Reblogging Comments: "What is neoclassical economics?" (Noah Smith)
FRAGMENT: "(...) If you read econ blogs, especially blogs by "heterodox" bloggers (Austrians, Post-Keynesians, MMTers, etc.), then you know that the term "neoclassical" gets slung around quite a lot, usually as a perjorative. See here, here, here, and here for just a few examples. The idea is that "neoclassical" econ is the dominant paradigm, and that the "heterodox" schools are competing paradigms that lost out, and were, to use Kuhn's terminology, "simply read out of the profession...and subsequently ignored."
Well and good, but I have two problems with the way the term is used. First, I don't like the sloppiness of the way it's defined, and second, I don't like its application to people as opposed to ideas. (...)" (Read More)
COMMENTS: The critic made by Noah Smith is clearly understandable. Though, non-economists tend to look for the supossed "mainstream" economics/economists, and from that approach calling them neoclassical, keynesian or many other approaches. Their assumption is that those adjectives are not mere methodologies or approaches, but all-mighty theories, ideologies and foundations of any academic reasoning which are supposed to be stable and attached to the researcher. Thus, non-economist, economic journalist and public opinion don't get it right, but still talk about it, so young undergraduates students risk to fail and apply that type of forced categorizations.