From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Economy (see Moe's rationale below)

Economy (activity)Economy – Economy is just a redirect to this article. Mace 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - I would move Economy (disambiguation) to Economy and keep this page where it is. —Mets501 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Move Economy (disambiguation) to Economy. Vegaswikian 06:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. See comment below. Duja 08:40, 13 October 1967 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same suggestion as Mets501 and Vegaswikian. --Pgreenfinch 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support following Duja's reasoning, below. If the move-attempt fails, however, then I support GTBacchus' suggestion to temporarily list it on WP:DPL, let it get cleaned up a bit and re-evaluate it later. -- Arvedui 09:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a clearly the most widely used definition of "economy" - Bssc81 05:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jonathunder 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see anything at economy (disambiguation) that comes close to the relevance of this article. I also consider the qualifier (activity) unhelpful. This could quite as well refer to economy as in frugality (which btw, should be merged anyway). ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments

With all due respect to the opposers, it's easier said than done. What links here for Economy shows ~600 incoming links, so a bot intervention would be required to fix them all. Of those, the majority is result of (to an extent indiscriminate) linking like economy of the area is based on fishing and agriculture..., which shows that this is the primary topic. Yet many others are result of misspelling, ...he studied economy (instead of economics). I didn't find usages related with fuel economy, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are those, too. The current situation is not acceptable though -- Economy should be either a dab page or devoted to Economy (activity), but not a redirect. Duja 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert in this area. But a quick check of a few of those redirects tells me an expert needs to look at them all and point them to the right article. I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now. In any case, the number of links that need to be cleaned up is not a reason to not make a change. With a dab page in place, any editor will be made aware of the problem and can fix it. hahahahahahahahah Vegaswikian 00:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But I still don't see which alternative meaning of economy as listed in Economy (disambiguation) is so important that it justifies making Economy a dab page—it includes world economy, few obscure cities, and few other esoteric terms. Even if we fix all the links now, editors will likely continue to link economy from articles, without bothering to check that they really want economy (activity) (which is IMO reasonable expectation). The only competing term in terms of intended wikilinking seems to be Economics, but it's simply a matter of misspelling/misunderstanding. Economic system is mentioned there, but IMO it's unlikely to be mistakenly wikilinked as economy.
      Yes, the incoming wikilinks should be fixed indeed — however, it's far less job (for present and for future) to fix only the wrong ones (of intended meaning "economics" or "fuel economy"), than to fix them all (now and in future). Duja 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Did you miss 'I'm far from convinced that the majority of these are correctly redirected now.' The point is that many or the links that are redirected appear to be going to the correct article. I believe that policy is to not redirect many users to an incorrect article. Just being the most common is not in and of itself a good reason. As I said, a quick check convinced me that too many articles are being redirected to the wrong article. If this fails, an alternative might be to redirect to world economy which would list the dab article. Vegaswikian 05:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • A quick check of mine shows that this is the intended article in the majority of cases: end 20 or so of what links here link to economy (activity) as desired. Exceptions do exist, as you noted: judging solely on the article headings, they appear to be in the magnitude of 5-10%. However, we appear to read the policy in a different way. From WP:DAB#Primary topic:

          When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

          It is clearly impossible to ensure that all editors will correctly link to the desired article in all ocasions if they don't look—the point of the guideline is to ensure that at least a majority does so.Duja 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that occurs to me is that, if the dab page were moved to Economy for a while, it could be listed at WP:DPL, where armies of volunteers would sort out all of the incoming links, and redirect them to appropriate locations. At that point, it would be easier to determine that Economy (activity) is the primary use, move the dab page (now link free!) back to Economy (disambiguation), and move Economy (activity) to Economy without messing up any links.

