Talk:Economics

strange thing

Perhaps it is the perfectionist in me, but I find the reverse references to "demand and supply" in the article to be strange and a bit jarring. could we list them as the more typical "Supply and Demand"? Mrtmat (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing, but I've almost always seen listed order as "demand and supply." Wikiant (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an American and have always seen "supply and demand" as the norm. On the other hand, does it really make a difference? Smallbones (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here I live in New Jersey and I have always heard it as "Supply and Demand" too. Do other countries have different ways of saying it? I think our way makes more sense though. it has a better flow of the words and a good operational order of the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuhmz (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth Google Scholar has about twice as many hits for "supply and demand" economics as for "demand and supply" economics, not an enormous disparity but enough to suggest correctly that S&D is the more common usage. Nothing wrong with D&S of course. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The model of supply and demand

• The model of supply and demand predicts that for a given supply and demand curve, price and quantity will stabilize at the price that makes quantity supplied equal to quantity demanded.

Actually, it does no such thing. The model merely indicates that there is a point where demand and supply are equal, and that's it. Only if price and allocation models are added, do we get predictions of what will happen, and this can vary. The price that is formed can bounce around, converge to a non-equilibrium point, be sticky, etc. The allocation can be imperfect, as on the house market or the labour market, which in turn can influence how prices are formed, just as non-equilibruium price can influence the rate by which allocation is imperfect. And both of them can affect the supply and demand curves themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the model does standardly include quantity or price terms, and a hypothesis or argument of stable equilibrium. Whether the model yields useful, correct, or appliicable predictions is another matter. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A little citation note here. Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis and Lazear's article cite the centrality of stable equiibrium in modeling as a source of operationally meaningful theorems. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, mathematics and disequilibrium theory say different. ;) Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On a separate note:

The subsection titled “Supply and demand” is well written, overall. However, when it enters into a discussion regarding shortages and surpluses, it explains what price changes result, but it does not justify why these happen. This may seem like common sense to those of us familiar with the topic, but readers with no background in Economics may not understand this right away. Even if it is explained further on a separate link, I think it would be a good idea to explain it on this main page, as well, to avoid potentially confusing the reader.

It would be helpful to accompany these explanations with graphs that depict a shortage or surplus and to use those graphs to further explain the price changes. My graphs would look very juvenile in comparison to the one already posted, but a professional graph would certainly help the reader understand what is being discussed. It would also be good to explain these phenomena by referring to the actual supply and demand curves.

For example, it would be good to explain that in the case of a surplus quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded (quantity corresponding to supply is farther to the right on the x-axis than is quantity corresponding to demand). In order to get rid of the surplus, producers drop prices that induce people to purchase. When price falls, people will demand more, while producers will supply less. This has the end result of shrinking the surplus. Baniera (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with the above concern. The text and accompanying graph-with-text should be able to stand on their own if read independently, but they should reinforce each other if they are both read. Also, one previously unfamiliar with the topic should be able follow the subject as presented. I agree that something could be added on supply-&-demand adjustment to equilibrium (best done in a clear and concise fashion of course). Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Fixed typos. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

Added point: I'll look into the possibility of vertical carroted brackets labelled 'surplus' and 'shortage' being added to the current graph to go with added discussion of supply-&-demand adjustment to disequilibrium. Meanwhile, anyone could add to Economics#Supply and demand as per the above discussion. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism of assumptions" sect. melded to "Economic reasoning" sect.

Sect. 6.1 ("Criticism of assumptions"), including subsect. 6.1.1 ("Assumptions and observations") were recently melded to sect. 3 ("Economic reasoning"). To facilitate before-and-after comparisions, here is a listing of steps that were taken for the meld: The Economics subsections "Criticism of assumptions") & "Assumptions and observations"

• moved to section 3 "Economic reasoning"
• then melded in substance at the top of the section but with the moved subsections intact
• then deleted as a separate subsections;.
  • A comparison with Wiki markup of "Economic reasoning" before and with the meld is here.
  • A comparison without Wiki markup and before the meld is here.
  • A comparison without Wiki markup and with the meld is here.

Arguments for the melded section include these:

1. A lot of the discussion on assumptions in the moved subsections can be conveniently included in "Economic reasoning," not as a prelude to criticism but as a statement of how economic reasoning makes or uses such assumptions.
2. More econ.-specific examples of assumptions were provided for concreteness.
3. Supportive references were provided for WP:VER
4. The following starred subejcts from the "Assumptions and observations" subsection were omitted:

• Well-Being = Consumption: The earlier Edit ended up granting that which was criticized. All that remained was a criticism of an overstatement for which there was no evidence on prevalence.
• Atomism: No citation is given as to prevalence of alleged belief on independence of preferences. Argualby, taking preferences as given is arguably a mere convenience, not some deep misunderstanding warranting criticism in this survey article. Empirical work often does account preference-dependence with socio-economic variables for example. Related problems of externalities, economic bubbles, etc. are examined when they is the subject of interest.

5. Major points of the melded subsections are preserved or expanded in 40% less space and with greater specificity.

Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "Criticisms of welfare and scarcity definitions of economics" sect.

