Talk:Heterodox economics

message: When reading this I noted one issue, namely, that there is a total avoidance of the fact that neoclassical economics was not dominate in the United States until the 1930s, perhaps even the mid-1930s. It is also worth observing that the "neoclassical economics" which was dominate in England is hardly the neoclassical economics of today, its better called Marshallian economics which is highly inspired from neoclassical economics but with an institutional analysis. My point is that neoclassical economics was not dominate in the U.S., nor really in the U.K., until much later and this article pretends that, post the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s, it was dominate! But it wasn't - and this is well known. It took time for these ideas from the 1870s to make their influence felt, especially in the United States. The implication is that this sentence, "A number of heterodox schools of economic thought challenged the dominance of neoclassical economics after the neoclassical revolution of the 1870s" is factually incorrect. 2601:282:503:25A0:2525:AA81:39C:162F (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretends Neoclassical economics has always been dominate

message: I have noticed that on several occassions my entry on TFE has been deleted. Admitedly, I do not quite know how to put in the link correctly. I know TFE is probably "too advanced" for most people but it still deserves some kind of positive recognition though it is still in development. Quite recently, it was one of the subjects dealt with at a scientific conference. See link...
http://www.iiis2010.org/iceme/invitedsession/InvitedSessionPre.asp?vc=32
The following may also be of interest.
i) TFE is a transitional system towards the ultimate aim of a moneyless world.
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics
ii) Phase I TFE could be undertaken very quickly by special banks concerned with sustainability, and green products/services. These banks are called Facilitator Banks, or FBs (term not yet used in the entry on this subject at the p2pfoundation).With so-called grant interest as an incentive they would be able to electronically create new non-repayable money (like governments but be tracked, and monitored by the Central Bank, or some other body to prevent fraud) for some project which could in part also include investors using earned money ofcourse. It is similiar to the concept of Advanced Market Commitment, or AMC. FBs would have powers to create subsidies, and other ways to ease finance in some project (especially those with little, or no obvious commercial incentive but have high humanitarian, environmental, and sustainable value so to speak). Objective checks on the capacity of the relevant suppliers of products, and services would be undertaken to ensure that there is no disallocation of resources which could lead to serious rises in the free market price as well as shortages. If necessary investment by FBs could be made to increase capacity where, and when necessary.
iii) Phase II TFE involves the gradual introduction of new, or upgraded computers, and new computer programming into the banking system. FBs (and the normal banking sector) would start to in part to monitor the volume, and sales of products,and services directly from the real economy. If there is any serious problems of inflation these could be subject to an instant electronic price controls. Moreover, if this leads to a serious loss in profit to a business this would be instantly compensated by new non-repayable money created electronically to the relevant bank account(s). However, every attempt would be made to avoid serious price distortions.
Taxes, and interest would also be gradually phased out altogether. Interest would be paid for by an independent public body.
iv) Phase III TFE is the full global introduction of electronic monitoring of goods, and services. The key aim of this is not only to keep inflation in check if necessary but also to have highly accurate data of how much in the way of real resources are being used up on our "small" planet. Such knowledge will become increasingly important as this will give growing green businesses (subsidised mainly by FBs rather than by governments) to make the best use of limited resources. Furthermore, we would unlike now have a far more adbvanced understanding of the mechanics of the economy itself.
At this stage, taxes, and interest would no longer exist.
v) During Phase II, and Phase III TFE there would be a huge increase in automation. This would ultimately end the need for wage slavery. With the help of carefully targeted subsidies virtually all businesses would have become responsible as far as the environment, and sustainability is concerned. At the same time, there would be unemployment on a huge scale. But people would be able to indulge in "leisure-like" pursuits, and receive a form of financial benefit created by new non-repayable money. NGOs would become far more poweful, and influential in society, and would spearhead changes on a mass scale to create a new, saner world no longer based on greed, and money. They would be able to challenge centralized power structures as never before, and will find getting grants alot easier to come by. The upshot of all this is a moneyless world but one in which open democracy, and respect for universal human rights acts as the basis of an evolved technocratic world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Transfinancial Economics

