Talk:Schools of economic thought

message: Hello, I recently came across this page on "Social Credit Theory"
[]
My knowledge of economics is sufficient to know that social credit is a fringe theory, but I need the help of the economic community to weigh in on the discussion.  
I have no objection to having the historical theory being presented in the appropriate context, of course, but the authors are attempting to avoid adequate acknolwegement of its obsolete and non-mainstream status.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgeek321 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Social Credit, Please Help

message: This article has a clearer layout and a simpler title, so I recommend merging into this one. It's a list here at the moment, so unless anyone has reservations, I'm going to put it all in here soon. Wikidea 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: How about changing the title to "Economic schools of thought"? Seems like it reads better and makes clear that these are schools of thought rather than literal schools. II | (t - c) 08:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "Economic schools of thought".  That's very standard terminology.  It's also consistent with one of the categorizations of Category:Economists. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I think "schools of thought" is certainly preferable over approaches, because it is what economists say. But I also like "Schools of thought (economics)", actually...
----
A couple of more feedbacks and we should change the topic to 'Economic schools of thought' or 'schools of thought (economics)', either way it suits more thatn the current topic. (Sohail Gogal)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogal (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: How about "Schools of economic thought"? II | (t - c) 08:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title? 

message: In 1879 Henry George wrote and published his seminal book "Progress and Poverty". It sold more than 3 million copies and is still in print. In his book, George proposed the introduction of a "Single Tax" on land values (to replace other kinds of taxation). He wrote on many related subjects including Free-Trade. Gerogism is known as a school of economic philosophy and of thought and is international. It is a kind of natural economics, where the influence of the various biases away from equality of opportunity are to be eliminated, particularly the speculation in land values, with its corrupting effects. This includes and would result in the elimination of poverty. 
This school really deserves seperate mention. It is lumped here under the general name of Hetrodox Economics and is called "Georgism"
In modern texts on economics this idea has been largely forgotten but Land Value Taxation is well supported in a few places as being the most ideal kind of tax. (Mankiw's various texts, in particular, also Milton Freedman). The Schlenkenbach Foundation also supports this work and author and is currently active in promoting George's claims. The associated school of thought surely deserves mention here. It has international status with branches in many parts of the world. For more data see http://www.progress.org and also look through the many Georgist links that are on that site.Macrocompassion (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Missing Schools of Thought in Economics--Georgist 

message: His [page] already identifies him as an Austrian Economists. He was recently the recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Liberty (Source). While there are many others currently working in the field that have made significant contributions, I think Walter Block stands apart for having already given a lifetime of contribution. --199.80.180.39 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Austrian Economist: Walter Block 

message: As in B.F. Skinner's Walden Two. In as much as there were actual attempts to found such communities seems to deserve mention, perhaps under Utopian. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviourism and the Scientific Design of Culture 

message: Dr. Edmonds has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Edmonds has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Akresh, Richard & Edmonds, Eric V., 2010. "The Analytical Returns to Measuring a Detailed Household Roster," IZA Discussion Papers 4759, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Edmonds's comment on this article 

message: Right now the institutionalists are listed under the heterodox economists section, tho for a few decade period in the early 20th century they were the mainstream in the United States. Should we make this distinction? I think so personally, it is not necessarily well known, but would like to hear other opinions before I make the alteration. 2601:282:503:25A0:B1B2:D064:D736:39DD (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re institutionalists 

message: In the subsection Islamic economics of Historical economic thought of this article, the preview picture of the link (the picture in the little box that appears when one hovers the cursor over the link) for the Wikipedia article on merchant capitalism is that of a fly eating faeces. I wonder if that's some kind of joke or prank as the picture doesn't thematically relate to that page's contents. Perhaps it should be deleted and replaced with no picture or another one. What do you think? Factthinker (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly inappropriate preview pic