Our mother or father or whoever plays a proactive role in household management is the best economist. Their recognition is unpaid but very much noble. I am unsure if this illustration becomes the very first example in the classrooms teaching “economics”.
Anyway, economics as a concept, philosophy, revolution or a movement may mean differently to different sections of our society. I am not getting into any discourse on the definitions, features and the syllabus. It is up to your critical observation and scientific temperament on how coherently you splendidly decode the subject ‘economics’.
There is a list of fallacies and contradictions that have tremendously turned off the interest, objectivity and curiosity in learning economics. There is also a dire need to research-and-divulge why students, except the “engineering” ones, receive more KTs in the subject. All those curves, diagrams and nevertheless “mathematics” got the subject crooked and “too interdisciplinary” that often bemuses and puzzles the mind of students (in the primary stage of learning). The nation would want to know: “Is economics being made into any other asocial science treating the market as a laboratory?”
The subject has seen a grand transformation in the last 300 years, in the sphere of universities, public policies, social science studies, news-and-views, discussions, etc. It is a very important subject that everyone should have access to. But, without jargon and gibberish postmodern terms, can we do great justice to the knowledge of economics?
The scope of the subject has increased for good with time in every new epoch. It has decentralized well—thanks to interdisciplinary and intersectional “activists”. Otherwise, how would we endeavor to study “econophysics”, “anthropological economics” and “geometrical economics”? If Ludgwig von Mises were alive, he would die of heartache after reading the subject in today’s Generation-Z era.
I am not referring to my case, but in other classrooms I witnessed “economics” taught as “sociology” using “statistical” tools with “historical” research methodology. Making it completely a “rocket science” and a “voodoo” subject with conventional wisdom. Why would not the students, post-exams, end up becoming “statists” fantasizing over maximizing government-ism and minimizing liberties in the market? Only if some messiah could emancipate “economics” from ideologically-motivated professors and “experts”, could we rebuild a new world of less pretentious knowledge. The nation wants to really know.