Talk:Economics

A question for people who watch this page

What, currently, is the most popular and/or authoritative textbook in economics, or microeconomics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the books selection by University staff, and/or practising economists who want to keep a 'manual' for the basics.

All the text books borrow from a diverse range of authors, aggregating theory that has been accumulated over a number of decades. Try Simon Begg if you want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Das's Traders, Guns and Money? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If gas was 5.09 a gallon and it jumped 6 cant on saturday and another 6 cent on sunday and another 5 cent on monday. how would it look in graph form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.168.194 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the standard in undergrad intro classes. If you're asking about graduate level textbooks, see here. II | (t - c) 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Real economy"

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on what the "real economy" is, since I've heard that phrase used lately, and it seems very strange to me. The phrase "real economy" link to this page, but the article does not mention it at all. My questions are (1) should there be an article about the "real economy" and (2) if not, should there be a section in this article explaining it? Squandermania (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Real economy" is not an economic term. It is sometimes used in the popular press to refer to the markets for goods and services -- i.e., non-financial markets. Wikiant (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of economics

"The science of decision-making" is not correct. There are fields outside of economics that focus on decision-making (e.g., operations reserach), and there are fields within economics that have nothing to do with decision-making (e.g., econometrics). What is true is that economics is a social science. So, whatever comes next, we should begin with that statement. Wikiant (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points wikiant. Science can be connected to any thing... even things that make no particular sense, such as the human invention of economics. Data can be used to make models and determinations within most any context of data http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html skip sievert (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skip. Economics is not the 'science' of decision making, no matter what some individuals say. Economics is far too abstract and broad for that. Also, physics starts with "Physics is the science", as it should. II | (t - c) 03:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Applied economics

I have just started a page on applied economics that used to simply redirect to economics. I was looking on wikipedia for some discussion of applied economics but found none. So I have produced this. I realise its content and style might be a bit problematic and it is over-reliant on Backhouse and Biddle but I think we needed a page on applied economics. More on econometrics might be desirable. Just thought we could try this for starters and see how it goes. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

1st line in the Microeconomics section + Applied Economics

Under the microeconomics section the first line is:

• A common distinction is between positive economics (describing "what is") and normative economics (advocating "what ought to be") or mainstream economics (more "orthodox") and heterodox economics (more "radical").

I think this would be better in the introduction. I would also like to change it/add another "distinction".

It might then read

• Common distinctions are made between positive economics (describing "what is") and normative economics (advocating "what ought to be"), between theoretical economics and applied economics and between mainstream economics (more "orthodox") and heterodox economics (more "radical").

Does anyone mind? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

I think I and at least one other editor are still uncomfortable with the applied economics page--you're doing a great job developing it, but I'm still not clear that "applied economics" is a coherent topic within the field. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that there is sufficient evidence in the article on applied economics that it is a notable concept although it has an ambiguous meaning. And some of the criticism seemed rude, unconstructive and unclear. This is not perhaps the place though. But what about moving the positive - normative and the ugly orthodox - heterodox? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm fine with your suggested change regarding positive/normative and orthodox/heterodox. It makes sense for that not to be limited to microeconomics. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of economics, again

There is an interesting article in the new Journal of Economic Perspectives on the definition of economics. This article could be useful for the introduction, which seems to have been discussed again and again on this page, without a clear conclusion. Well, the article will not really help in establishing consensus, as the conclusion of the authors is that even in the profession there is no consensus definition (not even among mainstream economists). It would also be good material for a longer discussion in the main text, as first paragraph before discussing subfields of economics. Afroghost (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)