There should be no school of economics, economics is economics. Just as mathematics is mathematics and physics is physics, there should not be a Chicago School of Mathematics, a Lausanne School of Physics, and an Austrian School of Chemistry. Nor can there be a socialist biology and a capitalist biology. Those economic concepts and theorems that have been logically deduced and tempered are economics itself. Property rights, scarcity, division of labor and cooperation, the law of demand, the law of diminishing marginal utility, and the principle of ** can never be overturned by anyone, they are economics. The only way to overturn a law of economics is to logically refute it, and anything empirical, empirical, visionary, or emotional is useless and fundamentally misunderstands economics. 
The cognition and solutions proposed by all the so-called schools of thought in the face of certain economic problems are not economics itself, but politically feasible solutions, which are closely related to politics and personal value preferences, and have nothing to do with economics. Economics only tells you the basic principles, and how to choose is people's own business. If you don't act according to the principles of economics and believe in the political solutions proposed by the so-called schools, economics will not do anything to you, and you can bear the consequences. To deny economics is not to eliminate economics, it will be human beings who will be destroyed. The vast majority of so-called schools of economics, in the final analysis, are the product of competition for favor and flattery. When there is a problem with governance, they offer a solution, and because of the common characteristics of these people, or they all work in a certain funded university or research institution, so they are named such and such a school. In their Xi of thinking, the inevitable failure of the market and the necessity of intervention are accepted as a premise and creed that cannot be questioned and verified without reasoning. However, although the market is not omnipotent, the market never fails, and only ** will fail. It is ridiculous to say that the market is out of order, because the market is made up of people. To say that the market is out of order is to say that people are out of order. Then he has to answer the question: Why did everyone fail, but this gifted economist did not?Why are people out of order, but the ** composed of people is not out of order, are they made of special materials, not people?There are not so many classifications in economics, and the so-called industrial economics, agricultural economics, industrial economics, labor economics, international economics, etc., are all completely nonsense. The economy is a whole, and it can never be studied separately, and any change in a person's actions and decisions, or economic fluctuations in any field, will have an impact on the overall economy, and only look at the size of the impact. In the economic ideological system, there is no isolated existence, and to deal with any part of the system is actually to deal with the whole system. 
A person who studies the so-called labor economics will not study the reason why it is true if he only studies the issue of labor and wages from the perspective of labor, but does not understand that it involves property rights, money, interest rates, profits and losses, business cycles, the principle of decision-making, the relationship between consumer goods and capital goods, and so on. It can of course offer ways to increase the wages of workers, but of course you can also sell your house and buy a Ferrari, the question is, what is the cost of such an action;You can also put furniture in the stove and burn it, but what kind of consequences it will have is what economics is going to study. In fact, real economics, when studying labor problems, does not even involve the determination of wage rates, it reveals the nature of labor, utility and other basic laws, how to determine the wage rate of labor, on the contrary, the principle of determination will be involved. 
The classification of various types of economics, like all schools, is not at all the scientific study of economics itself, but the policy of pressure groups. No one has ever objected to the development of certain industries, but you should at least know what the economic consequences of their proposed solutions will be. If you just take the development of such and such an industry as a default value preference and do so-called research for the interests of pressure groups, it has nothing to do with economics, it is just a dog that the owner has fed a few bones and let himself raise.