The second thing that occurs to me is — that sounds convoluted. Still, I can't convince myself it's not the best way to handle this situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


It appears the article would be better off linked to Economy rather than Economy (activity). Reason(s) being:

  • The general consensus above was for moving to Economy.hahahahahahahahaha
  • Economy redirecting here is rather redundant considering the title has a disambigusation in it.
  • Most things withn the similar name "Economy" are not related in the disambiguation page, as thus doesn't need the (activity) part as it only obscures making links to the most commonly used term.
  • This appears to be the most common usage of the word for economy and having a disambiguation page linked at the top won't hurt anything
  • It appears most redirects have been correctly redirected to the appropriate article
  • People link Economy and theres nothing we can do to stop that. Although, it may be better to convience ourself by having redirect to a disamb. page, there are lots of editors who make these changes all the time and if I'm not mistaken, there is a WikiProject/organization devoted to fixing these kinds of things.

If you have any comments, please contact me or drop me a note here. semper fiMoe 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 05:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New approach[edit]

Dear Moe, dear Gurch, I'm going to make a new proposal for a interdisciplinary definition of Economy using primary literature and giving weblinks. Shall I firstly send it to you? If I don't hear from you I will offer it within the next days.--Jörg Sutter 05:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No thats fine, I don't need to supervise you :) WP:BOLD semper fiMoe 18:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! How can I upload an image? It's always quick deleted.--Jörg Sutter 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To upload an Image, go to Special:Upload. See also Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. If you have anymore questions, feel free to drop me a line at my talk page :) semper fiMoe 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found out, that the article was removed by a spammer. Please have a look, if your changes during the last 6 days have not been integrated. Have a look also at my proposals in economics. Best regards from--Jörg Sutter 13:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions; this page was in dire need for improvement. Still, I removed the picture from the article, as it doesn't really illustrate anything relevant; actually, I don't foresee what kind of images would be called for in such article, but I'm open to suggestions. Duja 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Duja, you removed the hole article, not only the image!--Jörg Sutter 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

??? I didn't remove anything? Duja 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Duja, it's back yet. Let's discuss the image: [love you always and for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Shenzhen_High_Tech_Fair.jpg] I chosed it because it shows a fair - a traditional place of economy - globalization - meeting between east and west and even an recommanded economist. In the German Wikipedia they have a small image of money only. But money isn't significant for economy. --Jörg Sutter 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I can't get myself to read the symbolism of that picture as creatively as you :-), and I doubt most other readers would. It's not obvious that it's a fair, it's not obvious who is the man, and it looks like just another picture of teacher and students. It's certainly suitable for Alexander Dill article, but sorry, it doesn't look like satisfying WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity in this article. Duja 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Duja, I want to improve the article now and add more images. It takes me a lot of time to get the rights. I prefer images of REAL people to only symbolic images. But I can't work hours for an image, then show it to you and let it delete. Please help to bring your own material to the article, discuss the contents. I will offer you the following: The contents I bring to here will always be optimized, but please only delete them, if YOU HAVE A REAL ALTERNATIVE. Something is always better than nothing. Best regards--Jörg Sutter 07:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the last assertion ("Something is always better than nothing"). As the article contents have to stay on topic and for the reader's benefit, so do the images. Images should not have only decorative function. I still don't see what kind of images are called for for this kind of "broad overview" article, and if something distracts the reader for no good reason, it shouldn't be in the article. For example, it might be interesting to show Pie charts of production distribution per sectors (primary/secondary/tertiary) in various times or continents, but even that is a stretch. But I don't see a need for pictures.
Note that your picture is not deleted, just unused. It's still at Image:Alexander_Dill_at_the_Shenzhen_High_Tech_Fair.jpg and might be used in a suitable article; but again, I don't think this is the one. Duja 10:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem in the historical section of this "new approach"[edit]

First this section is overgrown and should be an article in itself, second it is more focused on the history of economic theories, which is the field of economics, instead of economy, which should describe concretely how human productive and consuming activities evolved from mammoth hunting to internet surfing. --Pgreenfinch 06:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgreenfich, I'll be doing that, but please don't forget, that economy and economics appeared on the scene as a subject of knowledge in the late 18th century. When you mention mammoth hunting as an economic activity, you talk on basic needs. Of course there are economic theories explaining economy as an activity to fullfil physical needs. But there was no market for mammoth, no salary paid to hunt them and no capital to start mammoth ventures. If we really go back to the roots, the sacrifice is the first economic act. Meaning: I sacrifice something to the Gods hoping that they will prefer me. Nevertheless this will be a fascinating discussion. Economy is stronger related to religion than to biology. Why else would values and assets than be so central for economic activity? Hear you later, your--Jörg Sutter 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sample for Pgrfeenfich:f

