Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

Economics sidebar: Mathematical ... methods

Outside thoughts are requested for the economics sidebar. One question is whether the term the JEL 's Mathematical and Quantitative Methods should be called "Technical Methods", following the old New Palgrave (but not the current NP, which follows the JEL). Another question is whether game theory should be classified among the mathematical/quantitative methods (per JEL) or among the economic subfields, alongside information economics and industrial organization. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me add a bit more to the above. IMO some background may help here. A quick overview of a relevant earlier discussion is at Template talk:Economics sidebar#"Methods" section revision, 1st para. with striking parallels to later discussion (and yet to come).

A separate matter from KW’s concerns above is particular links under the contested heading ("Technical methods" or "Mathematical & quantitative methods"), in particular to-be-discussed (re)-adds of links to that sidebar section as to fewer or more. Earlier variations on this were discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Statistics/Optimization as "Methods" (in this template).

* The earlier "Techniques" (sic) link in the Econ sidebar was to JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories), as are current competing sidebar labels listed above. "Technical methods" is being proposed as a heading label [for the same JEL] link (irrespective of the JEL classification system used in the 2008 NP). It does appear that current discussants have had some substantial things to say on the issue of Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods", especially inviting comment there.

Placement of Game theory may be better here focussed in a separate (sub)section on that subject, rather than mixing it in passing in a (sub)section primarily on another subject, making even a headcount possibly problematic.

Personal time lines will limit my contributions to Template talk:Economics sidebar in the immediate future. No matter. I’ll get back there as soon as I can. I do believe that recent discussion will assist in weighing competing template alternatives. Thanks. –Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the template has many of the dysfunctions of the Monty Hall problem, that is, Thomas and I have been discussing first principles and arguing over content. I am tired of arguing, and instead I would like some agreement that the template should follow the consensus of the economics profession---i.e., the JEL classification system, and a rather standardized M.A. curriculum, each of which precisely specifies the core methods and fields of economics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a bracketed term to my 2nd sentence of paragraph (*) above and changed the piped heading above to "[Economics] sidebar: Mathematical [...] methods" for explicitness (with brackets to indicate adds). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Time stamp here to avert premature archiving. -- TM 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on 3 questions raised here about Template:Economics sidebar

Please provide some feedback, now that you have seen the info-box for a month:

1. Should it be reverted?
2. Should the long "Mathematical and quantitative methods" be renamed to "mathematical and statistical methods" or to "Mathematical methods" or even to "quantitative methods" (sic, imho).
3. Is the section too long? Should some of the topics be dropped or moved elsewhere?

Thanks! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer sticking to JEL whenever possible. I wouldn't mind shortening the long section name to "Mathematical methods" just for conciseness, but even there I feel the full form best describes the section -- strictly, I would only call the first five "mathematical", the last two are rather "statistical" (which I suppose can be lumped fairly easily with mathematical) and experimental economics, which doesn't really fit with the others.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Music to my ears! :-)

"and quantitatitive" is redundant, as I've noted many times (following C.S. Peirce). Statistics is a mathematical science, so that "Mathematical methods" can serve as a shorter title.

Keeping the current length, I favor the substitution of "statistical" for "quantitative", because experimental economics employs one of the two main methods of scientific statistics, experimentation (the other being sampling); these core empirical-scientific fields are the primary reason that statistics is not a subfield of applied mathematics, but rather a mathematical science. Your calling these other areas statistical (rather than mathematical) is correct and important, imho.

If we keep "national account(s/ing)" as a method, then it is more of an official statistics topic than a mathematical topic, so statistical is again an apt descriptor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with CRGreathouse, that to avoid conflict, it's probably best to stick with JEL categories. I also agree with the change from "Mathematical & quantitative methods" to "Mathematical & statistical methods". IMO, 'quantitative' methods (as opposed to 'qualitative') can be deemed to include 'mathematical methods'. LK (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles S. Peirce criticized the use of "quantitative" for "mathematical", particularly in Germany. Topology is an important part of mathematical economics, in addition to order/lattice theory and other non-numerical topics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "quantitative" is not the same as "mathematical", which is why I used the words "can be deemed". However, when people speak of qualitative vs quantitative work, they usually would lump mathematical economics on the quantitative side. I think its best to avoid the term, due to the ambiguity. LK (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Time-stamp marker here to avert premature archiving per ongoing efforts to narrow differences related to the above discussion. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I index the following for ease of reference.

