Before I weave further,  I decided to take an economic literacy test.  I take it that missing 1 of 20 is not bad, but I don’t know what it wins me.  See First Impressions.   But the important intersection of threads regards the third link in First Impressions  in the History of Economics Playground. ]

The link in question:   For me the video was important, and I needed to take the test to see if it was just me or the article that was problematic.  Actually it might be the subject(teaching), as well as the field(economics) or history that are problematic.  Quote:  “Tests in economic literacy were showing that people who had never taken an introductory course in economics had better results than those who had! ”  I was just curious where a person(myself) having done well in both Macro and Micro-economics, 250 A and B if I recall, would be.  

Anachronistic segue:  

Not to mention literal and economic loopiness –  


See second paragrap’s link above for 4 on teaching.

A call of sorts:

And a test of fields: 

But I will sort:  Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

[Enough context, but a hint in con text, but as to anachronism, I have just updated First Impressions in Respect to danger fields. ]