The knowledge about economy is interpreted and collected by all sciences and is part of the scientific commons. Although the economics belong to the social sciences the major focus is on social action between people. Economical principles as effectiveness or competiton are used to explain phenomena in nature as well. The process of evolution can be regarded as well as an economic process as the creation of man and nature through God. From the beginning of economic sciences in the late 19th century on more and more activities were interpreted in terms of economic language such as politics and wars, criminality, love and marriage, health, nature, family, religion and science itself. While different political end economical approaches give different definitions of economy, economy can not be defined in an exact way without referring to value systems and approaches to life. This article will nevertheless try to give an overview on human activities being assigned to economy from mammoth hunting to internet surfing.--Jörg Sutter 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Jörg, but economy is a set of facts, and science has to start with facts. How production evolved and how it met needs (not only physical needs, as services are now the main economic "products") is crucial. That evolution was due to a succession of practical innovations, that were more or less socially accepted (here we find the "values" you presented above). Economic theories were not what caused those evolutions, but, in my opinion, were attempts to find

  • technical methods to optimize them (tricks that would avoid stagnation, inflation, cycles or whatever...)
  • political adaptations to orientate them according to various visions (or, again, values) of society

In other words, in my opinion, economy feeds on technical and human evolutions, and economics tries to propose, and sometimes impose, possible directions, with results that might prove "on the field" if the theory was relevant or not. The economy, again, is made of facts. So the first thing, again in my opinion, is to identify them, without giving too much interpretations, which are more in the field of economics (and politics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, ethics or whatever other human appraoches). For example, I'm a fan of behavioral economics, but I keep it as a set of explanations of various economic phenomena, not as a tool of description. A market bubble / crash can be (more or less) objectively described, but what causes it, a mix of factors usually, is interpretation. --Pgreenfinch 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that discussion with you and will send it to some economists. I think, it should be published. And it's an amazing base of dialogical knowledge.--Jörg Sutter 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has erased the weblinks, which is not the best idea. I will try to check them and offer new weblinks, because I think weblinks offer the opportunity to move deeper into the subject. --Jörg Sutter 07:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)i love you


There apprars to be some confusion in the paragraphs that were called "sectors" and which actually deal with stages of development of the modern social community and with the precidencial order of economy activity. I have re-written these sections of the work having given it a more suitable title. It would be possible to further divide this into two parts, but this kind of decision surely rests with the planning of the whole Wikipedia item, for which I bow to the higher powers of command.Macrocompassion (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

New Section WAR & Economy[edit]

Is Humanity developing or declining because of WAR?

War is an economical process in which high technology products are produced without the need of a market for them as they are produced to be destroyed. The best aspect of the process is that such production is financed by funds of the People, that considers themselves benefited by the process, and therefore accepts it without reservations.

Besides, the process develops technologies might can be later sold with good profits to the same society that financed their development.

Therefore, battle activities are a promoter of the development of Humanity and their Global Technical Enterprises.

Are their benefits larger than their destructive aspects? Or is Humanity in a process of diminishing welfare?

Dagoflores--MEXICO - AGS .-- 03:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs Correction[edit]

"Especially in England the ideas of Adam Smith became reality while the economization—the process of always diminishing the efforts of production—led to mass poverty, starvation, urbanization and pauperization of the population"

This sentence needs a citation or should be eliminated. I have a basic undergraduate level understanding of economics and this idea makes absolutely zero sense to me. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Today, we live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Canada" What is the meaning of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

distribution / exchange[edit]

