Talk:Heterodox economics

Pretends Neoclassical economics has always been dominate
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)

Re: Transfinancial Economics
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)

First comments
A. This article betrays a POV, namely that mainstream economics theory is inferior because it fails to respect alternative economic theories, which in this case appear to be almost entirely economic theories used to justify liberal progressive policies (e.g. marxism, socialism, environmentalism, etc.) Maybe a POV is inherent in the term, but I think if this were the case, it should be more clearly stated as such.


 * I have tried to fix that 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And, i think, failed. This is one of the most blatantly PoV pushing articles I've seen in a while and I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has. Calicocat (talk)

B. Moreover, this article is just poorly written. It's not entirely clear what the subject of any one sentence is. The criticisms of mainstream economics are not coherently stated. I don't think it should be deleted, but it certainly should be rewritten. As it is, I cannot say with certainty that the author even knows what he or she is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.2 (talk • contribs)


 * I have tried to fix that 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And failed again. I think this article should be deleted. Calicocat (talk)

IMPORTANT STATEMENT....................................................

Since the above comments were put on here there have been changes in the evolving project of Transfinancial Economics.It is also gaining interest from some economists including notably the autodidact futurist Hazel Henderson. R.Searle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.113.226 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And where does the Austrian school fit into this?
radek

A first reply

 * The Austrian School is mostly mainstream, but some parts of it are heterodox; it cannot be completely excluded. A not has been added mentioning that the Austrian Scholl is mostly mainstream. 200.153.161.237 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rightfuly disagree

 * I disagree. Exactly which Austrian ideas, other than subjective value theory (which was never wholly Austrian) have made it into the mainstream? If anything, ever since WWII the Austrians and the mainstream have been moving farther and farther apart. It seems like the only reason to exclude the Austrians from the Heterodox category is because, unlike the other schools in that category, they're not left wingers. That's clearly POV. radek 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But who is excluding Austrians ? Also, at the begining of the article it says clearly: "All strands of socialism are heterodox, but not all heterodox schools are necessarily socialist.". Austrian is either fully heterodox or partially heterodox, depending on the sources, but cannot be excluded from being heterodox at all. The History of Economic Thought Website classifies the Austrians into NEOCLASSICAL SCHOOLS (1871-today)/CONTINENTAL NEOCLASSICISM. What is POV about this ?


 * 200.153.161.114 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the most correct description is that Austrian economics is partly within, and partly outside of mainstream economics. According to A Companion to the History of Economic Thought: "Contemporary Austrians straddle heterodoxy and orthodoxy within the economics profession. They offer a heterodox critique of formal theory, but contribute to the policy consensus that has emerge in the past 20 years, that has moved away from state-led development to a more laissez-faire position in international and domestic policy." -- Vision Thing -- 20:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While there may be a policy consensus between the Austrians and the more pro-free market NEW Classicals, the Austrians most certainly see themselves as heterodox and outside the mainstream. There's like two "Austrian" econ departments in US these days (George Mason and ...?) which is about as many as for other heterodox schools. There are definetly policy proposals put forth by NEW Classicals, like government sponsored worker training (Chicago) or subsidies to education and research (Bob Lucas) that the Austrians would disagree with. They most definetly disagree with the New Keynesian wing of NEO Classical economics. The CEPA website uses its own classification system which DOES NOT map into commonly held notions of "neoclassicism" and "heterodoxy" (read their disclaimer) - and anyway, the Austrians which they classify as "Continental Neoclassicals" are the 19th century once, when Menger and others could have been said to be part of the mainstream. But like I said above, ever since the beginning of 20th century the Austrians have pulled away further and further from away from the mainstream so it's not true of modern day Austrians. For example, every self respecting neoclassical economist takes econometrics and applied empirical work seriously. Austrians reject this out of hand. radek 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with: "Austrian economics is partly within, and partly outside of mainstream economics.. If nobody else disagrees, I think this should be incorporated in the main text 200.153.161.142 23:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that Austrian Economics are, in several aspects, different from mainstream economics, but I think there's a large bridge to cross before someone can demonstrate that they are clearly heterodox. We shall all agree, I hope, that the core figure of Austrian Economics was Hayek. Well, Hayek's economic ideas not only reached the mainstream, they reached Nobel Prize status: "(...)Hayek showed how monetary expansion, accompanied by lending which exceeded the rate of voluntary saving, could lead to a misallocation of resources, particularly affecting the structure of capital. This type of business cycle theory with links to monetary expansion has fundamental features in common with the postwar monetary discussion. The Academy is of the opinion that von Hayek's analysis of the functional efficiency of different economic systems is one of his most significant contributions to economic research in the broader sense (...)"

