|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.|
|Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.|
|Economics has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
Sentence that needs to be sourced.
Added in a recent edit: "We cannot define economics as the science that study wealth, war, crime, education, and any other field economic analysis can be applied to." According to whom? Also note: "study" should be "studies". Rick Norwood (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
in recent times in Ghana, unemployment have been a major macro economic issue. as a student of economics, write an article to be presented on a seminar stating the causes, effects of unemployment as well as how to control unemployment problems in your country?
- It is reasonable to expect that the Unemployment article should have a more thorough exposition on monetary, fiscal, resource, and environmental factors shown to cause employment in the most reliable sources and the most popular sources which defer from them. That is what Unemployment#Controlling or reducing unemployment would probably look like if it was not US-centric. Developing versus developing countries' perspectives should both be included. The evidence strongly points to the extent of tax progressiveness as being the principal determinant component. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that these sources are plausible, but both are original research. Before we can use them in Wikipedia they need to be published in a refereed journal. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
-  and  are consistent refereed papers, the first being a literature review, and the book reviewed at  is based on refereed work in epidemiology journals, which is perhaps a harder science than economics. EllenCT (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Do these two studies actually say anything about unemployment? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Classical models of unemployment occurs when wages are too high for employers to be willing to hire more workers. Wages may be too high because of minimum wage laws or union activity."
That classical model is missing the law of supply and demand. This article is biased towards the rich and against the greater agregate demand that comes with an expanding middle class because of the positional effects described in . Much of this has happened recently. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The business cycle assumes that increases in productivity will remain decoupled from increases in wages, which is the same as saying taxes will remain regressive, because of the aggregate demand inherent in a growing middle class. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- There is a business cycle article. Is there something in that article that needs improvement? If so, that is the place to contribute or discuss. – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but I don't know what it is yet. EllenCT (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's just as likely that the improvement should be made to whatever article discusses how changes to the statistics cited at  are derived. It is probably best to ask about that at WT:ECON. EllenCT (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Intro is an article.
The introducion is not an introduction in the usual sense. It is an article unto itself and conatains information that should appear in the TOC I suggest abstracting a much shorter introduction and integrating the rest into the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resumbit your request with any necessary reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 01:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the broad topic of economics, it is not about the neoclassical school of economics. The neoclassical school of economics has its own section, and it has its own article(s) as well. The definition of economics in Merriam Webster's is "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services".
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica starts:
ECONOMICS (from the Gr. οἰκονομική, sc. τέχνη, from οἶκος, a house, and νόμος, rule,—the “art of household management”), the general term, with its synonym “political economy,” for the science or study of wealth (welfare) and its production, applicable either to the individual, the family, the State, or in the widest sense, the world.
People from the neoclassical school keep trying to make the opening say all of economics is tailored to just how they see things. Wikipedia should stick to NPOV like Merriam-Webster and the Encyclopedia Britannica do, and not have the whole opening written from a neoclassical slant.
The opening which has been there for years, and which was there at the beginning of this year, is similar to the old Encyclopedia Britannica, or modern Merriam-Webster definition. We should have a NPOV opening which does not just give the ideas of one economic school. Minimax Regret (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)