This might be too nit-picky of me, but I'm curious what others think. The lead sentence was recently changed to "An economy is the realized system of human activities related to the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area.", with the exchange being added. My feeling is that exchange is one manner of achieving distribution, but that its (in principle) possible to have an economy without exchange. A household usually has distribution, but often doesn't have what would commonly be considered exchange. Likewise for the internal workings of many businesses, and extremely centrally controlled economies. So, I'd leave out "exchange". As I said in an edit note, I consider exchange essentially a subset of distribution. Is that too far out?Cretog8 (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As Cretog8 says exchange is one manner of achieving distribution, but it is not a subset of distribution. Because economic specialisation, economic units produce goods and services mainly for exchange, for example food grown by farmers would not only be used to feed themselves, but, to trade them for other good and services. Economic units then, first produce and then exchange. Distribution is the share of good and services each economic unit end with after all exchanges are made. In modern societies, exchange is done in markets and, money is used. In the case of farmers, distribution is the net money claim over the products and services of an economy they are left with after they have sold their farm products and paid all costs. This concept corresponds with income. Exchange is a mayor feature of a modern economy, so fundamental that modern economies would not exist without it. In a society in which all but one of their members, are slaves distribution is decided by their master and not by exchange.

Exchange comes to be because almost nobody produce all the goods and services they need and want. In a case of an economic unit as a household or business, Cretog8 equates distribution with consumption, which is not the same concept. In a household the husband may bring the money and take the garbage out, and the wife may cook and take care of the children. Even in this case there are specialitation and exchange of services (food and taking care of children for money income and taking out the garbage). What is not decided by exchange in a household is the consumption of money income. Consumption is made by a rational process that takes into account the needs and wants of each member of a household and seeks the maximization of its well being. Consumption is not the same as distribution since some of the income may be save.

Note: In economics, distribution refers as the remuneration to the owners of the factors of production (labor, capital and land.) --Firulaith (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if distribution is not made by exchange i.e. by tradition and command, goods and services must be exchanged according with some rules. Extremely centraly planned economies (they are almost extint) may have not free markets, prices administered, goods and services rationed, and distribution (icome distribuition) fixed, but still exchange is made under the rules and conditions stablished by the state; and, ilegaly outside those rules and conditions in the form of black markets. --Firulaith (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suppose that in an extremely central planned economy production and distribution is decided by the state. Each member of society gets a determined amount of goods and services. But some members may prefer rice to beans and others beans over rice. There is gain to be made by exchange, and if it is done legally or illegally (if free markets are prohibited) distribution in that society would change, as members would end with a different set of goods and services than the one determined by the state. As a conclusion, exchange will always happen in a society affecting final distribution because there is a gain for the parties involved. --Firulaith (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

recent lead[edit]

The recent change to the lead:

Economy is essentially the flow of wealth, power, and resource-control within a societal system, giving rise to future states of that system. The more the sum total of wealth in a future state, the better the future state is said to be, and therefore the better the economy is said to be. In an economy, every individual holds a certain amount of wealth in the societal system to which they belong, and this amount of individual wealth fluctuates over time. The wealth is distributed and transfered into other individuals, who either accumulate it themselves or transfer it into others. In the game of economy, all individuals seek to give rise to better future states of the societal system, but often in their attempt to insure a better future, individuals will slow down the process by insuring only their individual futures, depriving others of chances for theirs. Often, this stagnance will cause permanent stratification among individuals. In situations as such, there is usually division within the system and less societal productivity. "Individuals", spoken in this context, can either apply to single persons, or to groups bound by code or company. Most text books would describe economy as the realized system of human activities related to the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area.

I think the previous lead was better. Here's a few reasons why:

  • "the game of economy"--it's not clear the economy is a game.
  • "all individuals seek to give rise to better future states of the societal system"--many people in the economy don't try to achieve better states
  • tragedy of the commons stuff--possibly true, but not appropriate in the lead for "Economy" article
  • "permanent stratification"--there's lots of argument about what might cause permanent stratification

