Talk:Classical economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the importance scale

Your article on classical economics says that this refers to the work of Adam Smith et al. But it does not say why such work is called 'classical'. Does anyone know why?

DR C Houghton Budd (christopherhoughtonbudd.com)

There is this statement in the article:"Physiocrat Francois Quesnay and Adam Smith, for example, identified the wealth of a nation with the yearly national income, instead of the king's treasury." This formulation can be easily understood in way that Adam Smith was a physiocrat (try changing the beginning of the statement to physiocratS if you don't see what I mean...) I think the sentence should be reformulated, does someone agree with me on that matter?

--Jarda-wien 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot figure out what Theobald, Rostow, and Galbraith are talking about from reading Marshall McLuhan. I think they are talking about early neoclassicals, as in Keynes' definition of "Classical economics". Keynes' definition is mentioned in the article. But the primary focus of the article is a more widespread definition in which both Smith and Ricardo would be seen as "Classical". Thus, I am deleting the claim. -- ~~