Talk:Veblen good

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Veblen good 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: 1: 180 days

Invented?

Is it reasonable to say that Veblen "invented the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking."? It seems that such concepts have existed for about as long as economies have, so perhaps "recognized" would be a better term? - Flooey 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the counter-Veblen effect, in which preference for a good increases as its price falls."

Yeah. That "counter-Veblen effect" is pretty much econ 101. Price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. Let's not attribute too much genius to the guy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.112.154 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article! The counter-Veblen effect is NOT econ101. Like all the other "interaction" effects, it's an effect over and above what you'd expect from the simple effects of price on demand. seglea 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He actually is credited with developing the forerunner to the concept of honest/costly signaling (as in animal signaling) applied to human behavior... You know, Amotz Zahavi and all that... Wow, junior high school wasn't all that bad was it? Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veblen goods

The collective noun goods is never used in the singular. This article should be renamed to Veblen goods. RichBerry 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My econ dictionary has "economic good", so you are wrong that it is never singular, plus all our other articles use the singular. Martin 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote "the collective noun goods is never used in the singular" I was quoting the Wiktionary definition found here. I have also referenced the Oxford English dictionary's definition of good which is too long and comprehensive to be quoted directly. Suffice to say that I could find no definition of "good" as an item of merchandise.

Perhaps I can garner support for my position by way of example. If I were to phone in response to a car boot sale classified advertisement in the newspaper, I would not be surprised if the organiser would wish to know what type of goods I have for sale. My response could be either in the plural or the singular.

In the plural I would use a term like "general household goods".

In the singular I would say something like "I only have one item for sale, a sewing machine".

RichBerry 11:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RichBerry is right about everyday speech, but wrong about technical economic discourse, where it would be normal to say something like, "a solid gold Cadillac would be a Veblen good". Since this article has technical economic content, the singular title is appropriate. seglea 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be argumentative for the sake of it, but why should it be accepted in technical conversation and documentation when there are better alternatives? An alternative I would prefer is "A solid gold Cadillac can be classified as Veblen goods".

I prefer the second example because it is both logical and descriptive:

Logical in that a solid gold cadillac remains a solid gold Cadillac, no matter how you classify it. The first example implies that the Cadillac undergoes a change.
Descriptive in that the process is stated. I am classifying this product, not modifying it.

Regards RichBerry 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns says In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Martin 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Martin. That is exactly the position I am taking. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the word "goods", used on its own, does not fall into the same category as scissors or trousers. The problem is that there is the opinion that when goods has an adjective, as in Giffen goods or durable goods, that somehow the rule no longer applies. My position is that the word should always be used in the plural, even when used in conjunction with an adjective.

I am aware that using goods in the singular is common, however, this does not mean that it is correct. The word "your" is commonly used incorrectly too, (as in "Your going to be sorry") but that does not mean that we use it this way in our articles. In fact, I have seen instances of it being corrected where it has been used incorrectly. RichBerry 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think that anyone is arguing that the word "goods", used on its own, does not fall into the same category as scissors or trousers.", well, actually it doesn't, that is exactly the point, the word "good" is perfectly common, the wiktionary is incorrect to say it is not (my economics dictionary defines the term "good"). The example of "Your" is an example of incorrect English, using "Veblen good" is not incorrect at all. The guideline clearly says "unless that noun is always in a plural form", the is most definately not the case. Martin 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the example of "your" because I would equate the way goods is used in the singular with the way your is used to mean "you're". They are both confusion between similar words with different meanings. The Wiktionary and the Oxford English dictionary state that goods is always plural, the one is explicit and the other states it by omission. Martin, would you mind posting the ISBN reference of your economics dictionary, I'd be interested in trying to find a copy in the library?

Allow me to attempt a different approach. I feel so strongly that the use of "good" to describe an item (unless referring to its condition) is incorrect English that I am moved to edit out the word used in this way in the relevant articles. Does anyone object to me doing so if I can make the changes without altering the content or meaning? I will also leave the article name and the first reference as is for now.

If anyone objects, please state the basis for your objection. If anyone feels the need for mediation then I am happy to comply.

I have already started with the Common good article because of the confusion with the philanthropical meaning. I intend to continue tomorrow, since it is nearly the end of my Irish day, but I will check this discussion before I proceed.

By the way. I am also LittleOldMe. This is not a sock puppet attempt. I have requested a name change to LittleOldMe. I am using RichBerry in this conversation for consistency. All other edits will be under my new name.RichBerry 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Dictionary of Economics, ISBN 0140513760. Please do not go changing the plurals until the matter is resolved. thanks Martin 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, a google of "Economic good" returns 259,000 results and "Economic goods" 172,000. Martin 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, RichBerry, do not go changing these articles. Singular "good" simply is not wrong in technical writing about economics; in fact, using the plural form to mean the singular, in the way we do in everyday speech, often would be wrong in the technical context.

