AskProfWolff: Alternatives to Neo-Classical Theory

A patron asks: "After taking several introductory economics courses, I've become increasingly frustrated with the Neo-Classical slant that the material is presented with. What supplemental reading would you recommend to a new student who wants to see a more critical take on the foundations of traditional economic theory and how do I ensure I am thoroughly questioning what is presented as fact in my classes?"

Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[nthperson]

To the student who contacted Professor Wolff regarding the economics he is being taught, I had much the same experience as a student in the 1960s. I, too, read what Karl Marx had to say. At the time the two most important influences on my thinking came from Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" and "Agrarian Justice" and Gerhard Lenski's book "Power and Privilege". I also studied the early political economists in an effort to determined for myself what theories meshed with reality. The writer who impressed me most is rarely mentioned: Richard Cantillon. In the early 1970s I began to read the books by the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler ("The Common Sense of Politics" is at the top of my list). Then, in 1980 by pure luck and chance I was introduced to the book "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George. What impressed me about Henry George was his own study of his predecessors and contemporaries writing on political economy. While there is much in Marx with which I concur, I found George's analysis and solutions proposed to the problems of economic instability and the maldistribution of wealth logical and necessary if we to ever live in just societies. The message is simple. Neoclassical economics has been effectively utilized to defend existing socio-political arrangements and institutions. Professor Wolff is right to challenge its ethical basis as well as its descriptive usefulness. Political economy offers a much more robust method of scientific investigation and analysis. For my money, Henry George is the best of the political economists.

[d.russellmoros]

I had basically the same experience studying Economics as a major in the 1980's but did take a course entitled 'Marxist Political Economy' although we did not read Marx or Engels directly. I had no idea what Economics was before beginning to study it and felt after I had graduated with a 4 year degree that I still was in the dark about it's essence. It was a frustrating experience. It wasn't until I started studying Marx and Engels writings, post university days, that I began to find answers to the questions that had led me to study economics in the first place and began to understand what the economics that I had studied in college was really all about. Read Marx and Engels directly and not someone else's views/interpretations on Marxism! Thanks Richard.

[johndecicco]

I think the fragility of the Neoclassical illusion will make the collapse horrifying.

[sa-iwdr]

Prof. Wolff, You are bringing education and awareness up to date, this isn't good news of how you were taught.
Thanks for being brave and for breaking that mold that needs to break.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

Interested in alternatives? Look up Marxian, post-Keynesian, institutional, and Sraffian economics, just to name a few.

[Lambda_Ovine]

I took intro to economics at college as an elective. Very boring class, you learn how to read some stats, offer and demand, some of the jargon and all that. The only professor that invited me to think critically about capitalism and then offered socialistic ideas as an alternative, before I even realized such ideas were socialism, was my professor of computer science. I remember that he used open source as somewhat of a model of how socialistic ideas could actually work. Through him and through you, I have learned more about our economic reality than what I did in that introductory class.

[DrawMakeCode]

I had a similar experience in college. I earned a degree in business, but I was frustrated by the lack of criticism of neo-classical theory and no balancing presentation of alternatives. I did what you suggested, and learned about them on my own. It was interesting how the many formal criticisms were intuitive (almost obvious) perspectives. I felt they were important in balancing what was being taught, but there was a stigma associated with teaching these criticisms. This was when I really started to doubt my decision to become a business executive.

[waldemarrognes]

Thank you, prof. Wolff. Students must be encouraged to independence and intellectual curiosity.

[donpierce]

prof wolff, tellin' it like it is

[josephjohnson]

Edward Dodson, I'll be damn! You are probably one of a few erudites around in the country. Don't come across to many that engage in the articulation of Thomas Paine and definitely not Henry George. Truly glad that I'm a fan of Professor Wolff. I would not have come to discover your rational brilliance on economic if I wasn't subscribed. Thank you sincerely.

[GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Having made a side study of anthropology, I still wonder how often economists of any stripe turntable social anthropology for insight.

[WalterHolokai]

Sounds like indoctrination rather than education. I'm so glad you had a independent mind Dr. Wolff. Some colleges are indoctrination centers aka Ministries of Truth or Advanced Hoop Jumping.

[matthewingerson]

These video playlists may help some folks...

Reading Marx's Capital Vol I with David Harvey

Reading Marx's Capital Vol 2 with David Harvey

[Dsonsee]

As a physics student, I was shocked at how shitty economics was from a scientific perspective. Now I'm starting to get why

[jake]

I learned more from Richard Wolff than my economic professor.

[jgalt]

That religious comparison was PERFECT....they can't all be right, but they can all be WRONG.
Wonder when that will sink in?

[AlexDeLarge]

You seem to describe the environment in which you learned about how Marxism was blacked out in the world of academia as a sort of dogmatic religious environment, which makes sense since capitalism is actually a religion with greed as the idol.

[rogueecnomist]

When I attended the University of Arkansas in the mid 1970s, they only promoted John Kennith Galbraith's school of thought. I was at the time a fan of Murry Rothbard. I would ask all kinds of questions about other schools of thought and to say the least, they hated me. I remember asking about Marx and was told that his was more of a social movement that had a failed, poorly thought out economic concepts. I could tell that i did not fit into the club very well. In all my economic classes there was not any females, ever. I started my own business after college and I did not need the approval of the club to get a job. To this day I go by "Rogue Economist" Upon reflection, I feel that Marxism would have become the dominate economic system in the world if in the Soviet Union had not become atheist and allowed small enterprises at a middle class level.

[onecardshort]

Haha. I took a critical thinking class where the professor praised Dennis Prager and almost exclusively posited xian apologetics as genuine critical thinking.

[clarestucki]

It's worth mentioning that capitalism is the 'natural' way free economies develop. If nobody imposes another economic system upon a free society, capitalism is what evolves. There's probably a good reason for that.