0T. I have edited the subheading to the above for more specificity and transparency. The top editor (KW) subsequently changed the Econ sidebar heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” (the JEL-link name to the current “Mathematical & statistical methods” Template heading). Of course, my concern below is to improve the Template, not to suggest otherwise of any other discussant.

1T. For the record, Template discussion as to variations on the same subject has been ongoing since 3 December 2010 by the same 2 parties. In November 2010, one them changed the Template heading at issue to “Methods”.[1] Its predecessor was “Techniques” with a duration was almost 2 years (13 December 2008-10 to November 2010. Its initial placement followed discussion that began on 24 October 2008 (here). There were 5 discussants along the way to "Techniques". Final discussion accompanying the heading change to "Techniques" is in what became a subsection here.

2T. 2nd question of the top Edit:

Should the long "Mathematical and quantitative methods" be renamed to "mathematical and statistical methods" or to "Mathematical methods" or even to "quantitative methods" (sic, imho).

is problematic for several reasons.'#'§ It is a biased question in referring exclusively to alternatives the first editor favored (except for “Quantitative methods” set off by the pejorative “(sic, imho)”) but not to the template heading of “Technical methods” favored by the other discussant (me) on the Template talk page. So, a “Yes” to “Technical methods” is excluded by the question.

# The 1st question at the top:

Please provide some feedback, now that you have seen the info-box for a month:

Should it be reverted?

presumably on reverting the Template heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” to its predecessor “Econometrics”,[2]
is now moot but open to the similar problems. Both were favored by KW over “Technical methods”, which was favored by the other discussant (me). So, a “Yes” to either works against “Technical methods” by suppressing it as an option. Arguments for “Technical methods” over “Mathematical methods” as the heading are at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (D) various others at (3T, 5T-6T, & 9.1T) in Jan. 2011.

§ The 3rd question at the top, which I welcome, has been discussed on Template talk subsequent to the top edit here (Template talk:Economics sidebar#Economic data v. Economic statistics as template links) in passing. I believe that further simplification of the Template section that follows the heading back to where it was on 10 November 2010[3] would significantly improve the Template, but that piecemeal & simultaneous discussion here might work at cross purposes to the heading question. The latter can be settled independently of the former, although simplicity as a criterion applies to both.

3T. The 2nd question looks a lot like a poll, which is deprecated in a WP:Guideline (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Why regard polls with caution? and following) -- for one thing because it may unnecessarily polarize discussants, rather than leaving room for discussion or in any way constraining a proposed heading by reasons. If polling is the path taken, however, IMO it should include arguments on the other side from Template talk:Economics sidebar. Omission of such arguments would tend to skew discussion by short-circuiting relevant Template talk content & locking in an option that might be rejected if arguments on the other side had been presented at the same time. Presenting arguments after the “vote” by others may also lock in one alternative, not a good thing if it is prejudicial to consideration of the neglected alternative. IMO, that runs against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics#Goals statement that “[t]he vision of this project is to improve every economics article...,” presumably including those with the templates in them.

Now the above discussion might be crying over spilt milk -- except that it could happen again & again &...

4T. I hope that my holding off comment on this subsection until now would have worked toward a consideration of “Technical methods” on its own merits and despite the above, and I acknowledge that no one has in this section has to this point argued against Technical methods.

5T. Earlier and still-relevant general arguments for “Technical methods” at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods" IMO also apply to “Technical methods” over “Mathematical & statistical methods”. Let me restate them here:

5.1T. "Technical methods" as a heading is a general but restrictive term that facilitates transitioning to, among others, a more specific term below it, namely 'mathematical' in Mathematical economics. Of course, the general-specific paradigm is common one for headings. The trick is to make the heading restrictive enough.

5.2T. 'Technical' has 2 [Merriam-Webster] dictionary definitions – (2b): "relating to ... a practical subject organized on scientific principles"[4] and (4): as an adjective cognate of 'technique'. 'Technique' itself has corresponding suitable definition – (2a) here: "a body of technical methods (as in a craft or in scientific research)." The definitions above include 'scientific principles' & 'scientific research' in them, similar to terms one of the discussants above invoked (appropriately IMO).