Now, most of what is now called "Austrian Economics" is rooted in Hayek's work (which was, in part, based in the work of others such as Mises or Menger, but also Popper or Warren Weaver). If Austrian Economics are still to be discussed in this article, this article must make it clearer that they are not totally heterodox such as or of a nature similar to the other schools discussed (Marxist, feminist and such). --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All of this is an attempt to discredit one side of a multi-sided debate and create intellectual hegemony. The Austrian School includes a Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek and other famous economists such as Mises, and Schumpeter. It is actually quite inflamatory that the Austrian school be lumped into an "other" (nevermind the dismissive term "heterodox") category along with "Feminist economics" which is limited in its scope and, by definition, discriminatory, or "Marxist economics" which has long been shown to defy the laws of economics such as scarcity and uses the outdated labor theory of value. Economics has always been a debate and attempts to marginalize (no pun intended) the Austrian school are actually simply attempts to control that debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.44.154 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Robert Solow (and I believe George Stigler) lump "Austrian economics" as outside of mainstream economics. George Stigler can hardly be accused of ideological bias. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to JSTOR today, but I am pretty sure that Stigler comments on the failures of logic and exposition of some "Austrian economists"---whatever Austrian economics is supposed to represent. The strong (nearly total) positive association between Austrian economics and libertarian politics (and a somewhat admirable spirit of shocking the social-democratic establishment) has prevented me from investigating further, I confess. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

New Institutional Economics
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)

200.153.161.142, you should sign in. And thanks for your contributions. radek 01:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Well, alright, I guess it only matters for protected pages. I looked at Stiglitz's article. It seemed fine though it could use more info on his theoretical contributions (he also did stuff on efficiency wages) and some things could be phrased better. Will try to do something. As an aside, usually he isn't considered a Post-Keynesian economist but a New-Keynesian economist (I know, all these labels are annoying). I guess he did some post-Keynesian type work back in the 60's but he's mostly considered to be in the mainstream these days.radek 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Natural difficulties
That's sort of the problem with dividing a discipline into "heterodox" and uh, "orthodox". Stuff that was once outside the mainstream or on a fringe gets incorporated and some received wisdom gets abandoned, so both are always changing. David Colander (a pretty heterodox type of guy) has some good critiques of this artificial division. Still, some folks insist upon it so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeksz (talk • contribs)

Copyright permission?
There has been a recent flurry of Edits for this article from a small number of similar unregistered IP addresses. Citations are given for some of them, but they are not page specific. At least one is verbatim from a copywrited source. It would be easy enough to contact the source to determine if permission was granted for use in this article. For all I know permission was granted. If it was not granted, it should be deleted or appropiately fixed so as not to violate the copyright in accord with Copyrights policy. Does anyone have information on permission granted to use copyrighted material in this article? If there is no response within 2 days, appropriate action will be taken.


