Talk:Schools of economic thought

Social Credit, Please Help

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)[reply]

Walter Eucken

the Name Walter Eucken is missing

- Founder of ordoliberalism - Feiburger School - In intensive Contact with Hayek

-- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

Knut Wicksell

Knut Wicksell does not belong to Stockholmskolan; he is a neoclassical, connected with the austrian school.

Merging

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. Wik idea 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title?

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)[reply]

It certainly seems better than the current title of the article but it'd be better if 'schools / schools of thought' may be substituted with 'approaches' or 'philosopies' in economics. (Sohail Gogal 08:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about "Schools of economic thought"? II | (t - c) 08:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In economic circles, I have generally heard it referred to as "Schools of Economic Thought". "Economic Thought" is a single term that is used to differentiate the meta science from economics itself which is often necessary given the diversity of approaches to the science. The "standard terminology" is already being used. I would agree that it is different from the way schools of philosophy are named, but economics is more developed than simply another class of philosophy. Google n-grams appears to agree: Google N-grams.

While I think a change would be inappropriate and make the page more difficult to find, if a change is desired to put it closer to the naming convention of pages on philosophy, I would suggest "Philosophical Schools (Economic Thought)", but to me that suggests that there is a "Philosophical Schools (disambiguation)" page. In such a case, [of schools of philosophy] should be changed as well, but I do not see the point. Related, other sciences and such do not use the term "schools" at all, but "fields" or "branches", such as psychology and mathematics, which are also philosophy. Economics merely has a similar name convention, but strictly speaking it would be inappropriate to mix them up.--199.80.180.39 (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Missing Schools of Thought in Economics--Georgist

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)[reply]

Missing Austrian Economist: Walter Block

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)[reply]

Behaviourism and the Scientific Design of Culture

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)[reply]

Dr. Edmonds's comment on this article

Dr. Edmonds has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Paragraph to revise : Currently, the great majority of economists follow an approach referred to as mainstream economics (sometimes called 'orthodox economics'). Within the mainstream in the United States, distinctions can be made between the Saltwater school (associated with Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale), and the more laissez-faire ideas of the Freshwater school (represented by the Chicago school of economics, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Rochester and the University of Minnesota). Both of these schools of thought are associated with the neoclassical synthesis.
Should read: Currently, the great majority of economists follow an approach referred to as mainstream economics (sometimes called 'neoclassical economics' or 'orthodox economics'). Within the mainstream in the United States, economists typically use either a microeconomic or macroeconomic perspective. Within macroeconomics, distinctions can be made between the Freshwater school (represented by the Chicago school of economics, Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Rochester and the University of Minnesota) which presumes free and complete markets and the Saltwater school (associated with Berkeley, Harvard, MIT, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale) which emphasizes the importance of market imperfections.
Ed note on this paragraph: Saltwater v. freshwater is only in macro. Probably should define micro and macro economics in the above.
Paragraph to revise: An example of a "mainstream" economic approach is the Triple Bottom Line accounting methods for cities developed by ICLEI and advocated by the C40 organization of the world's 40 largest cities. As this example suggests, a "mainstream" approach is defined by the degree to which it is adopted and advocated, not necessarily its technical rigor.
Ed Note: This paragraph makes no sense. It should be eliminated or moved to an article on accounting methods, not schools of thought in economics.
Paragraph to revise: Controversies within mainstream economics tend to be stated in terms of:
the definitions of capital assets including natural capital (ecosystems) or social capital ("goodwill" or "brand value") or talent, and generally what constitute intangibles versus what can be measured investment and malinvestment and how the business cycle eradicates the latter leaving the former liability and who bears it, for instance the questions of network externalities wealth and value and how these affect price, especially of labour and of ecosystems
Suggested Revision: Controversies within mainstream economics tend to be stated in terms of:
the completeness of markets and contracting opportunities the existence or significance of asymmetric information problems the importance of deviations from optimizing behaviour of economic agents
the role of externalities or public goods

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)[reply]

Question re institutionalists

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)[reply]

Possibly inappropriate preview pic

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)[reply]