FINANCE DOGMAS AND NEOCLASSICAL MEMORIZATIONS IN MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS: EXAMPLES OF MILTON FRIEDMAN, EUGENE FAMA AND NOBEL
Authors: Dirican Cuneyt 
Published: January 2025

Purpose- During the post-pandemic exit period, while the Russia-Ukraine War was ongoing and the earthquake disaster was following, the fiscal policy in which macroprudential measures were implemented between December 2021 and May 2023 was frequently criticized in the mainstream and accused of being unscientific, claiming that it was an economic experiment (and heterodox economic literature was excluded or ignored). It was claimed that the economy would get back on track with a return to orthodox monetary policy and rationality. In the past period, when the inflation rate remained higher at the end of 1.5 years compared to May 2023, it is claimed and said by the mainstream that the money supply and public expenditures (fiscal policies) did not accompany the monetary policy. Therefore, it is claimed that the household's belief in inflation did not decrease (inertia) and they are not reducing their expenditures because of that situation. It was generally said (especially in social media posts and TV market channels) that locals (in academy and business the right usage is residents) did not act rationally by fueling inflation, especially service inflation, along with the minimum wage increase. (The name) “The Nobel Prize in Economics” and the beliefs and discourses in mainstream economics such as "the money supply is always and everywhere inflationary", "people and investors are rational" and "the importance of institutions in economic development and progress" are actually very different as declined/corrrected from/by its own sources, hence it was intended to be shown with scientific references and sources.
Methodology- In this study, examples were examined through a summary literature review and it was shown that neoclassical memorization and dogmas were corrected by the owners (itselves) of these discourses, arguments and hypotheses, and were different from what is known in the mainstream (economics). In this way, it is a qualitative and conceptual study.
Findings- Friedman, Fama and members of the Nobel Family corrected and rejected their own statements (hypotheses) and the facts mentioned in this study.
Conclusion- The inflation-money supply relationship, the inflation and the investment relationship with (ir)rational households and investors, prize-winning theories such as the relationship between development and inflation, and real per capita income can still find firm supporters and a place in the mainstream and neoclassical understanding, although they have been revised by their main resources who first issued them. Although there are immutable rules in economics and finance, the financial policies implemented depending on the period and/or the dynamics of the countries may differ, and even if the policies are the same, the results may differ. While ignoring a (heterodox) literature in economics, not being aware of the developments and updates in the (orthodox) literature regarding the other (claimed as rational) understanding defended may not lead the proposed prescriptions and thus their results to the desired direction. In Türkiye, parallel to the World, these acceptances in mainstream (neoclassical) economics are a bitter prescription and cannot be a solution in the new economy. When data and graphs are presented by detaching them from the context of the facts and events of the relevant period, this is not economics but statistics (Dirican, 2024a).

Keywords: Money Supply, Efficient Market Hypothesis, Inflation, Nobel Economy Prize, Milton Friedman, Eugene Fama
JEL Codes: E13, E44, E51, E71