That's a few reasons. I think the previous lead was better. I'm going to revert one more time and then I'm done (WP:3RR) for today. Cretog8 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • "the game of economy" Any game is a transaction between two systems, where some outcomes are more preferable than others to either party. In this case, the individual partakes in the transactions of others (the nature of economy), and the individual assumes a preffered goal or outcome. Practically speaking, it helps those new to the concept get the idea better, which is more the point. "Game", while technically correct, may be misleading (I understand), but is also the best analogy. Surely people are known to "compete" economically, when the chips are down.
  • "all individuals seek to give rise to better future states of the societal system" Suicides are perhaps one example of this, one might argue, but this is not the case. The suicide transacts in his death by choosing it. All transactions between a person and his external system give rise to the economy of that system. Better states are always sought by all individuals (the nature of his/her choice is based on their individual concept of value at the time) and , as is sometimes the case, they are incorrect in their approach. In terms of money, money is dealt with by choice, and thus is subject to their individual conception of value (or, "a better state")
  • tragedy of the commons stuff I agree. I believe it to be important to not only understand "economy" but what it means for that economy to exist. There are good and bad economical situations, and I believe there is a common theme. Though, you are right, it needs a more generalized writing.
  • "permanent stratification" I agree. Wouldn't you also agree that people are subsystems of a societal system? And would you also agree that economy is the systemization, or perhaps, change of that system over time? The change, therefore, would have to be among the properties present in the people. As some people become more valuable than others, and some less so, the societal system moves, in a sense, and changes the world. Sometimes a societal system does not function well, and sometimes it does. If a system never changes, or changes too slowly, there is less progress in changing the world. This is the case of the subsystems having stagnant values. Such is the case of permanent stratification.
Understood, but the previous lead seems too misleading and more definitive rather than explanative. I believe it lacks the essential nature one must atleast glance at to understand the concept of an economy. I would ask only to leave it up for the sake of others amending it. - Peneon
Hello-I hope you don't mind that I re-organized your response. It's important to make sure it's clear on these talk pages who wrote what. Usually this is done by indenting (with ":" characters), and making sure that the signature is properly associated with the text. You can add your signature plus a timestamp by typing four tildes, "~~~~".
There's a couple problems with your explanation (from my point of view). The first has to do with Wikipedia rules: WP:NOR. What you're writing is novel, so whether it's correct or not is beside the point. It's unusual interpretation, and we should be writing up pretty "standard" stuff.
Just for my preference, I think you're trying to cram way too much into a small lead. It's possible that much of what you want to add could be in the article itself. (Although it would still have to be "standard" and/or attributable to a reliable source.)
Finally, I have to say that I don't understand what you're writing. I can get a feel for it, but only a feel. For instance, discussing things in terms of "systems" often obscures more than it illuminates. It can be technically correct but also vacuous, and it can also lead to such high-level meta-thinking that mistakes are made which wouldn't be made in more concrete terms. My not-completely-understanding also leads to my not being sure where I disagree on substance, but I suspect if I did fully understand, there would be disagreement.
I've reverted this article as much as I can for today without violating WP:3RR, but since I think the previous lead is better, I will probably revert to it again soon. That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to discuss improvements here. Cretog8 (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong sense that the lead proposed by Peneon does not belong to the the article "economy." Sure that participants in an economy: individuals, firms, governments and other institutions have their own social and political agendas sucha as wealth, power, and resource-control, as well as other agendas and goals; but, that does not define "econmy." --Firulaith (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peneon (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry and thanyou. Well enough said, and with some of that I agree. But let us take a look at the previous lead by comparison:

"An economy is the realized system of human activities related to the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area."

True, this is very standard. Aside from whether or not it grasps the essential nature of economy, does it relate well to the layman? Surely anyone taking the time to look up a wikipedia article on economy is looking for something deeper, something more, or something new. Also, does it intsill any moral or practical value in the reader? It does not seem to, and the economy is a utilizable entity by necessity. It would be like explaining a toilet and leaving out what it is used for.

Now let's take a look at the explanation. "An economy is the realized system of human activities..." To include "the realized system" implies that it depends on who is realizing it... which is indeed related to concepts such as "production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area." But, so loosely written is this introduction, that I'm already confused. Why not take the leap and write something more straight-forward, such as, "An economy is a system of humans money and goods." This is almost no different and shows no relationship between the three other than that they are somehow involved.