Templates were recently added to the Economics#Criticisms of welfare and scarcity definitions of economics subsection challenging its compatibility with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the lack of cited sources and with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

If the above problems could be fixed, there would remain the Wikipedia:Cleanup problems, including those below.

The first paragraph starts with the 1st sentence (unsourced):

"The definition of economics in terms of material being is criticized as too narrowly materialistic."

If a definiton includes X in it, how can the definition be "too X"? It simply is. What follows the first sentence about the different marginal significances of $100 to the rich and the poor comes across as a point-of-view straw man, in that the standard definitions of the subject, including at the top of the article, include reference to distribution. Still later in the paragraph, the criticism about a definition of economics that is neutral about wants (liquor, cigarettes, etc.) does not require that we need be neutral about those subjects. But bringing up our possible non-neutrality is just changing the subject, like criticizing a definition of physics because it is unconcerned about a person being crushed by falling rock.

The 2nd paragraph refers to Marxist economics (commonly described as 'materialist') apparently agreeing with Marshall's definition at the end of the preceding subsection, which refers to "well-being," or anyhow not making clear how it differs from his definition. (Marshall there by the way explicitly allows for non-material sources of "well-being.") So, what is the point of the alleged Marxist criticism? The same paragrapn mentions the measurement problem of goods, but that's different from the definition of the subject. So, why take it up in this section?

The 3rd (& last) paragraph talks about approaches to economics that deemphasize scarcity. How does that constitute a criticism of a definiton? Isn't it more like changing the subject?

I propose to delete the above-mentioned section 2 weeks from today if the above-mentioned problems are not remedied. This is not to discourage anyone from attempting to improve the article elsewhere on a related subject. Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganized a few sections

I've reorganized some of the context to improve prose flow. I did not think it was logical to have an "In the beginning" section, when there is a History section later on. I have also removed some 4-level headings which were simply not necessary. I propose merging the "Selected fields" section into three paragraphs, instead of several small sub-sections. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

May I welcome Wackymacs. Let me try to address the above comments. But first, allow me express regret that there is no reference above to related discussions on Talk:Economics/Archive 10, which strongly suggest contrary arguments. Such neglect seems inconsistent with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice, 5th para., beginning: "Read the archives: ..." In particular, some headings Talk:Economics/Archive 10 easily locate relevant discussions.

Let me summarize the things that the Edit above proposes or that the Edit associated with the above did (the 1st sent. of each numbering below in italics), followed by arguments against them:

1. The Edit merged the long-standing Section 1 ("In the beginning") into "Classical economics" under the History section much later.

There are these advantages to keeping the "In the beginning" material at section 1. (Here I adapt from Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Section 1: heading rationale & more, which is much more thorough.)

(a) There is an obvious continuity with the Lead & what follows. It is continuous with the 2 definitions in the 1st & 2nd paragraphs of the Lead, but it raises the ante, which may pique interest of the general reader. Adam Smith's long quotation in that section describing the subject of economics is not merely another definition or a long early definition. Rather, the quotation exhibits a modern genesis of economics as a program of analysis (suggested by the term 'proposes' in the quotation), including its prospective demanding practical and scientific uses. Its placement gives a point to everything that follows and implicitly asks the reader to measure the subject against the demanding standards Smith set for the new discipline.

(b) It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought on the subject. From that perspective, the section should not (and does not) have "Main article: History of economic thought" at all. A big point is not history in the common sense of a chronicle over time. It is rather Adam Smith speaking across time as a fellow modern. Why postpone these elements for much later when they can do great good in section 1?

2. The Edit removed subsections for Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Mathematical economics, and Econometrics.

Yet, the big Encyclopædia Britannica article on the subject, cited repeatedly in Economics, lists these separate section listings in its table of contents. It is not a matter of "illogic" in EB but of convenience and importance. Listing them as separate subsections allows the reader to see the "trees" from the "forest." Why shoulndn't a reader be able to select that subsection from the table of Contents, if that is what of interest to inform of their content, just as the "Selected fields" subsections do? If such listing works for Encyclopædia Britannica, why shouldn't it work for this article?

3. It is proposed to remove the subsections for "Selected fields.

Similarly to (2), there is a parallel argument for not removing the subsections for "Selected fields" found at Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Should the Table of Contents list fields other than Micro & Macro?. In this case, as in (2) , it is not a matter of the subsections being convenient, not necessary. (It was very reasonable to propose before acting, let me acknowledge.)

4. The "Analysis of the economy" was re-titled "Economy analysis".

But 'economy' used as an adjective ('economy' fare etc. has an definition irrelevant to this context (see for example http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary for the respective noun & adjective definitions.)

5. The "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section was re-labeled "Qualitative and quantitative."

The heading has no nouns, & 'Qualitative' does not appear in that subsection. The JEL classification codes have a corresponding classification name, "Mathematical and quantitative methods," not "Qualitative and quantitative."

6. The figure in the "Production possibilities, opportunity cost, and efficiency" section was moved top, away from where discussion of it is centered in the text & reduced in size to as to make it unreadable as to discussion in the text.

