Talk:Heterodox economics

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)

Criticism of non-finite growth is absent

I find it curious that criticism of non-finite growth is not mentioned prominently in the article, since it (a) is a strong point of contention and (b) is one of the strongest claims for disputing the orthodox way of applying the scientific method, since it is in direct contradiction with, e.g. physics, and also a good example of the kind of philosophical quibbles which occur between different economist schools of thought.

Most drastically:

“ Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

— Attributed to Kenneth Boulding (Wikiquote)

”

This is also one of the main criticisms levied by ecological economics against mainstream schools. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction

I have edited the intro so as to remove language which attempted to categorically paint heterodox economics as pseudo-science without any sourcing. It seems this language was introduced by @Closed Limelike Curves. As far as I know, "heterodox economics" is a very nebulous term and commonly used as a pejorative. I wanted to make this post because its a significant change and I am open to discussing, but for now I have made the change so as to maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If anyone has a reputable source defining heterodoxy as inherently pseudoscientific, I would love to see it. Ronulitsky (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)