Course: Principles of Macroeconomics (ECON 2) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Ashford
Focus: Macroeconomic Schools & Policy Debates · Objectives 1, 5–8 (synthesis) · SLO A & B

📋 Module Overview Page — "Start Here" (Canvas: Page, published)

Week 15 — Macroeconomic Schools & Policy Debates: Keynesian vs. Classical/Monetarist

You've spent fourteen weeks building a toolkit: the PPF, GDP, inflation and unemployment, growth, AD–AS, fiscal policy, money and banking, the Fed, the Phillips curve, and the open economy. This week we ask the question that's been quietly underneath all of it: when economists disagree about policy, what exactly are they disagreing about — and where do they actually agree? You'll meet the two great traditions in macroeconomic thought — Keynesian and classical/monetarist — side by side, at full strength, and practice the single hardest and most important skill in this course: arguing the other side's case as well as you argue your own.

The big question: When Keynesians and classical/monetarist economists disagree about policy, what does each side actually claim, why, and where do they still agree?

By the end of this week, you can:

• lay out the Keynesian case (sticky wages/prices in the short run; economies can sit in a recessionary gap; active fiscal/monetary stabilization can help) and the classical/monetarist case (prices adjust given time; policy acts with long and variable lags; rules beat discretion; crowding-out concerns) — each at full strength, in its own terms;
• apply both schools' prescriptions to three different macro situations (a recessionary gap, a supply shock, and a high-debt-plus-gap scenario) and explain why each school recommends what it does;
• compute and interpret a debt-to-GDP ratio and a deficit-to-GDP ratio using the Meadowland numbers;
• state the agreed ground between the schools plainly (not as a "both sides" hedge) — the long-run Phillips curve is vertical, sustained high inflation is a monetary phenomenon in the long run, and the short-run/long-run distinction itself;
• steelman a position you don't hold — build the strongest possible case for the side you'd argue against, and keep positive claims (what a model predicts) separate from normative ones (what policy should do).

Do this, in order:

1. Read & watch — the Week 15 resources (≈35 min). → Readings & Resources page
2. Lecture Tutorial — work through both schools, the debt/deficit arithmetic, and the agreed ground with your AI tutor (≈45 min). Due Sun, Dec 13. → submit the chat share link + summary
3. Practice Exercises — 6 quick reps, ungraded (≈15 min).
4. Quiz 15 — 10 questions, closed to AI (≈20 min). Due Sun, Dec 13.
5. Discussion 15 — "Keynes or Friedman: whose framework would you reach for first — and what's the strongest case for the other side?" Initial post Fri, Dec 11, replies Sun, Dec 13.
6. Assignment 15 — the schools-and-debt problem set (100 pts). Due Sun, Dec 13.
7. Workshop 15 — Graph & Model Workshop — "The Policy Debate Scorecard" — apply both schools to three engineered scenarios + the Meadowland debt arithmetic (50 pts). Due Sun, Dec 13.

A note before you start: this week has almost no new math — it's a synthesis week. The real skill is fairness under pressure: can you state the school you don't favor so well that a member of that school would nod along? That's not wishy-washy centrism — it's the discipline that makes your own view credible. Next week is the cumulative final; consider this week a bridge between "here's the toolkit" and "here's how economists actually argue with it." 💪

📣 Welcome Announcement (Canvas: Announcement; available_from_offset_days = 0 — posts Mon, Dec 7)

Subject: Two schools, one toolkit — Week 15 👋

Hi everyone,

Fourteen weeks in, you've built the whole macro toolkit — measurement, growth, AD–AS, fiscal policy, money and the Fed, the Phillips curve, trade. This week we step back and ask: when two well-trained economists look at the exact same recession and recommend opposite things, what's actually going on?

This week, don't miss:

• The Keynesian case — economies can get stuck below potential because wages and prices are sticky in the short run, and active fiscal/monetary policy can help close the gap.
• The classical/monetarist case — prices adjust given enough time, policy works with long and variable lags (a caution named factually and associated with the economist Milton Friedman), and rules (like steady money growth or inflation targeting) can beat discretion.
• The Meadowland debt arithmetic — a $12 trillion debt on a $15 trillion economy is an 80% debt-to-GDP ratio; a $0.6 trillion deficit is 4% of GDP. Simple division, real stakes.
• The agreed ground — these two traditions don't disagree about everything. We'll name exactly where they agree, plainly, not as a hedge.

Your Workshop this week — "The Policy Debate Scorecard" — asks you to play both schools at once: given three different economic situations, what does each school prescribe, and why? No verdict required. That's the point.

Bring your sharpest disagreement to class — and be ready to argue the other side of it, too.

See you in class,
Prof. Ashford