Talk:Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
April 21, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
September 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016[edit]


221.134.28.194 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done No request made. — MBlaze Lightning T 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary[edit]

Quoting from Webster's dictionary is fine, we want to be sure it is not under copyright or such.

This is not under copyright in the US:

"E'co-nom'ics (-Iks_, n. (See -ICS) The science that investigates the conditions and laws affecting the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, or the material means of satisfying human desires; political economy" - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, third edition of the Merriam Series, 1917

I don't care which version is used, as long as Wikipedia has the legal right to use it.

Minimax Regret (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with quoting a dictionary when we say what dictionary we're quoting from. In fact, i'm sure Merriam-Webster is very happy for what amounts to free advertisement. Quoting a 1917 definition of economics would be silly and would make nonexperts wonder whether the article is reliable because the definition of any field of study will have changed at least some in the course of 100 years.
If you don't want to quote the definition of one reliable source, you can make a combination of definitions in more than one source and cite both. --Espoo (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tax cut claim in Fiscal policy section[edit]

Currently, this article says, "Tax cuts allow consumers to increase their spending, which boosts aggregate demand."

First, doesn't the statement assume that government wouldn't spend the collected taxes?

Second, doesn't the extent of potentially increased demand depend on the incidence of taxation? When upper class earners gain income, they are far more likely to save or invest in fixed assets or real estate, which does not increase agregate demand. And while working class taxpayers would spend the gains, most tax cuts proposed in the English-speaking world over the past several decades have fallen less on the working and middle classes, whose incomes have stagnated and whose median net worth has fallen substantially in most countries. Is it reasonable to make a broad statement like this when it depends so heavily on unstated details?

Finally, don't such statements tend to support the continuation of policies which shift the social burden to the working and middle classes to the advantage of the rich? Is that the kind of bias which makes sense to eliminate in Wikipedia, given recent political events? Or have we reached a tipping point, where it really doesn't matter anymore because it will just keep happening anyway? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Better language could clarify when this generalization is used as propaganda, to support broad useless "tax cuts for the rich," and when it represents targeted cuts in taxes on consumers, such as the home mortgage interest deduction, which result in actual increase in demand. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the "boosts aggregate demand" isn't necessarily correct. Conversely, nor is it necessarily correct that raising taxes and increasing government spending boosts demand. To stick with the facts, it should say simply, "Tax cuts allow consumers to increase their spending." Wikiant (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"When upper class earners gain income, they are far more likely to save or invest in fixed assets or real estate, which does not increase agregate demand." This is incorrect on two counts. (1) When Person A saves money, that money is available to be loaned to Person B, who then does spend it. In short, the saved money is spent - just not by the person who is doing the saving. (2) Borrowed money is (more often than not) spent on investment (I use the term in the economic, not financial, sense). This increases future productive capacity, consequently shifting (not eliminating) production of consumer goods from the present to the future. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • there are some very usuful phrases:
  • "everything equal"
  • "to a first approximation"
  • "as an immediate effect"

"among the effects"

  • "normally" DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Does "aggregate demand" have a definite meaning in economics, the discipline of economics. What other meanings might it have? and in what contexts such as economic journalism or political campaigning. For example would a Wall Street Journal editorial advocating tax cuts speak of "aggregate demand?" User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we have an article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────http://www.reviewecon.com/asad-model.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "aggregate demand" has a specific meaning in economics. I don't know of any instance in which the term is used (with meaning as opposed to word salad) outside of economics. Wikiant (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Fiscal Policy" section has no references at all. Would someone expert in the area please provide references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)