ABSTRACT
A critical and realistic response to Lawson’s “What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?” boils down to answering two related questions: Is neoclassical economics truly “mathematical” in the genuine sense of that word?; and can there be a mathematical economics which is not neoclassical, using an augmented form of Arnsperger and Varoufakis’ definition of neoclassical? I argue that the answers to these questions are respectively a resounding “No” and a qualified “Yes.”
