Talk:Overview of economic schools of thought

Why we have to continue to write nonsense
I accept this list represents the usual categories, but these categories are largely presentations of former theories a seen by present mainstream. The logic of this deformation is described by Th. Kuhn “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

Example: The main message of Adam Smith is today “the invisible hand” and not the opening chapters of the “Wealth”. Smith spoke of “an” – not of “the” – invisible hand which works only “frequently”. It is quote twice in Samuelson’s “Economics”  and 10 times mentioned. Smith’s statements in the opening chapters about “unproductive labour”  (labour that does not contribute to economic reproduction)  and that  the market volume limits the division of labour (i.e. technological progress) are the kernel  of classical economics but incompatible with neoclassical economics.

It’s therefore only logical that classical economics forms no part of your list. Its logical that not Keynes, who needs the classical category of "unproductive labour" as he is concerned with reproduction, but only the neoclassical reformulations of Keynes are part of the list. As the dynamic old classical economics – called Political Economics by its British founding fathers – is new knowledge to modern economists, it cannot form part of Wikipedia as it is no accepted and agreed knowledge. So we have to continue to write nonsense. What we need is an analytical description of economic theories distinguishing the neoclassical "one way view" (Sraffa) from resources to products and the classical view of "the economy as a circle" (Leontief's dissertation). Cuauti (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)