show that). I have no problem with someone being a locavore, but when it's brought up during the first class in an Microeconomics class, which that's really not relevant (this isn't macroeconomics, where it could be), it sounds like signalling to me.

[regexcellent]

I assume he's referring to the Professor characterizing Economics as default Conservative and thus choosing an ultra-liberal textbook for balance, as an expression of her shown liberal tendencies

Exactly.

[snoopy369]

Really, locavorism is one of those cute things that is fine as long as only a handful of people do it. But if the entire US were to suddenly become locavores - setting aside the rest of the world - not only would there be mass starvation in the US as people in, say, NYC starved due to the lack of food producible nearby, but the world economy would collapse when we stopped importing food from elsewhere.

[Fake Boris]

No.

[loinburger]

I had a professor who insisted on using LISP in his class, so I sued him for all he was worth.

[The Mad Monk]

You shouldn't just go straight to the extremist locovore position; there's plenty that even New Jerseyites can do to increase their consumption of local produce. I speak as someone who lived most of his life in Essex County. We had gardens, we had farmers come in from as near as Morris, Sussex and Hunterdon counties to sell vegetables off trucks. Now, the entire population could not subsist off local agriculture, true, but that's no reason to simply throw out the whole idea.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No.

This.


If filosofy can get away with it why shouldn't econ profs?

[regexcellent]

Why is it bad that we have some places where people grow lots of food and places where people grow none? We have these things called trucks, trains, and ships that make it as if everywhere is local.

The notion that an "economist" can't figure out the benefits of trade in her OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION is dispiriting.

[Dauphin]

Unfortunately, no.

Freakonomics did a podcast about why locally grown food is not environmentally beneficial, sometime back in like May or June (unless you live in the food basket in CA, anyway, in which case you're probably eating locally by default). Economically speaking, and environmentally speaking, it's better to eat widely - supporting Chilean grape farmers or whatever is more valuable than supporting local grape farmers, particularly when grape farming in whereveryouare is probably inefficient and requires all sorts of pesticides and soil erosion and potentially invasive grape species or whatever. Chile is a great place to grow grapes, doesn't require pesticides or whatever because local Chilean grapes are properly adapted to the local pest culture. (Example partially made up.) Just because it might travel across a long distance doesn't really contribute all that much to environmental harm - there are potentially more greenhouse gases used to provide the chemicals you'd use locally (even organic stuff involves some chemicals, and watering, and other necessary transport).

I think Adam Smith (or Ricardo) summed it up centuries ago.