"A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, civilization's history and social organization, as well as its geography, resource endowment, and ecology, among other factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions."

This is also, in a way, too standard and too assumed by any reader. "All economies function within certain conditions." is the essential message of this paragraph. The way it is written seems over-confident and intellectually closed. It is imaginable that an economy may have arisen from sheer political organization, such as in the Soviet Union, and not the end result of the factors mentioned above in their considerable degrees. - Peneon Peneon (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily thrilled with the previous lead. As a minor point, you'll see a discussion above where I don't think "exchange" is really needed. But it is easier to understand than your current version. Again, I think you're being too ambitious, trying to fit very large ideas into a small amount of text. As for me, I'd be surprised if an article on general idea like "economy" could have immediately practical information in its introduction. Cretog8 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In Peneon's revised version,"Economy is essentially all transactions between individuals considered on a societal scale. Economies can either be considered effective or ineffective, and they tend to follow predictable trends."
An economy includes non-transaction activity, such as production and consumption. Economies can be considered just about anything, but the definition of an "effective or ineffective" economy is unknown. Some think economies follow predictable trends, but others don't. Cretog8 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. I feel that the leading sentence should appeal to the philosophically minded who would like to understand the current essential nature of the conept in question: economy... which the present lead does not. I do not believe that production and consumption are non-transaction activities. Aside from the possibility that all activities could be considered transactions, production is the transaction undertaken between property (usually someone else's property) and a producer. Also, production is the emergence of a number of sub-systemized transactions between employer and employee. Consumption stumped me for a minute, but I do not feel that it is relevantly distinguishable from production with relation to economy. Any consumption of un-produced goods is irrelevant to the economy, which is (and should be) only concerned with transactions. Consumption of un-produced goods would only become relevant when considered for production. For instance, the relationship 00000000000000between "land" and when it becomes considered real estate.

Secondly, you are right, about the second sentence, which I will remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peneon (talkcontribs) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally with you that transactions (interaction/exchange between multiple people and/or organizations) are the most interesting part of economics. But I'm afraid you're redefining "transaction" so broadly it loses its meaning. When I made myself a sandwich for breakfast this morning, I was not conducting a transaction with my fridge. But I was producing and consuming, without being an employer or employee. It's true that transactions went into my acquiring the bread and keeping the fridge cold--that's extremely important, but not the whole story. Cretog8 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Transactions are very broad. In fact, the very nature of a system is the presence of component parts that transact. Indeed, right now, you and I are transacting something like "relevant belief" or "knowledge" in order to give rise to a specific function- a proper economy lead. I know that it is not well-known to describe transactions that broadly, but not only do I feel that even transactions of information are economical actions, I feel that to consider it so broadly will help others realize that the economy is interelated to every action we perform within our societal system. Money is a very important part, but it is not essential. Currency is mankinds attempt to entrust more power in the hands of those who make better economical choices (or better actions). Something like I mentioned earlier, if the country were a body, then the economy would be analogous to the blood- or perhaps, the body over time. The economy is the system of the object. So I edited it to read "Economy is essentially all transactions between individuals considered on a societal scale limited only by our ability to realize its scope."Peneon (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(late to the discussion) I prefer the original version of the lead section to Peneon's version. For that matter, the current 2nd sentence ("An economy is the realized system of human activities related to the production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area.") does a better job elucidating the concept of "economy" than the first. I would very much like to have some sources to support the lead section, preferably from two or three reputable text books. Any help would be appreciated. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If this be the case, then I must withdraw. Being a person who philosophizes a lot, I am not a proponent of advancing thought by means of quoting reputable sources. Figuring out the essential qualities of our concepts need only be backed by our dialogue through logic and intuition. At the very least, allow the first or second sentence to appeal to the most basic qualities of economy, and not just the most commonly accepted qualities. Discuss what that might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peneon (talkcontribs) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Peneon, FrankTobia kindly warned me before I got too deep into a revert-war. I don't want to jump back into it, but I would like to switch back to the previous version. Then, if you do want to keep beating on it here at the talk page, it might be possible to find something which suits your philosophical nature while also adhering to standard notions. But we'd want to do that hashing-out here on the talk page, rather than by reverting the article itself. Cretog8 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry, I'm new so I didn't really know the appropriate behavior.Peneon (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As Peneon said the sentence "An economy is the realized system of human activities related to eproduction," etc., is too closed and leaves important things out. I propose to change it to "An economy is the realized social sytem of production," etc., to include the notion that all goods and services are socially produced. There are other social systems such the political system and legal system, each having its own purpose and funtion as an economy does.--Firulaith (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

