I wondered why you suddenly started to talk about utility. You may have
misunderstood me, because I have written "value theory". I have to write
"theory of value", or better still "price theory". I wanted to talk about a
theory that stipulates how prices are determined.

You wrote:

"very few of them [neoclassical economists?] really continue to work in
their hard core, but tend to do research in the protective belt. So the
core remains untouched, which of course is its characteristic, and thus can
still be used in textbook writing, teaching and public bla-bla-ing."

This state of the art indicates that heterodox economics has a good chance
to beat neoclassical economics by presenting a more plausible theoretical
core than that taught in textbooks and schools. As an old dictum says, it
takes a theory to beat a theory. Talking about policies and political ideas
is one thing, but theory building is another thing. We must pore much more
efforts on building a truer and deep-sighted theory to profit this good

[log in to unmask]