7. The history section was re-titled "History and schools of thought" from the long-staning "History and schools of economics", (whose heading was first vetted at Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Merge sect. 5 "History" & 6 "Schools"? Request for comment on the Talk page before being adopted in the marge of the "Schools of economics" & Histoty of economic thought" sections.

Yes, the WP:MOS#Section headings guideline would suggest not usung 'economics' there, "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article" (top of link). But I believe that the last qualification applies here, The section is a blending of "history" and "schools." But of what -- 'thought' or 'economics'? An Advanced Google Scholar search of "history of economic thought" vs. "history of economics" shows a 2 to 1 for the former, but "school of economics" (NOT London) has an advantage over "school of thought" (economics) of around 3 to 1 advantage. Advantage (slightly) to "economics" over "thought." The game point (or tie-breaker) is arguably the common use of respectively classical or neoclassical or Marxist (or Marxian) economics (over school) in for example a Google Scholar search of those terms. Alternatively, if 'economics' is used in the subsection headings later in the "History" section ("Classical economics" etc.), why not sin once more in the lead of the "History." Overall "economics" is arguably the best fit. There is the added advantage of avoiding unnecessary mentalisms when observable phenomena of people who belong to schools employing concepts or axioms are aaailable, rather taan appealing to free-floating "thought." --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are good points, but the current layout still needs a lot of improvement. At the moment, the lead is very short (when considering the size of this article) and so, you might as well integrate the "In the beginning" into the lead. Another method would be to move the History section to the top after the lead. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Permit me to say that the first 4 words above are good. Still, I believe that they would have been better if accompanied by a credible expression of regret at (a) not consulting the Talk:Economics/Archive 10 first and (b) apparently not previewing the associated Edit in a manner that could have easily have prevented slips. As the 2nd Edit above indicates, it was not a matter of 1 or 2 slips. That created clean-up problem as to addressing the Edit. But that’s a bygone now (or so one hopes).

Let me address the specific concerns expressed above on their own merits.

[1] As to the layout, I believe that few perusing the Lead would be surprised at the table of Contents listing

[a] "In the beginning" at the beginning of the rest of the article (with that section serving as a standard for what follows)

[b] successive section headings that follow.

The 1st 2 paragraphs (definitions, etymology, economics as a science, and scarcity discussion) feed into, exemplify, or drive sect. 1-3 (“In the beginning,” “Basic concepts,” & “Economic reasoning”). And so forth, as to other sections. There is a lot to be said for keeping the Lead of a long article brief and simple to entice further interest, saving details for later when they can be given context.

[2] The current Lead is I believe reasonably structured in short, readable, and allusive paragraphs that prefigure later discussion. The “In the beginning” material was in the Lead earlier but moved down following an article banner warning as late as 06:21, 15 March 2007 (at [1]) that the Lead might be too long. The Lead then had 5 paragraphs, one over the guideline maximum of 4 paragraphs (Wikipedia:Lead section#Length with an image-with-text that complements the rest of the Lead.. Which paragraph(s) went? One of them was the “In the beginning" material. Exceeding the guideline maximum is a difficulty of moving the “In the beginning" material to the Lead. It is an advantage in current placement (per (1) & [1a] above).

[3a] As for moving the “History” section to follow the Lead, that was discussed at Talk:Economics/Archive 10#structure changes: placement of History and Schools sections at top? (sect. 37.2) (see especially the 4th & last paragraphs). (At the time the “History” & “Schools” sections had not yet been merged.) Professional editorial decisions can differ on this. The superb Britannica article (referenced (2) above & in Economics throughout} follows the same pattern as all the other articles in the associated mega-article “The Social Sciences” in placing the “Historical development” section of the subject immediately after the lead section. And why not, with Mark Blaug, pre-eminent historian of the subject, writing the article? But that is not the only way to order an article on the subject. And it may not be the most efficient way of communicating useful knowledge on the subject. For example, in exposition of the Economics#Neoclassical economics section, it is unnecessary to recap material already covered in Economics#Supply and demand. Rather, the latter serves as a point of departure for keeping ;later treatment concise and avoiding redundancy in the 2 sections.

[3b] The respected Henry J. Aaron [2] is the author of the “Economics” article in the best-selling World Book Encyclopedia, which, according to the publisher, has its share of awards. (WB has been marketed as a “family encyclopedia” for those aged 15+.) In that article, the history section is next to last.. Why? Perhaps to develop the subject first – as a hook for later delving into its history. Arguably, learning about the concepts, methods, and fields of the subject makes the history of the subject come alive as the reader follows earlier writers grappling with successive problems cast up by their theory, methods, and observations. The later placement is not to downplay history but to take it seriously by giving it meaning as to origins, historical context, distinctive contributions, etc. –Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

should be accusative?

in the intro the word economics is said to derive from the attic word oikos(house). but then the passage goes on to say the meaning is

"rules of the house(hold)."

shouldnt oikos be changed to the accusative oikon, rather than the nominative? (i'm not 100% sure.)