 * I apologize for the delay in responding.  I was overseas and not available via the Net.  In any event, I have no objection to this use of my words in Wikipedia (although I realize this may be a moot point due to the delay in responding). sgabriel@mtholyoke.edu


 * User:200.153.161.91 wrote:


 * Dear Professor Gabriel;


 * Some of your words have been used in an article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics#_note-HETTHEORY


 * "There is no single "heterodox economic theory" as such; there are various different strands of heterodox theories. What they all share, however, is a rejection of the neoclassical orthodoxy  as representing the appropriate tool for understanding the workings of economic and social life. The reasons for this rejection may vary. Some heterodox theorists would argue that neoclassical theory is appropriate as a tool under certain limited conditions, such as when there is "perfect" or "near-perfect" competition. Other heterodox theorists would reject neoclassical economic theory altogether, arguing that it is useless as a tool for understanding economic and social life. A small number of theorists argue that all theories are valid so long as they are internally consistent. Still others, less liberal in their conception of theoretical validity, argue that neoclassical theory is a form of ideology or religion, which is grounded in unscientific concepts. 


 * The text is credited to you at the footnotes. Do you have any copyright related objection for this use in Wikipedia ? If you answer yes, or fail to answer, the text will be immediately removed from the article.

Other additional material does not have page-specific citations. The additional material as written does not written to satisy Neutral point of view and looks like the work it comes from directly from a POV source. It should certainly satisfy Copyrights policy. Further much of the additions are written without supplying context, as though written for an audience already conversant with the relevant literature. The additions need fixing to fall within Wikipedia policy. Pege-specific citations are in order for tha edded material. Thanks for your efforts. --Thomasmeeks 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific ? I do not quite understand where exactly the problems are. What is the purpose of this abrupt and not so polite intervention ? Dou you want to improve this article or do you intend to open a confrontation ? What exactly  do you mean by "There has been a recent flurry of Edits for this article from a small number of similar unregistered IP addresses." ?? It is obvious that  a lot of research effort has been put into this artcile; if it does not suit your particular taste, ideological orientation or religion, (or even Wikipedia"s) please feel free to erase it altogehter. If you wish to improve this article, or Wikipedia in general, just say clearly and specifically what exactly, in your opinion, has to be fixed. 200.153.161.91 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I came across a copied Web paragraph in the article (cited to the credit of the editor). If the copyright holder granted permission for use (customarily indicated in published work by so noting), there is no problem.  Otherwise there is (whether willful or not). Suppose there is a copyright violation (or violations). Below the  Edit box of the article, there is this:
 * Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted.
 * Below the Save button of the Edit window there is this:
 * Content that violates any copyright will be deleted.
 * If there is a problem in an article, all instances of the problem ought to be fixed, not just one thet is identified. Page specificity can improve the article irrespective of whether there is a copyright violation.  Undoing an Edit or series of Edits with a copyright violation is one way to discourage the practice.  One reason Wikipedia (for all its obvious limiations) works as well as it does is because of policies editors know will be implemented.  I'm not here talking about instances such as described in the next section that are within copyright law.   The above was intended to encourage good faith efforts to fix possible problems. --Thomasmeeks (typos fixed)


 * Verbatim already complies with world copyright laws. If any other involuntary copyright "violation" has been detected by you, kindly point it out clearly, for fixing. 200.153.161.91 18:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article now lists the copyright for the case I came across. It is customary to state that copyrighted material is used by permission.  That was not done in the article.  May I ask if permission was granted by the author?  If so, there's no problem, but it would clarify to state that permission was granted.  Thx for responding.  --Thomasmeeks 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the author yes, but it is too cumbersome to get it from the trustees of Mount Holyoke College (operators of the website). Rephrased to comply under "Fair use". 200.153.161.91 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

 * 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)

Avoid copyright paranoia

 * 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)

Cleanup template added to the article
The Cleanup template at the top of the article was accompanied by the following Edit summary:
 * Template added: see, e.g. WP:LEAD guidelines as to accessibility, establishing context, length relative to what follows.