5.3T. "Mathematical & statistical methods" is still about twice as long as the other Template headings and "Technical methods", fills the whole line (unusually), and in so doing goes against a WP:STYLE#Article titles, headings, and sections guideline ("Neither too narrow nor too broad"). The heading-length concern goes back to 2008.

5.4T. In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987), there is a Subject Index, which at (9) has a classification category for the New Palgrave articles called "Techniques" that approximates JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories (the JEL-section link of the Template heading) in including under it such subheadings as "Mathematical Economics", "Mathematical Methods " [thus distinguished from "ME"], "Accounting, Private and Social," and "Econometrics" (below which are respective New Palgrave article listings). So, again , that is a WP:VER usage more supportive of “Technical methods” than "Mathematical and statistical methods." Technical methods is simpler and more concise than Mathematical & statistical methods. Most readers, esp. including most general readers, may appreciate such austere user-friendliness in a section heading, particularly in a sidebar template. Conversely, unnecessary heading words and the alternate heading might discourage interest in both the heading link and links in the section below the heading.

5.5T. The Preface to The New Palgrave (2008), 2nd Edition, v. 1, p. ix, has this statement by the editors:

[Since the 1st New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics edition in 1987, econ] has grown enormously in analytical and technical sophistication....

That suggests that 'technical' is still appropriate today in the template heading.

All the above is relevant to comments before the top edit. Let me note comments made thereafter on the Talk:Template page that point in the same direction as to "Technical methods" over "Mathematical & statistical methods".

5.6T. For one thing, Economic statistics was removed from Template:Economics sidebar per comments initiated by others at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Economic data v. Economic statistics as template links. Its presence in the sidebar may have tipped discussion to the (current) sidebar heading "Mathematical & statistical methods", to the undue disadvantage of “Technical methods”.

5.7T. "Mathematical & statistical methods" may be decomposed into its implied parts: "Mathematical methods" and "statistical methods". So what about the “Mathematical methods” part of the heading? That too has problems as noted at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods" at (22T & 22TT) and the, may I say, forthright discussion that followed:

22T. An additional argument against the 'Mathematical' portion of "Mathematical and quantitative methods" is its ambiguity. Within mathematical economics a "mathematical method" may refer to relevant higher-level methods in math (beyond geometry), like matrix algebra. That’s how the term is used in Chiang (2005), Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics (per fn. 1 of Mathematical economics) and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of EconomicsSubject Index for example. The heading of "Mathematical & ... methods" misleadingly suggests that Math econ itself is one of the "mathematical methods", rather than a user of such methods. "Technical methods" as a heading avoids that misleading suggestion.

22TT. Put more strongly, the heading should not strongly suggest a misconception. If further evidence is needed, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008) classifies Debreu's superb "Math econ" article under Econ Methodology (v. 8, p. 857, B4), not under JEL:M&QM.[5] That's hard to explain if "Math econ" is well described as a "Math method"....

I added as a corollary there that any heading that encourages bad math-econ diction (like "Math ... methods") as to placement of Mathematical economics under that heading can't be right, & one that avoids such (like "Technical methods") may be right. So, that’s another argument in favor of "Technical methods" over “Mathematical ... methods”. –Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The change of the Template:Economics sidebar section name to "Technical methods" was made earlier. TM 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on 3rd question above as to size of 'Technical methods' section of Template:Economics sidebar

At long last I have added a new subsection 2.3 at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Proposed re-simplification of 'Technical methods' section from 7 to 4 links below heading to allow an opportunity for comment there (or here) on the 3rd question at the top of the previous subsection for an edit dated 12 May 2011:

Is the section too long? Should some of the topics be dropped or moved elsewhere?

My somewhat abbreviated response here is: yes, yes, and thank you for asking. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment from peers, Inflation templates

Dear colleagues, I've just added an additional category to the Template:Inflation series covering Measuring Worth's Nominal GDP per capita series for the UK. I'd like advice before fully developing and updating the Inflation series of templates with current data, better footnotes, and non-CPI inflations. See the talk page for the template for the announcement. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to emphasise my need for assistance here, and note that I've produced a series for US Nominal GDP per capita. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fractal Economics, Anyone?

