Mainstream economists once dismissed finance theory as marginal and trivial

Evidence

Many economists did not see financial economics as central to their discipline, viewing it as specialized and relatively unimportant in almost the same way as the economics of ketchup, studied in isolation, would be trivial. (“Ketchup economics” was how the economist Lawrence Summers once memorably depicted how work on finance could appear to the discipline’s mainstream.9) The academic base of financial economics was not in economics departments; it remained primarily in business schools. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 34

Categorization

• CANDY: Lawrence Summers’ ‘ketchup economics’ line is a funny, quotable dismissal of finance as a field.
• XREF: Contrasts with the anti-finance instincts and performativity debates in the financialization literature this reader is reading toward. — connects to: Finance was institutionally relegated to business schools and dismissed by academic economists as unscientific — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 319; Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 320; Finance was long deemed unworthy of serious academic mathematics. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 266 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Modern financial economics took root in business schools rather than economics departments #expands (0.85) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 320
• Finance was institutionally relegated to business schools and dismissed by academic economists as unscientific #expands (0.82) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 319