Talk:Economics

Templates

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Template:Nom-1.0COTF

Template:FormerFA

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5 Template:Core topic Template:Mainpage date Template:Bizetasks

Overall

This really is a dreadful introduction to the subject; it's confusing, jargon-laiden, and poorly laid out. Is there an earlier version we can revert to in order to start over or something? Jarretestin 12:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having a photo of NYEx trading floor? It has nothing to do with economics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.143.169.49 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

Possibly not the best image but…nothing? - Jmabel | Talk 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

A bit strange that the word economy was censored from this page on economics, under the pretence that the meaning attributed to economy was not exactly right (which I doubt, by the way, economy is not only a system, or whatever other definition, it is also a set of human and social activities in such a system, and this is its most important aspect). It is as if an article on agronomy were not mentioning farming (which is the case by the way, but at least it says "agricultural" ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The noun "economy" without the use of an article usually means thrift, etc. What might be the subject of economic analysis, a particular economy, is a collection of human activities and insititutional systems. It is not itself an activity. An activity is a specific pursuit in which people engage. Moreover, no reliable source defines "economics" in the way you did (that I know of), so we shouldn't make that the definition in the lead of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I will see how I can arrrange a mention in the article about the way economics can address "an" economy. --Pgreenfinch 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermoeconomics

Hi, I just started the thermoeconomics article. If anyone would like to contribute, please do so. Also if anyone has comments or suggestions or knows of related pages please leave a talk message. Lastly, if anyone has any tips as to who coined the term and when, your help would be appreciated. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

in busniess what play a main role? consumers or managment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.165.180 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics

There is no Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics. Such broad topic as economics needs a wikiproject.--201 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just foung out that. Tahnks. The problem is that they don't seem to have a notice tag for articles like this one.--201 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a template from this project right at the top of the article. And the last thing we need is more crap clogging talk pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a notice one. If so, this page would be already categorized as part of Business and Economics--201 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

ummmm... The criticism section is ridiculous!

Wikipedia is not an airing ground for the many potential, and I should mention marginal, arguments against economic theory in general. One goal of wikipedia is to maintain consistency. View other controversial sciences, such as psychology or sociology. This section reads like an agenda.

- We don't need to get rid of the entire criticism section! However, it can be summarized in a much more succinct way. We can use other fields of study as basic comparisons correct? In many, there is no criticism section at all, even though one certainly could exist (such as ecology or sociology). In others, where criticism sections are undoubtedly warranted, such as psychology, a small section is given to summarize the essential criticisms that the field has attracted.

Such a method is a good standard to follow. After all, this is an overview of the topic, NOT an analysis. The writing in this criticism section comes across as analyzing economics and bringing to light even the more specialized criticisms (mccloskey criticism). I am almost tempted to say that it crosses the line into original research / analysis.

Economics is one of the more controversial sciences. Like sociology and psychology, it has attracted its share of criticisms, perhaps more so than some sciences, and this is worth noting. However, devoting gigantic sections (they are gigantic - proportionally, the section was larger than many of the basic explanation sections) is unreasonable.

This consistency among other articles is important. If one article, say on economics, has a much larger criticism section than an article on other related sciences, then it gives the impression that economics is singled out for criticism, or that it is a particularly weak science. Perhaps these are the personal feelings of some people, but it is not a reflection of the standing of Economics in academia.

147.4.214.19 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jmabel

I'm probably not going to plunge into this one, at least not now: I'm involved in quite enough controversial articles. But I do have some suggestions:

"Interdisciplinary studies and cross-application" should not be the first section. We should give a lot more grounding in what economics is before we start looking at how it sometimes exceeds its usual frontiers.
The section "Economic language and reasoning" assumes an econometric context. I'm not sure how deep this article should go into econometrics; the econometrics article is, in fact, extremely short, and should probably grow. At the very least, this section should be explicit about representing not all of economics, but simply the currently dominant school.
There is a bit of a laundry list of minor criticisms, but utterly unmentioned here (unless it's here and I'm missing it) is a rather important current of critique from within: that the increasingly mathematical tendency of economics in the post-WWII era has caused most economists to lose sight of important issues that are harder to quantify. Among the more notable sources of this critique are the recently deceased Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith and the economist who have gathered under the banner of "post-autistic economics" (on which we have barely more than a stub). - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

return of the morons

Yes, some more months have gone by, and some morons who have never studied any economic theories other than neoclassical have put garbage like "Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources." as the second sentence. I am pushing this crap down to the neoclassical theory section where it belongs, once again. I advise the people who post this stuff to pick up Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, David Ricardo and whatnot. They might be shocked to learn that none of them believed this crap, I mean, theory. Regardless, it does not encompass all economics. Put it in the neoclassical section or the wiki page devoted to that theory. Ruy Lopez 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support that. The different fields of science should be primarily distinguished by their subject matter, not their method. Economics is about how human societies use their resources. It's not much more complicated than that. Whether we then choose to do that in a neoclassical manner (choice, incentives etc.) is secondary to what we are studying. Although to be fair certain leading economists have talked rubbish on this matter, notably Lionel Robbins and Stigler.--Nmcmurdo 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx?