I'm tired of this left/right wrangling over wealth disparity. I wish a real mathematician (not an economist) would show that the economy is a dynamic fractal, and that the network interchange velocity between nodes becomes worse if you only have a few huge nodes and many tiny ones, with the middle-size nodes having been destroyed or shrunk to tiny.

If you look at a natural fractal, it is always pleasing to the eye, with a bell curve of sizes - such as a picture with mostly medium circles, a lesser number of small ones, and an even lesser number of enormous ones. What we have seen is all the medium circles have been shrunk to leave a few enormous ones and many tiny ones.

This is not only ugly, but doesn't work economically, IMHO. The most efficient economic exchange occurs due to the disparity of size in the network, but also due to a fair range of sizes. A size distribution of largely Tiny to Enormous means less economic activity. In my humble opinion, a median amount of middle-size circles leads to the greatest aggregate dynamic activity between nodes. My intuition says this can be shown mathematically, but that's beyond me at present. Any mathematicians want to step up to the plate?

Your work will remain on Wikipedia, because no one in Washington will understand it or promote it, but at least you will have tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybervigilante (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Original mathematical research is great but not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Name of Racial wage gap in the United States Article

Hi all, Racial wage gap in the United States is currently under review for being a good article. There has been a question raised concerning the name. Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States are current articles on Wikipedia; the reason I termed the wage differences among races as the "racial wage gap" in the title is due to the term's prevalence in the literature, at least from what I have seen. I am not extremely familiar with Wikipedia naming procedures, but based on these and economic conventions, do you think the name needs to be changed?KiaraDouds (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Question on statement on Economics in "Dimensional analysis"

The section Finance, economics, and accounting has the following statement, which I find surprising as a non-economist.

Dimensional analysis is rarely used in (mainstream/neoclassical) economic modeling,[8] and economic models are often dimensionally inconsistent.[9] The equation of exchange is the most notable example of a dimensional equation in economic modeling,[8] while the widely-used Cobb–Douglas model does not use dimensions in a meaningful way.[10] This lack of dimensional consistency is criticized by heterodox economics, notably Austrian economics,[11] while dimensional consistency is not considered necessary or desirable by mainstream economists.[9][12]

All the references (8–12) are to — Barnett, William (2007), "Dimensions and Economics: Some Problems" (PDF), Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7 (1), http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_10.pdf 

The google scholar search "DIMENSIONS AND ECONOMICS" barnett gave 31 results of which this seemed to be relevant.

Cantore, Cristiano; Levine, Paul (July 2011). "Getting Normalization Right: Dealing with ‘Dimensional Constants’ in Macroeconomics" (PDF). Dynare Working Papers. CEPREMAP. http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dynare.org%2Fwp-repo%2Fdynarewp009.pdf;h=repec:cpm:dynare:009. 
They reference De Jong, F.J. (1967). Dimensional Analysis for Economists. North Holland. 

Does that para in Dimensional analysis need more nuance?
RDBrown (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Most passages about so-called "Austrian economics" should just be cut from the articles.

Fred S. Roberts has softened a lot of his previous dogmatic assertions about meaningfulness; the Handbook of Operations Research volume on Public Sector OR has a review.

If you want to read about dimension analysis, read Garrett Birkhoff on fluid dynamics or textbooks in applied mathematics for mathematicians.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fear the Boom and Bust

The article Fear the Boom and Bust survived a speedy deletion last month, and I think that's appropriate -- it's one of the most important popularizations of economics in recent years (at least in my opinion/experience). But I think there's an important point the article is missing: the whole piece (especially the second part) is an Austrian apologetic, not a neutral comparison. (This is clear from the films' backing (Russ Roberts and the Mercatus Center), but also evident from watching the videos with an eye toward perspective.)