message: I personnaly doubt that New Institutional Economics should be classified as heterodox. According to Oliver Favereau, one of the leaders of the (clearly heterodox) "Economie des conventions", it is the new "mainstream" in economics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floressas (talk • contribs) 
::You are right: "The "New Institutionalist Schools" to refer to the collection of schools of thought that seek to explain political, historical, economic and social institutions such as government, law, markets, firms, social conventions, the family, etc.  in terms of Neoclassical economic theory." (The History of Economic Thought Website);  removing 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to remain anonymous. Will contribute to my capacity. And thanks for your critique, constructive critics are essential for improving an article. Would you care to give a look a Joseph E. Stiglitz ? 200.153.161.140 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, changing to "New-Keynesian", whatever that means. Joe Stiglitz considers himself "mainstream" and I belive he is also so considered by most mainstream economists. Rather than trying to build a "new economics", Stigltz is trying to fix the old one: this becomes very clear in his Aula Magna, where he declares taht he is proposing a "new paradigma" to (old) economics. On a side note, do you think that the "political intrigues" about Stiglitz leaving the World Bank should occupy so much space in the article ? Did that fact had any influence on Stiglitz's path to the Nobel prize ? I dunno...200.153.161.91 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Institutional Economics

message: ; Text
Inclusion of brief attributed quotations of copyrighted text, used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea is acceptable under "fair use". Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked. Removed text is marked by an ellipsis (...), insertions or alterations are put in brackets ([added text]). A change of emphasis is noted after the quotation with (emphasis added), while if the emphasis was in the original, it may be noted by (emphasis in original). All copyrighted text must be attributed.
In general, extensive quotation of copyrighted news materials (such as newspapers and wire services), movie scripts, or any other copyrighted text is not "fair use" and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
; Example
Original text:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." (Wikipedia:Verifiability, 2007)
Quote:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (...) Editors should provide a reliable source for [potentially controversial content] or it may be removed." (Wikipedia:Verifiability, 2007; emphasis in original) 
200.153.162.210 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Fair use]]

message: ::A trend I am observing on Wikipedia is excessive paranoia about copyright infringements. While a certain amount of preventive action is certainly necessary, I strongly oppose simply deleting an entry for "presumed" copyright violations.  
::Examples:
::* An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable.
::* A digitized picture that may be copied from elsewhere, but has in fact been created hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, the companies who have digitized these pictures claim copyright on them, but I find such claims highly dubious.
::* Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.
::These are cases where I would generally not delete the entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Wikipedia's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.
::In general, when in doubt, do not delete. When "fairly certain", ask the author first in /Talk. The notion of "intellectual property" is dubious at best, and Wikipedia should not support it beyond the limits given by law. Personally, I will restore any entries which I do not see as copyright infringements, and I encourage you to do the same.
::"Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable." Not protectable, but taking sentences verbatim, or lengthy unattributed paraphrase, is for better or for worse considered academic dishonesty of the first degree and often punished with the academic equivalent of the death penalty. While I don't think we should delete entire articles that such material is inserted into, it would be extremely bad for the project's credibility to tolerate these to remain.
217.20.118.5 00:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid copyright paranoia

message: Also added the non monetary aspect. Some of the language in the article was bombastic or hard to fathom any way ... so tried to cut that back.skip sievert (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: took out some redundant material

message: I really don't think this counts as an existing heterodox school, and I'm inclined to think that Technocracy Incorporated is itself of dubious current notability. There's no information about officers or members and I couldn't find any recent media mentions (though apparently the organization was banned in Canada in 1941, which suggests historical notability at least). The only regular publication is a once a month set of clippings called TrendEvents. As Skip Sievert turns up a bit in these searches maybe he could provide some information on these points, list some media references and so on.JQ (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly after following Skipsievert's link that he provides on his talk page I get the sense that this stuff's more along the lines of, I don't know, Lyndon LaRouche's writings on economics. Even though personally I'm a mainstream economics kind of guy, I do not think that heterodox economics = quackery (though obviously I disagree with lots of heterodox folks). So no, I don't think this should be included.radek (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If we can get four or five of such historical examples then we can put in a separate section and hope that other Wiki editors will jump in and expand. It might also be useful to distinguish between historically heterodox views which got absorbed into the mainstream (behavioral economics?) and those which withered away (at least within economic departments) like the German Historical School.radek (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start on this.JQ (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Technocracy