--Thomasmeeks 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "("Walrasian economics" refers to the result of the process which has given birth to a formal representation of Smith's notion of invisible hand, along the lines put forward by Léon Walras and encapsulated in the general equilibrium model of Arrow-Debreu)"
 * I agree completely with the cleanup template, it belongs in this article, for now.--Dwarf Kirlston 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This added at Heterodox economics: Articles:* LEE, Frederic S. "heterodox economics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2008,, 2nd Edition, + Abstract: clean-up lodestar.


 * The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2008,, 2nd Edition, was scheduled for publication on May 30, 2008. Electronic versions of it may also be available though college libraries.   It offers the advantage of relative brevity & conprehensiveness helpful for p.-specific citations within the article. If challennged page-specific citations are not forthcoming for a given source, this reference might be a convenience source for preserving the substance (or replacing it) & satisfying reliable WP:VER policy requirements.  --17:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Remark on quoted text
I suppose including simply wrong criticism of rational choice models may be a subtle ironic dig at criticism of the mainstream, but Satya Gabriel's idea that "utility" means "pleasure" is very much mistaken. "Utility" is a mathematical object representing an underlying preference relation, and the preference relation has absolutely nothing to do with "pleasure." If a decision maker would choose A over B when both are available, then A has higher utility for that decision maker than B, even if B is a pleasurable activity and A is not.

took out some redundant material
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)

Energy economics
I'm deleting this section on WP:WEIGHT grounds. This article is not the place to promote one (not particularly notable) heterodox school above others. Technocracy gets a mention, which is appropriate, but should not get more in this article. JQ (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This area is very well sourced and important. It was the largest growing mainstream social movement in the U.S. in the early thirties. It is well documented. Energy Accounting is used in modern industry. A very important aspect of Heterodox information is presented, that calls for a small section. It is widely discussed and debated. The information is not being promoted. Your opinion John Quiggin is that it is not particularly notable... but actually it is particularly notable. And actually thermodynamic economics is an important part of economics, and in some sense not even that heterodox. The wiki article page on yourself implies that you are steeped in mainstream economics, and perhaps you are unfamiliar with other ideas, as to energy economics... but I am not trying to be rude here. I suggest you follow some of the links in the section you removed, that I placed back in, and read some of the information. If you or Imperfectly informed have problems with this section then tag it... and discuss it. Do not just remove something that has been here. Probably the most famous of all Heterodox economic theory is connected to the group mentioned ... their contribution and collating of information, and its usage now and discussion of its usage now in particularly ecological economics... thermoeconomics... natural capital... energy enconomics... etc. Thorstein Veblen Frederick Soddy M. King Hubbert and a host of other people were involved or explored these ideas very seriously as academic subjects, as well as many others. These people are notable and connected. Energy economics again is a very popular heterodox.... close to mainstream and notable line of economics. Thermoeconomics is the name given to a type of heterodox economic theory that attempts to explicitly apply the principles of thermodynamics to economics. skip sievert (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ecological economics, energy economics, etc. are not heterodox economics. Nor does stringing them together add up to heterodox economics.  Nor does saying that they are "not that" heterodox or "close to" mainstream.  The third paragraph of the disputed  section looks like an attempt at product placement.  Saying that scientists write about economic matters on energy or citing Veblen or Soddy et al. also does not add up to heterodox economics for the subject of this section. Even if somehow the title of the section ("Energy accounting economics and balance") could be wp:verified as "heterodox econ," it would be subject to the WP:WEIGHT objection above.  The Wiki article on the 1st editor above implies nothing one way or the other on what the 2nd editor insinuates, but few would doubt whose credentials were more conducive to rendering a wp:npov judgment on this matter.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very ignorant comment Thomasmeeks, you seem to sniff out product placement? Ha ha, more conspiracy theory just like on the economics article? secret codes and such?... but ignorance is just a part of the human condition, which can be modified with further info... if a person desires that. If you notice all the pages you mention are economics pages.... Ecological economics... energy economics thermoeconomics etc. Having dealt with you on the Economics article, with your utter contempt for change to better information.... I know what to expect... in other words nothing but contentious argument... mostly about plain as day things... so ... have a nice day... and try reading the material. Your comments here are either trollish or just plain ignorant, and thats about it. skip sievert (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was willing to give you a listen before you started with the personal attacks. I agree with the deletion of the section.--Gregalton (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you did not notice... I did not make a personal attack... I pointed out behavior. Also... instead of making a separate section... I have included the information now on a section already there, on development... which probably should have been the way to figure this out creatively without ditching all the good information, which needs to be in this article to present the subject of Heterodox economics. You were willing to give me a list Sorry I do not follow you. I assume that you have no special powers here... and like the rest of us are trying to present pertinent information, in good faith, to the subject. Information that belongs in the article because it is sourced and notable and already presented prominently on wikipedia articles because of that reason. Other more descriptive aspects of subjects can be added here as David Collander was by another user a while back.... so... why the excitement about adding a known discipline... and very important discipline of heterodox economic thinking, Energy economics that is a well known... much written about aspect of economics? skip sievert (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling someone else ignorant is a personal attack. Period.--Gregalton (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since some of you are so concerned... then maybe you should not put the comment back on after it was deleted a couple of times. Maybe you should also try using a dictionary... # uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication; "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group ...
 * uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field; "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate"
 * unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"; "an unknowledgeable assistant"; "his rudeness was unwitting"
 * wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