I don't feel comfortable editing here, but if someone is willing I'd be obliged.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Neoclassical Growth Model - possible error in the graphs

I think the Neoclassical Growth model has a problem with the graphs. I think the labels for the axes should be k NOT K and y NOT Y. Whilst this might appear trivial since they mean different things it means I think our graphs are wrong and misleading and this is quite an important article (B-Class on the project's quality scale. and High-importance on the project's importance scale.) I don't yet know how to edit the graphs or where to go to find out. I raised this on the article's page a while ago and on the talk page but as yet there has been no response. I might of course be wrong about this - feel free to let me know. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC))

Given that there is a "n" in the graph, and assuming standard notations, you're right. The truth is probably that everyone's too lazy to change it. Volunteer Marek  10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone help me by indicating how I might find out how to edit these graph files. I only seem able to edit them as "pictures" rather than as editable images. Does that make sense? And I can't seem to find out where to find out about this. Is it the case that these files are not editable but rather are based on another editable file that we cannot see? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

PS I will try to edit them as pictures but have already made a mess. I will tidy soon.

I think its tidied now. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

WP Economics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Economics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Median voter theorem

A new editor has substantially expanded Median voter theorem but unfortunately much of the new material is inaccurate or irrelevant. I'm working on revising it, but more eyes would be appreciated.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Price controls

Could members please look at the article price controls. Both the sourcing and neutrality appear to be problems. TFD (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it's not too bad in neutrality terms although it could do with broadening a bit. (ie. Why do governments choose bad policies? In what circumstances is the impact mitigated?). The article also concentrates on price controls which force prices down; occasionally governments choose to force prices up instead, with different consequences. Nice to see the historical examples although I'd like to add something on price controls in the Ottoman empire (including a wartime rule that farmers must sell produce to the military at a fixed, low price; this eventually became a cash tax). bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the all payer (or all payer-ish) system of health care prices in Japan controls prices, to some positive reception.[6] (also at Health_care_system_in_Japan#History) Of course, health care expenditures as a %of GDP is far and away a large enough issue to warrant coverage in the article. Jesanj (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It's a vexing area as price controls in healthcare are rarely very simple blunt tools, and they're usually part of a more complex regulatory landscape. I don't know what side-effects the Japanese price controls had (do they really count as price controls? That source hints at discussion/agreement), but IIRC when the UK government tried reducing fixed fees paid to dentists for certain kinds of NHS work (which is free at the point of consumption), it suddenly became very difficult for most people to get access to an NHS dentist - ie. dentists didn't accept the fixed state price and preferred to wait for customers who would copay, and sure enough some people who would have been eligible for free treatment chose to open their wallets in order to get their teeth fixed promptly. It would be nice to include a healthcare example, but it could be hard to find a clear example which isn't distorted (at least slightly) by other forces. bobrayner (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Are we seriously citing Rothbard for Roman Economic history? "It was tried during the Roman Empire." => Rothbard, Murray. "Price Controls Are Back!". Making Economic Sense. http://freedomkeys.com/pricecontrols5.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
• And primary sources directly rather than economic historians?
• And Capitalism "Magazine" an uncontrolled blog?
• And another wikipedia article????
• And a fucking Cato position paper for fact "Price controls fail to achieve their proximate aim, which is to reduce prices paid by retail consumers, but such controls do manage to reduce supply." of all things?
• Friedman from a press conference for fact not opinion?
• This standard of sourcing is specifically why I participate in the MILHIST project instead of social science of labour, business, socialism, economics and political economy. Half this article is either FRINGE positions in unreliable sources; or, reliable sources of a minor political economic position being cited for weight and fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Honestly, the article is bad. And the sources are low quality. And the whole text of the article consists of a "Criticism" section and that's it. It does violate NPOV not to mention just common sense quality standards. The thing is, this is pretty much the average quality for a Economics-related articles, so I don't really see why we should get our panties in a twist over this particular one - most Economics articles (with some "exceptions that prove the rule") are at this level, they (almost) all suck. TFD is just objecting to this particular one for his own peculiar reasons. I dunno, do what you want with it, just don't POVit the other way. Reducing it to a one sentence stub so that at some point someone can actually write a decent article is fine with me. Volunteer Marek  06:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you might want to follow WP:NPA and not use the talk page as an opportunity to attack other editors, especially when you are arguing in favor of their comments. My particlar reason for objecting to this particular article is that I happened to read it recently. What is your particular reason for responding to this particular discussion thread that I set up? TFD (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? You want to go and change the article be my guest. My particular reason for responding here was to point out how bad economics articles on Wikipedia are in general. You have a disagreement with that? Volunteer Marek  06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate just a little bit, at this point I've become pretty convinced that it's a lost cause. So yeah, go ahead and try to improve it. I will support you in that though my expectations are low. Especially since - here comes this supposed NPA thing again - I don't think you, or me for that matter, have the patience to carry through. Volunteer Marek  07:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You are being too pessimistic. However, I cannot find much written about the subject in general. Here (pp. 218-219) is a link to a brief entry in an economics textbook. I would not anticipate any objection to presenting the topic in a similar way, would you? TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, I agree with the honourable Volunteer Marek's first post, but without such colourful words :-)