message: :::Quite honestly after following Skipsievert's link that he provides on his talk page I get the sense that this stuff's more along the lines of, I don't know, Lyndon LaRouche's writings on economics. end quote radek.... Quite honestly after reading your comment, radek... it would seem that I get a sense that your opinion is disconnected from any information that is given, or has been given at least by myself, as to the subject in question... 
Lyndon LaRouche? I assume that you are not kidding... No connection. None. 
::Some history about Thorstein Veblen... from History of economic thought
Thorsten Veblen (1857-1929), who came from rural mid-western America and worked at the University of Chicago, is one of the best known early critics of the "American Way". In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) he scorned  materialistic culture and wealthy people who conspicuously consumed their riches as a way of demonstrating success and in The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) Veblen distinguished production for people to use things and production for pure profit, arguing that the former is often hindered because businesses pursue the latter. Output and technological advance are restricted by business practices and the creation of monopolies. Businesses protect their existing capital investments and employ excessive credit, leading to depressions and increasing military expenditure and war through business control of political power. These two books, focusing on criticism first of consumerism, and second of profiteering, did not advocate change. However, in 1911, Veblen joined the faculty of the University of Missouri, where he had support from Herbert Davenport, the head of the economics department. Veblen remained at Columbia, Missouri through 1918. In that year, he moved to New York to begin work as an editor of a magazine called The Dial, and then in 1919, along with Charles Beard, James Harvey Robinson and John Dewey, helped found the New School for Social Research (known today as The New School). He was also part of the Technical AllianceStabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the xzame time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 43-44., created in 1918-19 by Howard Scott, which would later become Technocracy Incorporated. From 1919 through 1926 Veblen continued to write and to be involved in various activities at The New School. During this period he wrote The Engineers and the Price System (1921)The Engineers and the Price System, 1921.. 
::An excerpt from the main economics article.. Economics
Energy economics relating to thermoeconomics, is a broad scientific subject area which includes topics related to supply and use of energy in societies. Thermoeconomists argue that economic systems always involve matter, energy, entropy, and information.Baumgarter, Stefan. (2004). Thermodynamic Models, Modeling in Ecological Economics (Ch. 18)Thermoeconomics is based on the proposition that the role of energy in biological evolution should be defined and understood through the second law of thermodynamics but in terms of such economic criteria as productivity, efficiency, and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work.Peter A. Corning 1 *, Stephen J. Kline. (2000). Thermodynamics, information and life revisited, Part II:  Thermoeconomics  and  Control information  Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Apr. 07, Volume 15, Issue 6 , Pages 453 – 482 Corning, P. (2002). “Thermoeconomics – Beyond the Second Law” – source: www.complexsystems.org As a result, thermoeconomics are often discussed in the field of ecological economics, which itself is related to the fields of sustainability and sustainable development.
Georgescu-Roegen introduced into economics, the concept of entropy from thermodynamics (as distinguished from the mechanistic foundation of neoclassical economics drawn from Newtonian physics) and did foundational work which later developed into evolutionary economics. His work contributed significantly to bioeconomics and to ecological economics.Cleveland, C. and Ruth, M. 1997. When, where, and by how much do biophysical limits constrain the economic process? A survey of Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics. Ecological Economics 22: 203-223.Daly, H. 1995. On Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s contributions to economics: An obituary essay. Ecological Economics 13: 149-54.Mayumi, K. 1995. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994): an admirable epistemologist. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 6: 115-120.Mayumi,K. and Gowdy, J. M. (eds.) 1999. Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honor of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Mayumi, K. 2001. The Origins of Ecological Economics: The Bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen. London: Routledge.
:: Also reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29  
:: A good starting point for a feel for this very heterodox and well known information http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics  another http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm
another http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml  and another http://www.technocracy.org/prescription%20for%20Surviving.htm which is connected to this http://www.technocracy.org/natureofgrowth.htm 
::Hubbert who may be the most well known Geoscientist in the world... endorsed these ideas and cofounded the original group TechInc.
::Easy to give another 10 or 15 connected links... outside of the actual group... of which I am not connected. If you want to toss in Veblen... who was a technocrat... and member of the Technical Alliance... and wrote a pretty well known book... Engineers and the Price System... you could kill two birds with one stone... foundations of Technocracy and also New School. He was not a main contributor to Technocracy but he was used as a source for that group... and hung out with them... and a thoughtful contributor. He died before the later org was made in 1934.
::Much of modern energy economics is based on the research of TechInc. They originated the concept of energy accounting as a formalized idea. Also... Frederick Soddy was involved in the social credit movement as suggested by J.Q. for inclusion in this article... He also was a very well known energy economist... and connected with the Technical Alliance people... later his work was used as a footnote in published material of TechInc skip sievert (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Background on energy economics

message: Added some more after J.Q. and also put some limited info on recent energy economics in lower section. skip sievert (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I noted somebody just removed a couple of type of purported HE's because they weren't referenced by the official sources.  This brings up the question of whether official sources should be the definers of heterodoxy?  I'm agnostic on this, but it does seem to be a contradiction, that an official source should define the unofficial.  Of course rejecting this could lead you off into complete fringe theories here.
Smallbones (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Maybe they could be relooked at in that light... also there probably is something called mainstream heterodox and less mainstream heterodox... which would be something notable and maybe a little enough outside of mainstream dictionary/encyclopedia definitions that are common. Probably a good idea to discuss that sort of thing on the talk page... and reference the things thought to be a good idea to take off, so others can discuss or comment on them. Energy economics is certainly well known and Wikipedia has multiple related articles. skip sievert (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This distinction seems important.  There is a difference between dissent within a discourse (which is addressed and encouraged), and dissent outside of a discourse (which is viewed as fringe, non-noteworthy, crackpot, etc.)  The particular category one area falls into is eventually determined by the survival of their idea or approach, but since Wikipedia must rely on available sources, it seems like any perspective which has been published in reputable journals or mentioned by reputable journals at least deserves mention.  That said, I'd like to see a list of "fringe" theories included--but not described--in this article.  It's important for ideas which are not respected by the current discourse to still be accessible, both so they can be brought into the discourse(which happens more often then people like to admit), and so they can be appropriately debunked, if fitting.  So, what are these too-fringe-to-be-heterodox ideas?  Let's start a list and include it in a short section at the end of the article titled "Fringe Views".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.206.164 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too heterodox to be heterodox? 