All goods and services are socially produced means that many people are involved in the production of each single good and service. --Firulaith (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "realized" in the sentence appeals to me because it gives the sense that it came to be through a process which could have been influence by many factors. (<<not sure who wrote this (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Checking back up on this, I would like to thank the both of you, and yes, firulfaith, this is precisely what I was hoping for, but couldn't have worded any better. (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanded history section[edit]

Which did not have much in it before. So... tried to get at the early history of the concepts of economy and where they originated.... in civil society... city states... Sumer .. etc. Put in a bunch of citations to articles connected... and put on a picture of what may be one of the first stylized coins from Asia Minor.... Lydia and cited a source for that.. skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Informal economy[edit]

Main article: Informal economy

added section below and heading above to bottom section of article

An informal economy is economic activity that is neither taxed nor monitored by a government, contrasted with a formal economy. The informal economy is thus not included in that government's Gross National Product (GNP). Although the informal economy is often associated with developing countries, all economic systems contain an informal economy in some proportion.

Informal economic activity is a dynamic process which includes many aspects of economic and social theory including exchange, regulation, and enforcement. By its nature, it is necessarily difficult to observe, study, define, and measure. No single source readily or authoritatively defines informal economy as a unit of study.

The English idioms "under the table" and "off the books" typically refer to this type of economy. The term black market refers to a specific subset of the informal economy. The term "informal sector" was used in many earlier studies, and has been mostly replaced in more recent studies which use the newer term. end skip sievert (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC) hello to evryone —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ya because its an issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the economy is bad right now. 2008 was the deadliest year for U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion, and so far, the economy has been going down this year. --Mark Lessig (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead area definition[edit]

Returned this edit [1], as it is stable (has been) and accurate (my opinion) An i.p. changed it and the info. is not really as good as to the change (my opinion). Humans have limited consuming capacity. Food for instance. Normally a human can eat around 2.000 calories (energy). Any way... the old lead has been here for a long time and seemed better. skip sievert (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An economy / The economy[edit]

I first the first sentence of the lead very awkward. What's the rationale behind specifying both articles that can be used in front of the word (as well as in front of just about any countable noun)? My removal of that was reverted on the ground that, without it, the sentence sounded "too abrupt", but I hardly find that a compelling reason for keeping gratuitous things in. --LjL (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It may seem subjective, but creative presentation is also a factor when trying to impart information. Here is the diff of the edit in question [2] - That edit or sentence had been with the article for a long time (it was unchallenged and stable), and imparts some flow and descriptive power... (my opinion). The change seemed choppy (to me) or just not as good in presentation. skip sievert (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The cure seems worse than the disease to me. If we can get the sentence to flow better, let's by all means do it, but currently it's just meaningless. An economy, or the economy, or some economy, or that economy... why? It's not an article about grammar. --LjL (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand your point. It was a stable long term edit previously, which imparts information well. If you want to suggest changes, how about a mock up here and some other comments then from other editors may be of help then also? Loaded questioning in your comment in my view....- why? It's not an article about grammer. end quote,.. probably is going to confuse things here. No one said it was an article about grammar, and some economy or that economy are not at issue. skip sievert (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
My point is that I don't see a valid reason for giving a version of the term with both articles. Should the Computer article start with "A computer (or the computer) is a machine"? That's just a random example, but I could mention basically any article, and the answer would be "no". --LjL (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Postmoden economy[edit]

The Postmodern economy section seems to be mostly WP:OR. It's also not well referenced. It throws together things which are supposed recent changes in economies ("supercapitalism"), with things that are (sorta) new analytically but not new in occurrence (contradicting "self-interest"). It's also wildly variable in the appropriate weight, including things like and Technocracy Incorporated on the same scale as the World Trade Organization and World Bank.