• It's not a great article and we should aspire to higher standards, but to be honest it's better than a lot of other stuff out there. (Particularly when you go next door and look at articles on commercial & business concepts). Personally, I tend to work at the lower end of the quality ladder (why spend a week finessing an article from "Adequate" to "Superb" when the same effort would advance a dozen articles from "Crappy" to "Adequate"?). so other than better sourcing and a little broadening, there's not a great deal I'd want to do with this one before moving to the next article full of promotional fluff or POV or fiction.
• Since MILHIST has been mentioned, I think MILHIST has an advantage - a larger pool of talented editors willing to spend their time on that area - so MILHIST articles tend to be further up the quality ladder by now. If that actually attracts editors from other areas where quality is poorer, then we would have a rather problematic feedback loop. Maybe, after every battleship and general has reached FA, editors might come over here and each fix up one social sciences article? :-)
• Still, this project should count itself lucky. Have you seen what the Africa project has to deal with? Astrology? Colour? bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Peter Kennedy textbook would fine for the Macro aspect of price controls. However, the current article is more about the Micro aspects. Ideally both should be included (and obviously they're related). Volunteer Marek  13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bob, I'm actually seeing a number of astrology topics at the moment. Their prose is good. Their sourcing is even worse than this (interpretation of primary documents). It is problematic that MILHIST poaches editors from other fields. On the other hand, my chief willingness to work on wikipedia is in the review cycle (Why review an article's progress from crappy to adequate, when it is bleedingly obvious, and the difficulty of reviewing is distinguishing adequate and superb?). I wish I was regularly reviewing A class items from business concepts, political economy, economics, labour and socialism. But we don't have the combination of successes, interest, and community here. (If anyone does get something to A / FAC, poke me to review :) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible merger, some problems

Hi all,
I suspect that there's a lot of overlap between these two, at least in principle:

• Unproductive labour in economic theory
• Productive and unproductive labour

However, I think both have content issues (one less than the other). What's the best target? Is laborious merge preferable to slash-and-burn? What else needs to be fixed first? Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near? bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• They're both nice essays that need to be rewritten as a single encyclopaedia article with better citation standards and a more "encyclopaedically synthetic" tone. I'd suggest merging to Productive and unproductive labour myself. It is implicit that the topic is in "economic theory" to my mind. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yikes

I started to fix up some language problems in Economics, but I think subject-area expertise is needed. The page currently includes this:

Micro economics also examines various market structures such as perfect competition (where the market involves a minimum quantity of players and a sufficient quantity of product traded);imperfect competition which includes- monopoly (one dominant or sole supplier in a market) and the affect these kinds of markets have on [[economic efficiency] ; duopoly, which is comprised of two sellers of a product and oligopoly having a large number of buyers and sellers. Monopolistic competition is the most common and realistic from of market structure where there a large number of small producers competing to sell products which are close but not identical substitutes of each other. Here each producer enjoys a monopoly but also face competition.

Seems pretty garbled to me. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Economic and Environmental Studies

FYI: The article about the economical academic journal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Environmental Studies is listed for deletion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GIABO

Hi all,
GIABO is currently at AfD. All suggestions and !votes welcome... bobrayner (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Credit / Money Multiplier

Hi All. I've doing some digging to try to work out who was the first to formally explain how money supply is affected by the reserves that banks hold against their deposits. David Kinley appears to have been the first in this paper titled The Relation of the Credit System to the Value of Money. This is quite significant because this ratio is the basis of the money multiplier and is a significant variable governing monetary policy. If anyone has any better information, please advise - otherwise I may I suggest we update the relevant pages. Pkearney (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please review Motivation crowding theory

A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Economics will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in economics. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)