Talk:Bad (economics): Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 203.97.253.214 (talk) to last revision by SineBot (HG) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is this a clever article, or real? |
Is this a clever article, or real? |
||
{{find}}NNNNAAAHHH MATE YOUR WRONG !!!!!! |
|||
{{find}} |
|||
: I've spoken to an economics professor who says this could be related to the concept of [[negative externalities]], although I'm not sure if the term "bad" is ever used in economics in that sense. We might consider merging it, if there aren't any notable sources for the idea of an "economic bad". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.106.4.120|69.106.4.120]] ([[User talk:69.106.4.120|talk]]) 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: I've spoken to an economics professor who says this could be related to the concept of [[negative externalities]], although I'm not sure if the term "bad" is ever used in economics in that sense. We might consider merging it, if there aren't any notable sources for the idea of an "economic bad". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.106.4.120|69.106.4.120]] ([[User talk:69.106.4.120|talk]]) 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 21:42, 12 November 2012
Is this a clever article, or real?
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLNNNNAAAHHH MATE YOUR WRONG !!!!!!
- I've spoken to an economics professor who says this could be related to the concept of negative externalities, although I'm not sure if the term "bad" is ever used in economics in that sense. We might consider merging it, if there aren't any notable sources for the idea of an "economic bad". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.4.120 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree this is just negative externalities that's being discussed here. Unless there can be found more sources to prove that this is a true economic concept it should be removed. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
About a sentence and its meaning.
"a bad is an object whose consumption or presence lowers the utility of the consumer." For whom`? The seller? The producer? The consumer? I dont understand. Lowers the utility-potential? Lowers the potential of utilitization that a given consumer might make after the buying and/or consumption of given object/bad? Or does it lower the utility of the consumer. I am puzzled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.57.113 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)