This is actually pretty correct. The Neo-classical (and by extension the Austrian) school served as radical criticism of many of the classical school’s conjectures. Of noteworthy attention is the famous theory of value (prices = costs of production), the theory of speculation (“wasteful speculation”, “unproductive labour”), the theory of entrepreneurship (Smith puts them in little appraisal because they engage in ventures of “excess risk”), the theory of a long-run natural price, and the theory of rent which is viewed as a portion of the labourer’s produce and wasteful speculation. All of these were criticised with the advent of marginalism (although Menger and Walras’s theory of marginalism is quite different), time-preference theory, a microeconomic consideration on the origin and fluctuation of prices and (much later) a theory of the entrepreneur. Hence we cannot view Austrian theory as a mere continuation of Smith and Ricardo’s. Although it *is* very much worth noting that the *classical* school was often not internally consistent (Nassau Senior may have pointed out the importance of time-preference in entrepreneurship long before Bohm-Bawerk by acknowledging “abstinence”) and that there are much better “classical” heroes than Smith, such as Richard Cantillon and Ibn Khaldoun (although Khaldoun’s theory of value is also fallacious)