|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
diminishing marginal value
"Underlying individuals' pursuit of utility maximisation is the principle of diminishing marginal value, meaning that obtaining more of a particular good or service only increases the utility (or value) derived from it up to a certain point. When this point is reached, the overall utility gained will actually diminish. A certain amount chocolate makes a good dessert, but too much will hurt the stomach. The right quantity of water can ensure a good crop, while having too much will drown it. "
This is not the definition of diminishing marginal value. In reality increases in utility become smaller with every extra unit of a good, but they are still generally positive. In general utility isn't reduced by acquiring extra units.
From the Wikipedia article on marginalism: "The law of diminishing marginal utility refers to the marginal utility of each additional unit of a good having less value than the previous unit. For example, the marginal utility of an additional slice of bread to a person with few slices will be great. But the marginal utility of an extra slice of bread to a person with many slices will be small."
This doesn't imply decreases to utility after a point. So, for very large values, the added value of another slice of bread would tend to be zero, but still in general be positive.
Is this article neutral?
There are not enough reference citations to know. The article is written as if it represents a particular viewpoint. Does it? Mattisse 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- No! Fails to note that the formalist model can explain many 'irrational' behaviors through the concept of bounded rationality. Also fails to emphasise that formalists understand that many goals can be culturally set- but people act in rational ways to achieve them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfx7rfr2_211crx6c26k Money-History - Outside perspective link
Anthropologists in the US look largely to Marx when analyzing economics and people. This article completely ignores this, and would get a grade of anywhere between a C and an F (depending on the charity of the instructor) in any Anthropology classroom.
By ignoring Marx, who Anthropologists NEVER ignore, this article is completely worthless at describing Economic Anthropology.
Until this article mentions Marx, White, Gould, Childe, etc., this article borders on being not only useless but detrimental towards the reader's understanding of the field.