As it stands, the simple presence of this section seems to be WP:OR, without using some source(s) which describe a "postmodern economy". I'm leaning toward pulling the whole thing. I'm sure a better version is possible, though. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Chaos economy[edit]

Perhaps it can be described that we currently have a "chaos-economy", meaning that the economy can be tipped quite easily by a single event, causing the entire construct to fail. The "chaos"-setup has also been noted by professors Han Olff and Jef Huisman, see , (use Google translate for the latter)

An idea on how this type of economy came to be can be had at

Mention in article. (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead rewrite[edit]

Though I couldn't find any Wikipedia rules specific to the problem in the lead, I still feel like it needs some work. Perhaps this is my design experience interfering, but that lead really just makes my eyes hurt. Think about contrast, repetition, alignment, and proximity in any piece that you write or design.

I didn't make it past the first sentence. There is not enough repetition in that lead, as far as text formatting goes. Some of the links need to be removed, at least from the first paragraph. This lead is very standoffish; writing should be designed to invite readers to continue.

I propose that the content be significantly simplified to give a simple definition of economy and that the number of links, at least within the first sentence, should be limited to three. Ten links is overwhelming, and half of the first paragraph is in blue font. Just my thoughts. --Jp07 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On this important matter I agree. As previously written the reader is not told what "economy" means only about "an economy". I hope my first introductory paragraph solves this problem and better defines the subject. It is from Henry George's two economic axioms:
"Man seeks to satisify his desires with the minimum of exertion. Man's desires are unlimited."
Taken from "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George, 1879. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macrocompassion (talkcontribs) 13:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Macrocompassion, thank you for your contribution. However, I disagree that this improves the lead. It is takes a narrow viewpoint of what an economy really is (or, at least, a subjective one). I agree that the laziness and greed may indeed be motivators in an economy, but such a pessimistic view certainly isn't the whole story and definitely doesn't belong in the first paragraph. Still, you are right to boldly contribute, as it has sparked additional conversation, so thank you for your efforts.
Jp07, I am also familiar with the "CRAP" principles of design. Since this is a text-only piece, how would you propose applying those principles to this lead? TWCarlson (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

potential Further Reading resource, related to happiness[edit]

ISBN-13: 978-1608195107 What's the Economy For, Anyway?: Why It's Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness David K. Batker (Author) and John de Graaf (Author), Publisher Bloomsbury Press (November 8, 2011) (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

An Oath[edit]

Wouldn't it be great if people in authority had to take an oath not to "clip any coins". What I mean by this is, shouldn't people in appropriate political positions take an oath to do everything in their power not to inflate the economy? Obviously if they were to stop inflating right now it would cause a "Greater" depression. With that said though, I do believe we could ween ourselves off this mess of our economy. -stevenDP 21:33, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Economies with the largest contribution to global economic growth from 1996 to 2011[edit]

This seems to be an incorrect list, since according to Herman Daly the Western world has had no capital growth since 1980. Add to text. (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference needed[edit]

The following passage is highly disputable, so it would at least need a citation, if not to be revised completely

«On the other hand, traditional socialism is a command-based economy in which markets and the free exchange of goods and services, as well as manufacturing, production, trade and distribution are replaced or done by government central planning and state owned enterprises. In this economy all private owners of capital (called capitalist) and of land (called landowners) are not allowed or banned; and the only permitted private ownership is of consumption goods. Capital labor, and land are assigned by the state and free movement of labor is severely restricted. There are no profits, dividends, interest or rent. Labor compensation and benefits as well as investment expenditures are decided by central planners».

Especially the sentence in italics, needs clarification. Which 'socialism' are we talking about? If by "classic socialism" it's meant marxism, that sentence surely is wrong, because it contradicts all those which was written about "alienation" and "division of labour" (e.g. in Marxist Encyclopedia[3], a source which you use in your references, as in Theory_of_alienation#Further_reading). -- (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)