Exercises

A) Attend the language of the economic (political, financial, social) news for a week to see where economic victimizing language or hypocrisy is being used, and where it is not. For example:

  • In Saturday's (February 4th, 2012) Globe and Mail the job losses in Ontario manufacturing are presented as if they are inevitable. Why? Is that reasonable? Does the language make the society a victim to this inevitability?

  • In that same paper, the role of government to create jobs is being exhorted. Does that not conflict with the inevitable losses? And is it not hypocritical of the press to aver this importance when they are also advocating tax breaks - which have been given - to corporations to create jobs?

or

B) Take a current economic news headline and research the validity, accuracy and importance of its content and the nature of its presentation. Questions to ask may include:

  • Who benefits by the course of action being advocated?

  • Who is advocating it?

  • Is the argument presented in a balanced manner? Do you have enough knowledge to know that it is or isn't?

  • Is the story missing or overlooking obvious questions or rebuttals? If so, what are they? Are the answers available with research?

  • Are historical arguments being used? If so, are empirical historical 'facts' being glossed over, denied or ignored? Do you have enough knowledge to know that it is or isn't?

  • Is the argument the same or similar to ones you have already heard, but which seem to have not worked?

or

C) Read ‘Killing the Competition: How New Monopolies are Destroying the Open Market’ from Harper’s Magazine February 2012 (attached below).

  • The author, Barry Lynn, makes many references to history. Do you know enough to be able to judge the rightness of his points? Do you detect a bias in the writing?

  • He argues that for the markets to be free they require government and legal intervention. Is he being hypocritical? Why or why not?