From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Radiopharmaceuticals a positive externality of nuclear waste[edit]

To remind other editors. -The definition of externality is as follows. An externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.

Those who buy electricity(a transaction), from Clinton Nuclear Geenerating Station are positively affecting an otherwise uninvolved party( medical patients), who did not choose to incur that benefit. Boundarylayer (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Supply of Medical Radioisotopes An Economic Study of the Molybdenum-99 Supply Chain Since the benefits may not be fully accounted for in the pricing structure, a positive externality exists. page 19
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
This is incorrect. The patient chooses whether to adopt that therapy. You must not re-insert your edits prior to achieving consensus on talk. Your assertion is not sufficient without acceptance and agreement of other editors. Please revert your last re-insertion. Please review WP:3RR. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have supplied a reference by the OECD in the article, they're far more important than wikipedia editor consensus. Secondly, it is not 'incorrect'. The patient would clearly not have a choice if the therapy was not available and nuclear reactors did not exist to produce the isotopes. Only by producing these 'wastes' does the therapy become a real option/only then does the patient now have a choice.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Please revert your re-insertion. I have left a note on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly do you want me to revert the only well referenced positive externality in the entire article? do you have a problem with the OECD reference now? Do you have a rational objection to the edit?
I have responded to your accusations/'note' on my talk page, and I think if you actually looked first before writing your note, that I started a conversation with another user - User talk:Volunteer Marek on their talk page on the very first revert by them.
I was also the one who started the discussion here on the talk page of the Externality article at your edit summary request.
You seemingly did not check this out before accusing me of doing the exact opposite on my talk page.
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The OECD paper is not signed, refereed or peer-reviewed. It is not WP:RS for discussion of the economic term "externality." I am warning you to revert your edit. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer, I think what you are confusing is the concept of an externality with that of Joint production. If a farmer grows some wheat, s/he gets the grain and some straw too. Two goods out of one input (seed). But since the farmer gets to keep (and potentially sell) both grain and straw, there's no externality. The idea of joint production is more general than the concept of an externality - in some applications externalities can be modeled as instances of joint production but not all instances of joint production involve externalities.