message: Is this a heterodox subject? see https://sites.google.com/site/theendofthemarket/Edmund O'Sullivan (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, just a crackpot. I admit a crackpot can be promoted to heterodox status if its ideas are published and are the subject of secondary sources but it does not seem to be the case here. Bokken | 木刀 10:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The economics of intangibles 

message: I removed off-topic stuff from the "External sources" section. A review of WP:MOS on external sources should be undertaken by editors thinking about adding more stuff.
These sources need cleaned up.
* Ranson, Baldwin, 2007.  Heterodox theoretical convergence: possibility or pipe dream? (Notes and Communications)(Report). Journal of Economic Issues. 1 (March).
*  Seccareccia, M. 1997. Early Twentieth-Century Heterodox Monetary Thought», Money, Financial Institutions, and Macroeconomics, ed. by A.J. Cohen, H. Hagemann and J.N. Smithin, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 125–39
Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: An editor slapped "synthesis" and "failed verification" tags on the article, so I updated the page reference (by one) in one case and provided a better url directly to the page. If editors have difficulty with "search" ("control f") buttons and need further help verifying the citations of Solow and Stigler, and they are unable to ask a librarian for help, then they may ask me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification or failure to consult a librarian? 

message: The definition that is commonly known and listed here in Wikipedia is that Resource based economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy) are those economies based on natural resources. However as to economics theory, since the time of groups as the Zeitgeist movement, The Venus Project, Collectivism, Collaborative consumption, Transition movement all embrace the philosophy that is common or derived from http://thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy and the thinking of Jacque Fresco. There are other initiatives such as the Free World Charter that is seeking a moneyless society by collectivizing capital to create infrastructure and goods and services autonomous in a sustainable way. Within such microcosms there are various mechanisms for distribution and sharing of common resources and assets that is not simply communal but variations that accommodate the consensus of the constituents who choose to co-exist under such order.
Transfinancial economics may be considered a transitional condition as a mechanism toward a "Resource based" economic and social condition that implies scarcity is resource based not (natural resources only). I suggest a mention to such and perhaps an addendum to either the definition in Wiki for Resource based economics or a clarification beyond the footnote currently on the definition page, regarding the semantics distinctions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicjasin (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An addendum to the definition for Resource based economics  

message: I encourage you all to add more scholars to this section. Steeletrap (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable heterodox economists

message: Wikipedia features almost no mention of this school, their main contributors are Richard EDWARDS, Herbert GINTIS, Stephen MARGLIN, Thomas WEISSKOPF and Samuel BOWLES, most of them are still alive, active, and have a page on wikipedia, however no mention of their affiliation to this "school" appears in their related article.
It is a relatively minor current, emerging during the 60's and indeed not properly formalised, it does however have it's dedicated review (Review of Radical Political Economics, started in 1968, still running, also has a page on Wikipedia)
It might be beneficial for students or anyone researching heterodoxy to have a proper article on this current, or at least a mention in this article regrouping the major authors and summarizing their line of thought.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.52.155.6 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: About the American radical political economy

message: Peter Joseph mainly known as a famous social activist\filmaker founder of The Zeitgeist Movement also one of the very few economists who addresses economic calculation problem within decentralized planed RBE(anarcho-communist economy):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o - Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE
Also his academic works like TZM Defined and The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression(https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5583271) provides a comprehensive data on how anarcho-communist decentralized economy (RBE) works. Also wikipedia is a bad source of info about him and movement's works so i recomend you to go to https://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/education/ 
Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmaan (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for starting a discussion here as suggested. Peter Joseph is not an economist, but an activist and filmmaker about certain economic topics, so he shouldn't be included in a list of economists. Also, YouTube videos and forum posts are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia (minus a few exceptional use cases). Please see WP:RS for Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Finally, TZM and its publications are not academic, but an activist movement. GermanJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to "notable heterodox economists" list a Resource Based Economy/Anarcho-communism/Decentralized planning theoretics