For context on this post: Quantic School of Business and Technology offers an MBA / EMBA course which includes a concentration covering Markets & Economies. Like other Quantic courses, this course is well presented and informative. Some of the principles of economics aren’t explored on the MBA courses, but might be covered in an economics degree. The Quantic MBA/EMBA courses naturally concentrate on the topics most relevant to business administration: these courses are well taught, the curriculum is effectively curated for this purpose, and I would highly recommend the course. With that context clearly defined, the following criticisms might be fair.

In the Quantic course; there is no discussion of Gini index, regional deprivation, relative utility of monetary units between rich vs. poor, economic restructuring, or more generally: the effect of inequality on personal income and well-being, economic culture etc. The relative value of one dollar of investment varies substantially between a poor child who needs insulin vs. a rich old person who wants cosmetic surgery. Inequality is a huge subject: this isn’t dealt with even at surface level in this course. In principle, it would make sense to have this taught alongside concepts like “dead weight loss” because the impacts of economic policies are often distributed unequally (e.g. vehicle scrappage schemes for owners of older vehicles, vs. people who have never been able to afford personal means of transportation!)
There is nothing in the course about progressive vs. regressive policies, redistributive economic policy, etc. The course helpfully discusses market failure (unequal access to information, which undermines the basic assumption of free market economics) and discusses market protectionism/ barriers to entry between national markets, but does little to discuss the effects of unequal access to economic opportunity within markets (either for private citizens or for businesses). The course focuses on business administration, but these topics might still be relevant to a more comprehensive discussion of business opportunity & risk management.
The course really only scratches the surface of how to evaluate the relative economic benefits of alternative policies and executive actions: should a government & central bank implement stimulus spending, bond purchasing, or tax reductions? For business administration purposes, the course materials may be adequate but for anyone aspiring to make decisions on government or central bank policy, I would hope for a deeper background on this topic.
The course doesn’t discuss why deflation is bad (Japan) or why single digit inflation may be beneficial, or how to calibrate monetary (and inflationary) policy in harmony with long term demographic growth/ intergenerational fairness, productivity policies, or environmental interests (clearly there are interplays between these interests & policy levers, as demonstrated in Japan!)

I remain slightly suspicious of some economic theories e.g. Keynes’ approach to economic stimulus (which I have read about from 3rd parties) that largely hold true (or have usually held true within the convenient modern frame of economic history we usually reference), yet which I think still remain without rigorous proof of general application a century after John Maynard Keynes proposed those ideas (the Quantic “Markets & Economies” course remarks that there are still different schools of thought). What would happen if all countries simultaneously attempted to run big fiscal deficits due to a truly global collapse of consumer -> business confidence? Would the system (or international bond markets) support that, provided monetary policy was generally aligned? My feeling is that Keynes was usually more correct than Hayek/ Austrian School (austerity still isn’t helping the UK), but without rigorous proof, I wonder whether there may be exceptions to the rules he suggested: what happens if we test Keynesian economics against an extra 500 years of history before him? How do Keynesian policy prescriptions stand up to scrutiny under unusual economic conditions e.g. supply-side shocks (like Brexit, or the late 1970’s oil crisis), or against long term demographic changes and corresponding realignments of political power between different segments of the community (e.g. balance of power between working age parents and retirees = a relevant topic in Japan, Russia, Europe, China, and to some extent North America?) What happens if a geopolitical peer or adversary deliberately games our system, knowing what prevailing Keynesian economic theories will prescribe, and seeking to trigger our system into an economically destructive course of action: will they always run out of money before we do, or can they win e.g. by monopolizing access to critical resources?
Looking at the big picture, wouldn’t it be more intelligent for us as individuals, business, and societies to anticipate the externalities arising from our choices, e.g. demographic → political → economic changes arising from new medical technology?

Newton’s Laws are deliberately framed within a “closed system” where energy cannot escape from the whole system. The concept of “dead weight loss“, as far as it is explained within the course doesn’t feel like a closed monetary system: if private citizens are taxed, does the money really disappear or does the real purchasing power of that money potentially get redistributed (with the benefit of a multiplier effect) when the extremely wealthy “rentier” classes are taxed, leading to greater social mobility and economic aspiration?
Regarding trade policy, if consumers are discouraged from purchasing one product, does the money fully disappear so that it cannot be spent on alternative economic benefits? Clearly not so (although the effect holds to some extent): as the course suggests elsewhere, substitution effects may come into play. The consideration of “dead weight loss” cannot therefore be a closed economic system, but these discussions are dissimilar from the artificially simple closed energetic systems of Newtonian mechanics. Those lessons might benefit from a caveat, “n.b.”, footnote, or “additional reading” citation. Under the discussion of Dead Weight Loss, there might be a nod of acknowledgement toward the fact that most examples given are not fully closed economic systems, even when pairs or small groups of products are considered e.g. under CPED: otherwise, the danger here is that a limited understanding of policy impact (from the limited part of economics taught here) will potentially lead to bias in our political insights, and vulnerabilities (weak spots) in graduates’ approach to risk management. There is huge potential to augment individual topics with additional “Advanced” insights (optional courses) on interactions between topics within the Foundation or Core: for example, interactions and cross trends/ influences between economics, civics, politics, and culture (e.g. national law enforcement culture, which is relevant to doing business within a country!) How many of those interdisciplinary insights are known or proven factors, vs. current areas of academic research? How many such topics are merely “common sense“, e.g. reconciling U.S. AML (Anti Money Laundering) and anti-bribery legislation against strong residual cultures of black money & corruption in many parts of the world, or indeed: the contrast between U.S. legislation vs. real world behaviours, and the different forms that corruption & lawlessness can take under different legal & civic environments? (Will that topic be covered in the optional courses?)

It absolutely isn’t possible to cover everything but some topics left me slightly confused the first time I read them: for example, the simultaneous shifts of both Demand Curve and Utility (Indifference) Curve into new equilibria under changing economic conditions (!). That caught me off guard and it wasn’t until later in the course that I began to understand why:
The Indifference curves shown in the earlier part of the course are really only contour lines on a three dimensional Utility surface, with the “x” and “y” axes as the base inputs! This all became clear later when multiple Indifference curves were plotted on the same graph axes.

In conclusion: the Quantic team has done a good job on the course materials. Quantic students & alumni gain the benefit of continued access to the evolving body of Quantic instructional materials: I look forward to seeing additional citations and optional courses included in the curriculum in the future.