I also agree with SPECIFICO that the source you included is not sufficient to justify the inclusion of the text.Volunteer Marek 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer I am not, nor is the OECD, confusing the concept, but you bring up some good points in relation to the overlap between joint production and externality! It is both a case of positive externality and joint production. Those who fund a nuclear power plants construction for electricity production and therefore those who deal with the potential hypothetical fear of a nuclear accident, don't benefit at all financially if that nuclear power reactor starts joint production of medical radioisotopes. Other needy people around the world benefit. Take for example the CANDU power reactors in Canada that also produce Cobalt-60, the people who wanted the reactor built, got it built for power reasons, and not out of any altruistic desire to help save dying people around the world, or a desire to lift the quality of living of people the world over(which enriches us all), but this nevertheless is what has resulted- a case of a positive externality.
If you get sick, and require Cobalt 60 gamma knife therapy, Co-60 produced in Canada might come to the rescue. When you then survive and get better and start work again, isn't the whole community around you going to benefit by you continuing to be alive? - Is the community in this thought experiment therefore not - an uninvolved party who did not choose to incur the cost or benefit. Which is the quote taken from the article. - An externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.
SPECIFICO The OECD are a reliable source. If they classify it as a positive externality than it deserves inclusion in the article. There are other far less reliable, and non-peer reviewed, references in the article that you seemingly don't have a problem with, such as references to the far less reliable Washington Post.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
We are not discussing the rest of the article. You may have noticed that I re-wrote the lede earlier today. It was previously incorrect and cited non-WP:RS sources. There remain many other problems in the article. They will all be addressed by future editors. It is not incumbent on any one of us to do so, nor is it appropriate for you to make the personal remark you directed at me above. You do not appear to understand the meaning of externality in economic theory as stated in the lede above. A power plant which produces radio-pharmaceutical components as a joint product with electricity may sell or donate that material as it chooses. The recipient of the benefit may use or reject such treatment, whether or not in exchange for a money price. You should revert your last edit while this talk page discussion continues. If you do not, you may face disciplinary action without further warning. Please take a step back and revert your edit while we discuss. Your re-insertion of the text violates WP policy as previously cited to you. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the first and last source in this edit fail our test of reliability in that they appear to be self-published. There are exceptions to the self-published rule, but its up to Boundarylayer, who wants to add them to the article, to use proper BRD process to convince us that they are an RS because one of the exceptions exist, or that SELFPUB does not apply. Simply reposting after multiple editors have asked you to stop edit warring and use BRD will likely lead to a complaint against you being filed at the edit warring noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So how about a compromise, if we attribute the positive and negative externalities to the sources that published them? Say we begin with - According to the OECD..., and likewise, we should similarly do this for the unrelated reference that should be attributed to the Washington Post. - Which is, by the way, a source that does not even have the word 'externality' in it. Yet it is my OECD source that does have the word externality in it, but it is somehow the one creating all the opposition.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?
So would that be acceptable?
I would also like to have an independent economist editor to comment on the edit.
As it really appears contradictory to suggest, as the article presently does, that education is a positive externality to society yet radiomedicines are not. You have to pay for both services right? and society similarly benefits from an individual receiving both, right? So why aren't both obvious positive externalities?
Moreover, I have noticed that the source backing up the education example is not supported by the word externality but only supported by the words external benefit. Here is the text to explain what I mean, at present this is one of the examples given for a positive externality - Increased education of individuals can lead to broader society benefits in the form of greater economic productivity, lower unemployment rate, greater household mobility and higher rates of political participation. That's fine and everything, but the Source does not mention externality at all. All it mentions is the External benefit which is far too broad a description, as lots of things produce external benefits, but are all externalities? and if so, shouldn't radiomedicines be another obvious external benefit? Here is the source backing up education as a positive externality - Weisbrod, Burton , 1962. External Benefits of Public Education, Princeton University
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You have many "independent economists" who regularly edit WP. You may also post a request for comment or an informal notice on the WP Economics project for additional editors to come participate. If you wish to propose a wholesale change along the lines stated above, please put them here on talk for discussion before insertion into the article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Boundary, that sort of compromise is not what consensus is all about here. If OECD is not what wikipedia defines as a reliable source no compromise between any two editors can change that fact. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy Look at it this way, many of examples of 'externalities given in the article, for example education, are not even backed up by references that have the word 'externality' in them. None of them are WP:RS for that reason.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Boundary, you are getting into some serious WP:OR digging here, and though we may all do that in real life and try to form opinions and inferences from available data, that's not what we do in the WP editing process. As editors here, we use content stated by qualified secondary sources. For starters, you could make a list of all the positive and negative examples in the article that you believe are not cited to WP:RS statements. If other editors agree, the first remedy would be to investigate whether the source citations can be furnished or improved. If good sources are not available, then the statements can be tagged or removed. If other editors believe that the statements are properly sourced, then that disagreement also should be resolved on talk or other WP channels. I personally believe that the education example is tenuous and not really what's meant by externality. However, I recognize that there may be WP:RS statements to the contrary. I haven't reviewed the rest of the lists of + and - externalities, but I may do so if you decide to organize the discussion along the lines I stated above. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll go so far as to say that I am vehemently opposed to any statement about anything that has no source at all, or if it has a source, where the source fails our policies on what constitutes reliable sources. If you spot something, by all means act on it. But if you've already made a bajillion edits to the article in a short period then do something about it on the TALK page instead of digging a deeper 3RR/edit war hole for yourself by editing the article for a bagillion-and-one times. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to be inflammatory, but you really are misrepresenting the edit history NewsAndEventsGuy, I initially did not include a direct reference with the word externality in it, assuming that it would be obvious to everyone that it is a positive externality, as I have explained above. This initial edit of mine was reverted, then I struck up a conversation on the editors talk page that removed it, and explained the rationale behind the edit. Upon doing so, I soon reinserted the edit with a reference that specifially stated externality in it. So it is incorrect to assume it was a typical 3RR, as the material was different on the 2nd or 3rd edit by me. Moreover the OECD are a reliable source, it is quite bewildering to have encountered someone arguing that they are not.
SPECIFICO I am glad you have recognized that the list needs work, however now that you are questioning the obvious positive externality of education. I think it may be time to really look into finding an outside mediator to take a look into this dispute.
Boundarylayer (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome to seek mediation. I encourage you to do so. Consider: Do you think it's a positive externality for you if I bathe in the morning, if you wear a pretty necktie, or if your neighbor gives up eating potato chips? There should be multiple WP:RS for anything clearly a +/- externality that is so evident it goes on a list of examples. Cherry-picking odd examples is not our job here. Incidentally, it is not helpful to adopt a condescending tone toward other editors or the community here. Quite the opposite is true. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Externalities arising from health care provision: Health services are normally assumed to be merit goods providing a private benefit for people who consume them and additional external benefits for society as a whole. QED radiopharmaceuticals are a positive externality.
The externality here is not from the production of nuclear power, or production of any other good that produces nuclear waste. It is from the consumption of the 'radiopharmaceutical' by a patient during the treatment for their illness. I think you are arguing that this consumption of radiopharmaceuticals - if it leads to the patient becoming healthy again - has a positive external benefit. But then this is just a specific example of an positive externality from consumption of healthcare.
Moreover, medical care in general is obviously a positive externality. - An external benefit is a benefit that someone gains because of someone else's action, outside of any market transaction between them. Immunizations give external benefits. When you get a vaccine for a certain disease, you make it less likely that you will contract the disease. That is the internal benefit. What you also do is make is less likely that other people will get the disease, because they probably will not catch it from you. That is the external benefit.
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please review WP:RS. The material you cite is not qualified for use in WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS does it say that open-courseware supplied, for example, by Samuel L. Baker, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, University of South Carolina is inadmissable? He's number 5 on the list of open courseware. -

consumption vs demand[edit]

"Consumption by one consumer causes prices to rise" This is not strictly correct. I may have 50 widgets that have been sitting in my garage for 10 years, and then I consume one, this will have no effect on the market price. More correct to say "Increased market demand by one consumer causes prices to rise". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Distinction Consumption vs. Production Externality[edit]

The distinction between consumption vs. production externalities should be made in the article. This seems to be an aspect of externalities that is often overlooked but has significant implications on government interventions and overall welfare of society. Since the issue is not yet very popular, it is quite difficult to find good sources. The following website could be a good start in my opinion: Microeconomics - Externalities. Where should this part be added, what do you think? (Econ404 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC))

Construction of an airport - bad example[edit]

While the construction of an airport can have a lot of positive effects on a local economy, it could also have negative effects on the local community due to increased noise and a slight increase in risk. Perhaps a better example might be used. Flanker235 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Ioannides's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Ioannides has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This entry ignores the important contribution to economists' understanding of the urban economy, which is replete with externalities. It also ignores the roles of pecuniary externalities in the theory of monopolistic competition and its properties. It does even link to

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Ioannides has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Yannis M. Ioannides & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2005. "Social Networking and Individual Outcomes Beyond the Mean Field Case," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0521, Department of Economics, Tufts University.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)