 * Unknowledgeable or uneducated; characterized by ignorance; Ill-mannered, crude
 * en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ignorant


 * Adj. Not polite, disrespectful, rude. {Informal}
 * www.peevish.co.uk/slang/i.htm skip sievert (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Technocracy
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)


 * 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)

As regards heterodox economics in general, maybe we should have a section on historical heterodoxy (defined as challengers to classical/neoclassical economics that are no longer significantly represented in published research). The German Historical School would be one obvious example, maybe Social Credit another.JQ (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I've made a start on this.JQ (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Background on energy economics

 * :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 Alliance, 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).


 * 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. 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. 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.


 * 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)

Well, to me the stuff in that link looks crazy. But sure that's just my pov. And seeing as how I got no dog in this fight (aside from making Wiki a good encyclopedia), I'm happy to defer to others' judgment.radek (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

History section
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)

Too heterodox to be heterodox?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The economics of intangibles
Is this a heterodox subject? see https://sites.google.com/site/theendofthemarket/Edmund O&#39;Sullivan (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Edmund O'Sullivan
 * 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)

Clean up
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)

Failed verification or failure to consult a librarian?
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)

Journals and Reviews
I see that all the journals and reviews has been removed. why? it was a usefull list. And sincerely i don't see a reason to remove it. Morevoer it could be created a wiki voice for every review and journal. 87.6.49.24 (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I explained, many of the journals were on special heterodox economics (e.g. Cambridge Stalinism ;) a la Joan Robinson, post Keynesianism, Green economics, etc.).
 * The special journals could perhaps go in their special articles here. However, this article had become a link farm. There is an internet where bloggers are welcome to create such link farms. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I utterly approve your cleanup, Keifer. Bokken | 木刀 12:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

An addendum to the definition for Resource based economics
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)

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


 * Erik S. Reinert is a candidate. For example, the Washington Consensus page refers to him with these words: "The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert." Sjlver (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

About the American radical political economy
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)

Addition to "notable heterodox economists" list a Resource Based Economy/Anarcho-communism/Decentralized planning theoretics
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)


 * 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)

Chicago Schoool
A history of heterodox thought on Wikipedia requires a mention. What of the still controversial and once remarkably heterodox Chicago school of economic thought? In the post-war land of Keynesian thought reigning supreme - nothing was more heterodox than the Chicago School. The Heterodox Methodology of Two Chicago Economists208.59.107.13 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)