The term "neoclassical" with respect to economics was coined in 1900 by the American economist Thorstein Veblen, the same person who first discussed "conspicuous consumption".
[...] The most important difference between them lies not in their explanation of what drives capitalist production, but in the fact that Smith saw increasing harmony and mutual interdependence where Marx saw conflict, exploitation, and inequality. In his analysis of capitalism--and remember, unlik…
Smith assumes that in this system, money serves almost entirely as a means of payment or unit of account. He doesn't imagine market participants seeing money as a form of wealth they could or should accumulate (as we would today). This leads him to assume that people will not hold money as a store …
Smith was both extending and breaking with the analysis of the Physiocrats, political economists of eighteenth-century France who believed that the natural productivity of the land, set in motion by agriculture, was the origin of all wealth. For them, surplus value--the "additional" value produced between input and output in a production process--was possible only as a gift from nature. Their policy conclusion was logical if agriculture was the source of the surplus upon which the state and all society depended, then anything that hindered it (taxes, trade restrictions, etc.) was bad.