OED does not say by omission that "goods" is always plural; in the online edition, meaning C8a reads "8. spec. a. (Now only as a countable noun, chiefly pl., but occas. in sing.) Saleable commodities, merchandise, wares (now chiefly applied to manufactured articles)." (emphasis added).
To Martin's Google search, I add one in Web of Knowledge, all the sources picked up being technical economics articles. "economic good": 45 occurrences (this is in titles or abstracts of articles). "economic goods": 32 occurrences; I checked the first five and all had clearly plural meaning and syntax.
If you have access to a university library, look at any technical economics article about Veblen goods - for example Bagwell & Bernheim (1996), American Economic Review 86:349-373 (Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption). This is in a "diamond list" learned journal with notoriously fussy copy-editing, which would never tolerate grammatical error. Throughout, the authors talk about "a good" when they are referring to a single example; "goods" is only used when talking about a class of objects. For example:

"The household is endowed with resources, R, which it allocates to the consumption of the conspicuous and inconspicuous goods. Let x(q) denote the quantity purchased of the conspicuous good with quality q...

and so on throughout. This is simply the first article I picked out about Veblen goods; you would have got the same result with any other.

I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a tyranny of the experts. Much of the good work that is done on the project is done by amateurs (including almost all the editing I do, incidentally - I edit on Wikipedia for fun, and I try to keep away from the topics I work on all day). But if we want to be respected, we really mustn't violate the conventions of technical discourse in the fields we are writing about. seglea 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Part of the reason I became a Wikipedian is that I learn new things. So, thanks, to all, for the replies. Up until this last reply, I remained skeptical. However, you have presented a convincing argument in favour of the status quo.

For the record, I had no intention of violating conventions, I was convinced that I was upholding them. Also for the record, I cannot imagine that I will ever be comfortable with using "good". Fortunately, the subjects I write about professionally only touch superficially on economics.

Regards RichBerry 10:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that "good" is really being used to justify someone's own personal eccentric usage. Thank god for traditional grammar books (yes, I meant "god" to be singular; no, "grammar" does not have an 'E'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.126.20 (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but it seems reasonably clear that 'good' in the singular stemmed from a misuse that has been successfully rationalised. The result is that it's actually managed to make some headway on the Internet as a correct usage. As mentioned above, it's not correct, but it is undeniably - and unfortunately - common enough that it isn't going to go away. Yes, it looks ignorant, and sounds clumsy, but these reactions are likely to fade over time as more and more people get used to seeing it. I'd much prefer to see this article corrected, but if it hasn't happened in six or seven years, it isn't going to happen now.

And 59.190.126.20? I think you meant 'thank God'. You used the word as a name, so it carries a capital. Yes, I'm correcting someone's 2008 punctuation in 2013. Yes, I need to find a hobby. - 86.173.139.151 (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm here from 2024 to say this whole conversation is stupid. "Economic good" singular is a standard term in economic jargon, anyone who reads the literature knows this. 84.206.25.242 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple products

Do Apple products really qualify as Veblen goods? As a computer programmer, I think that a) the perceived premium is just that, a perception, and b) Aesthetics and underlying design are not zero-value things to me. -- 19:12, 18 June 2009 129.188.33.25

I'm not sure, but the link there goes to fruit apples, not computers. I'll remove it. Somebody can replace it if they feel they answer the question...Mvblair (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sales figures handy, but I'm pretty sure that the lower priced iMacs and MacBooks handily outsell the more expensive Mac Pros and MacBook Pros. That kind of disqualifies them for Veblen good status, no? Phcordner (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working for an Apple Specialist, I feel qualified to state that yes, we do sell far more of the 13" laptops and the iMacs than we do servers, workstations, and so forth. I don't have Apple's own numbers, of course. I think the idea with the original post was to claim that they are luxury priced in comparison to other brands, a la Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" ads, but that point of argument isn't something that belongs on this page. I've gone ahead and removed the link... again. We seem to have a single-minded group of users bent on keeping it here. Jeremy Avalon (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think in general if there are plenty of good non-controversial examples on a topic, the policy should be to avoid adding or replacing existing examples with controversial ones. --81.153.144.130 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to

Some types of high-status goods, such as diamonds, designer handbags and luxury cars, are Veblen goods

diamonds should probably changed to a consumer product to make it more clear, someone who knows more can select 3 representative, non-controversial examples and switch it. Pirate^Argh!!1! 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Diamonds have other applications than jewelry (due to the hardness of the crystal), so they would probably follow the law of demand at lower costs. If there are no objections I will change it in a couple days. Rboesch (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to mention apple you should probably include the I am rich app for iPad and phone. 129.96.130.178 (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VW Phaeton / Bentley Flying Spur

How do these relate to the example at the end of the article? Same car underneath, double the cost for the Bentley... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiraV (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get what you paid for

I'm considering adding the following text below the snob and bandwagon effects.

The "you get what you pay for" effect: Buyers assume the good to be a Giffen good out of lack of evidence. With little information on a good's quality, buyers may presume that the lower price of a good compared to its substitutes is because of inferior quality, regardless of the good's actual quality.

But are there any reliable sources documenting the prevalence of this proverb? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I found Common law of business balance. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So should the redirect You get what you pay for be retargeted there? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent sentence

What is this trying to say? There's a word missing somewhere, and it makes no sense: why would a "Veblen-seeker" buy a non-luxury item of lower quality? "At the other end of the spectrum, where luxury items priced equal to non-luxury items of lower quality, all else being equal more people would buy the luxury items, even though a few Veblen-seekers would not." Jpatokal (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-violation of the law of demand

This section reads more like an opinion, and it is not well sourced. Veblen good are usually seen as a violation of the law of demand. Putting an equation doesn't make it scientifically sound.

I would suggest to remove it. 193.34.225.91 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of x in the equation is also not explained. 216.165.95.177 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]