Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Jonathan Catalan says that "heterodox" is not necessarily a label that people should aspire to

Here. I agree. As long as the word is in use I'll use it on occasion (I feel like I usually talk about "Post Keynesianism" or "Austrian economics" rather than "heterodox economics" though), but I think this is right.

There's two kinds of economics: good economics and bad economics. Just try to do the first kind. Trace your steps and figure out the problems if you end up doing the second kind.


  1. There might be a more legitimate use for the word if we use it on a case-by-case basis. E.g. we might all ABCT a heterodox theory, even if the whole Austrian School is not necessarily heterodox.

  2. This is just the desesperated intent of pretending there's no history of economic thought.

    I agree that you should care about doing good economics, but the main point of post Keynesians is that all "neoclassical economics", i.e. all "macroeconomics based on microeconomics (hilariously false) foundations" are bad economics, logically and mathematically, and not empirically supported.

    And that your economic thought is drown in fallacies such as equilibrium fallacies.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.