Is marx mentioned in this article? He and his theory should be mentioned somewhere in this. As should Adam Smith. --Zhukov 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smith is mentioned quite a few times, Marx only indirectly (a link to Marxist economics, which is a redirect to the better title Marxian economics). I'm not sure whether or not there should be a lot more Marx here. He was certainly a notable sociologist, polemicist, and political figure, but in economics, Marx seems to stand up better as a critic than for his own positive views. The one major theoretical contribution of his that I think should clearly be added is the theory of surplus value, which goes a long way to explain capitalist accumulation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marx was an economist. All the books that have been written in economics that look towards marx's theories weather positively or negatively would fill entirely many libraries. He was the first thinker to put economics in the chore of sociology, history and politics. Not only by bringing new concepts; foremost he was the one who entirely redefined the scope of economics and shaped a theory that articulates different social phenomena. It would be normal that a bigger part of the article be written on Marx economics theories. Furthermore, by reading the article, I have the strong feeling of a latent ethnocentrism. The definitions are given mainly from an idealistic standpoint. Here is lacking a prolific part of study which is about economics anthropology. The objects (as basically as the concept of property, economic agent – what is economic agent? Is this a status? Is it an essentialist definition?) which economics handle with, are not ex nihilo, hence the important issue of their origins, their evolution with time and civilization. As presented in this article, economics tend to be a mere paradigm, but not a science; a mere fight of interpretations. The paragraph which raises the question “is economics a science?” puts it as though science is one definition (with a battery of features), whereas science is more an attitude of thought. This article at least, fails to present economics as a science because it does not raise questions and does not put into perspective radically divergent points of view. It is a pity because I do believe that economics is an science. --82.226.125.93 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)NA[reply]

Credit as a Consequence

Classical economic theroy of economics hardly holds true when you allow credit. Consumers, who under the theory would buy according to need and income creating a demand, now buy without enough consideration to income. What is created is a false economy and an embalance of demand as a relationship to income. Consumers are constantly bombarded by the commercialization of credit creating a demand for credit and consequently a demand for goods or services. At some point the use of credit will outstrip the available income. During the recent past, home equity has salvaged the lack of income, but without inflation of house/land values, the consumer will be strapped. The banking system understands this and with the aid of our representatives, a new bankruptcy law has been passed to extend the solvency of the banking system. An expanding economy is nothing more than an expanding credit structure that can only be sustained by inflation - either in wages or property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkree (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Intro

Intro says:

An economist is a person using economic concepts and data in the course of employment.

(My italics.) What's that supposed to mean? Should it read e.g. 'in the course of his/her employment'?? (I.e. professionally) Ben Finn 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it science?

Without getting into a discussion of what is science and so forth, most people would agree that a science is based on experiments and data. To what extent are the basic tenets of economics based on data ? For instance, in section 5.2 of the article, supply and demand, we see the classical "supply curve". It may sound like nonsense, but to what extent is the idea that people buy less if something is more expsensive validated by data ? Certainly people in advertising or marketing would argue that for many goods, sales go up as the price is raise (within of course, limits) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When consumption of a good/service rises after a price rise we call such a product as a Giffen good. I'm of the idea that economics is definately a science if such ideas have been so widely researched.. not all these economic theories are simply abstract reasonings (i'd go as far as saying most or almost all economic theories have data to back their ideas.. if they didnt, they'd be much easier throw onto the scrapheap after some peer review.. note the giffen good article has a section on empirical evidence too) - Dupz 13:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly people in advertising or marketing would argue that for many goods, sales go up as the price is raise (within of course, limits)." You are confusing the word "sales" with the word "quantity." The law of demand pertains to quantity, not to sales. Of course economics is based on experiments and data -- the entire field of econometrics is concerned with verifying/refuting hypotheses via analysis of data. Experiments are harder to accomplish given moral issues of manipulating people, but not at all impossible. The fields of experimental economics and consumer behavior (in market research) involve conducting controlled experiments. Wikiant 14:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Bold text'M&Ms Says: The assumptions can be tested mathematically using price elasticities. I do think they may have started out as educated guesses but these assumptions can be tested to determine what type of good a good is. For exampe s it a normal good, an inferior good or a luxury good etc......