I find it very dubious that the "Income Inequality" sits at the very first section, and "Supply-and-demand" at the eighth. I'm no established economist, but my understanding is you start at the foundational idea then move on to the its ramifications and symptoms.
Why does the income inequality deserve the first seat? It definitely is one of the greatest(if not the greatest) issues of our generation, but must it precede foundations?
Skimming through the "Income Inequality" section did not make it better - first exercise asks "What do you think the figure would've looked like in 14th century - I imagine it's to highlight how it's "unfair" now compared to the previous history? It talks about the 90/10 ratio and the word "richest" appears 21 times in the first page alone. "richest 10%" being 11 of them.
I understand the study of economics is more about interpretation of the data and interpolation of trends based on (often seemingly ideological) school of thought, but this first look betrays a specific narrative.
Why does the income inequality deserve the first seat? It definitely is one of the greatest(if not the greatest) issues of our generation, but must it precede foundations?
Skimming through the "Income Inequality" section did not make it better - first exercise asks "What do you think the figure would've looked like in 14th century - I imagine it's to highlight how it's "unfair" now compared to the previous history? It talks about the 90/10 ratio and the word "richest" appears 21 times in the first page alone. "richest 10%" being 11 of them.
I understand the study of economics is more about interpretation of the data and interpolation of trends based on (often seemingly ideological) school of thought, but this first look betrays a specific narrative.