Talk:Neoclassical economics

message: Is it really correct to place behavioral economics among the other heterodox schools? It surely is a lot more mainstream than the other schools. For example it has  received one Nobel prize (two if you count Herbert Simon), two John Bates Clarck medals and papers written from the behavioral perspective are reguraly published in the most prestigious journals. 
217.210.4.92 09:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  behavioral economics heterodox? 

message: Neoclassical economics is sometimes criticised for having a normative bias. In this view, it does not focus on explaining actual economies, but instead on describing a "utopia" in which Pareto optimality obtains. Key assumptions of neoclassical economics which are widely criticised as unrealistic include:
The focus on individuals in the economy may obscure analysis of wider long term issues, such as whether the economic system is desirable and stable on a finite planet of limited natural capital.
I'm removing this first "assumption" as it is not actually an assumption. If someone else want to rework it and put it back in so that it makes sense, go ahead. 72.75.241.36 19:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the third sentence above suggests a series of assumptions (immediately followed by criticisms for each) but does not follow through.  A rewrite is needed to fix the inconsistency. --Thomasmeeks 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The criticism section is not too clear. A non-expert cannot easily  tell which are minor criticism and which is major.  Perhaps first divide it up as above remarks then start trimming. KAM 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder why there are no major citations in the criticism part. Some nobel price winning economists (i.e. Stiglitz) strongly disagree with the theory. This is not reflected in the article. --91.47.115.118 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of neoclassical economics 

message: I read somewhere that neoclassical economics is platonism. Why is that so? __earth (Talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't.  Someone is either making sweeping over-generalizations, or using terms so loosely as to be very unhelpful. —SlamDiego←T 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platonists == neoclassical economists? 

message: Who started using the term, and when? Does Jevons use the term? II  04:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted above, the first published appearance of the term “neoclassical” in reference to economics is in Veblen's “The Preconceptions of Economic Science”, Pt III (QJE v14 (1900)). —SlamDiego←T 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've placed the quotation inside a :Template:Quotation, to make it easier to spot. (It used to be just indented.) —SlamDiego←T 04:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: when was the term first used? 

message: Well, Robert, removing an assertion as OR from the body of the article even as one provides a quotation that substantiates it is certainly… different.  And problematic:
#“Original research″ is non-trivial claims for which a “reliable source″ cannot be found (as distinct from, say, claims for which a reference simply has not been provided).
#The “References” section of a WIkipedia article is for references substantiating what is in the body, not for thoughts that one wishes to render somehow subparenthetical. (I've sometimes wished for wider use of footnotes, but….)
#While the Stigler quote nicely supports the deleted claim, it really doesn't do a good job of substantiating what is left behind in the body after the alleged “Original Research″ is deleted.
So I'll move the deleted claim back to the body, even while retaining the reference. —SlamDiego←T 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR/fn 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neoclassical economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112011011/http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/essays/margrev/ncintro.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/~het/essays/margrev/ncintro.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: So in the Wikipedia tradition of ignoring any separation between mainstream economics and heterodox or "fringe" schools of thought, the article writes that,
"Although the neoclassical approach is dominant in economics, the field of economics includes others, such as Marxist,"
Actually, "the field" does not include Marxist economics, nor does it include "Austrian" economics. The odds of a Marxist economist securing a teaching position in an economics department at an accredited university are equal to the probability of a biblical creationist being hired by the biology department of the same university. It isn't a question of one view being "dominant" over the other - it's more the case that Marxist theories have no presence in academic economics. Marxism is a philosophy rather than a minority view among economists.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I might not use that label, but the above could look at the research of Donald Harris, the biological father of the vice president of the United States. There are other examples with more recent research. 128.132.1.132 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advancing a sectarian agenda. Just because a school of thought is not part of whatever the orthodoxy of its field is doesn't mean that that school of thought isn't within that field. This is especially true for economics! The field of economics does absolutely include many heterodox theories by way of the influences those theories had on the orthodox ones. Sure you'd be hard pressed to find a professor at a top 20 school who is a marxist for instance, but to suggest that marxism is not even a part of the field of economics is just economically illiterate. Please avoid spreading dogmatism on this website. TheBotSO (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again..