Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hélène Rey[edit]

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: [1]. There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions.

What are the appropriate number of threads on this Wikiproject talk page?[edit]

Regarding [2], what do other editors think the appropriate number of threads to leave displayed on this talk page should be? My understanding is that it is not uncommon for wikiprojects to have dozens of simultaneous projects. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, 20 minimum threads seems to be rather high when configured to an age of 90 days. WikiProject Finance & WikiProject Globalization use 6 & 5 minimum threads respectively. However, they are configured to expire threads after only 30 days. I think WikiProject Economics would benefit from a minimum thread count of 5 to 10, and an expiry of 30 to 45 days. My general view is that minimum threads and thread expiry should generally have an inverse relationship: less-active projects warrant threads sticking around longer because it takes longer for them to get attention, while more-active projects may not need threads to stick around as long since they may resolve more quickly, and may instead have a desire to see more minimum threads since there will likely be more things to discuss. Ultimately it boils down to what a project is willing to handle. On talk pages with an aggressive auto-archiving configuration, editors can always include a <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:00, 01 January 2020 (UTC) --> exception at the beginning of a talk page thread to exempt it from archiving (and remove it when the participants deem the thread ready for normal archiving). John Shandy`talk 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GDP forecasting[edit]

I would like other editors' comments on the graphs at [3]. EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Looking back, a reliability index might be useful given that several forecasts were posted, possibly many biased by politics. (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyperinflation article 99% wrong.[edit]

{{collapse top|text=Blocked editors are The Hyperinflation article is 99% based on Cagan´s obsolete definition of hyperinflation being 50% inflation per month.

No government in the world follows that definition. It is completely historic and obsolete.

The group of Wikipedia editors who controls this article know that.

Unfortunately they will not allow that to be changed.

They will never state the encyclopedic position regarding hyperinflation in the world today in this article.

Namely, they will never allow it to be stated in the article that no government in the world uses Cagan´s defintion today.

All governments follow the IASB´s 1989 definition of hyperinflation as being equal to or approaching 100% cumulative inflation over three years, or 26% annual inflation for three years in a row, about 2% inflation per month for three years in a row.

This problem of a group of editors controlling a Wikipedia page and representing a false situation is apparently quite common on Wikipedia which explains why Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source in academic research as clearly stated in a Harvard University publication easily found on the internet.

Would the editors on this Economics project be interested in correcting the above situation? (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont think it is a problem untill it reaches 200% wrong. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The editors on this project should bear in mind that the IP is a blocked editor who is editing in contravention of his block. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

When I post the above statement that the Hyperinflation article is 99% wrong on the Hyperinflation Talk page one of the editors of the group of editors I mention above, repeatedly reverts this post. He does not like true encyclopedic facts to appear in the hyperinflation article, not even on the talk page. He is not a very good example of what Wikipedia claims to be. He does not revert this post. I wonder why. (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Because, procedurally, any editor may revert any edit you make. You lost your privileges to edit when you were blocked indefinitely. You cannot participate on the article's talk page. The only reason I haven't reverted you here is in the hopes that you'll read and understand why your edits have been (and if necessary, will continue to be) reverted on Talk:Hyperinflation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What is important about any high inflation and what can be learned by "milking" the statistics of actual past and current happenings as reliably documented? (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?[edit]

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk)

Recovery participation rate[edit]

How should [4] be characterized? How should [5]? Please see Talk:Economic stagnation#Recovery participation rate. EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A way to approach systemic supply side bias on Wikipedia[edit]

In regard to the ongoing argument at Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources, et seq., Please see: Ostry, Jonathan D.; Loungani, Prakash; Furceri, Davide (June 2016). "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" (PDF). Finance & Development: 38-41.  EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. So requested. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Group of Seven (G7) [edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Group of Seven (G7) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lost sales[edit]

I've created a new article about a popular term used in the debates on Internet piracy. It may warrant a see also to some related terms, or expansion, or a hatnote. Feel free to expand and correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Proliferation of spammy BLPs[edit]

I recently created a stub on Philip H. Dybvig of Diamond-Dybvig ‎fame, and decided to browse the economist stubs category. I went through about a quarter of the stubs, and found that about half of those are not close to meeting any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, and are essentially vanity articles, or spammy ads for people trying to sell books or consulting services. If anyone has time, please have a look at the ones I've sent to WP:AfD, [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Also, I suggest better policing of the economist BLPs category. LK (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

New sources on college subsidy[edit]

(A) "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[15]

(B) "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[16]

Can everyone see how A implies B? (Hint: you can use the two figures to determine what the Treasury thinks working life expectancy and interest rates are going to be.) EllenCT (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.


--John Cummings (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Money creation article[edit]

Eyes needed at money creation article, if anyone wants to weigh in. LK (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For the people here, this is the edit under discussion. My objection is that the edits reflect a fringe economic view that essentially says "the textbooks are wrong, the textbooks are wrong". The textbooks are simplified, and details can be elaborated upon, but it's 'fringey' to say that the common view, or the textbook view is wrong. I'm fine with including some of what was added, as long as it's written neutrally. For example, no one argues that today, the interest rate target is the tool that central banks use to control credit creation, and that they do not pay much attention to the quantity of money created. This could be made more explicit, but the article should not imply that the majority of textbooks are wrong because of this. I'll be happy if anyone else wants to engage. LK (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I find your argument rather weak. The term 'textbook' is only mention once ("described in some economics textbooks), yet you seem to make a general case out of it. You don't seem to object on the content itself (only on the vindicative style), so why don't you take onboard my edit, and improve it, instead of rejecting them entirely? That would be so much more constructive. Stanjourdan (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. I don't think you'll be satisfied with the result. But this conversation has been carried out before. I'm guessing from your edits that you're coming from a a particular post-keynesian viewpoint, that views textbook accounts of the fractional reserve system as wrong. Such views (such as chartalism) are heterodox. LK (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. At least i'm less unsatisfied now. I don't have a particular ideology regarding this topic, but it seems that authoritative institutions (IMF, Bank of England) have now made it clear that although banks do create money, the fractional reserve theory is not an entirely accurate way to describe money creation by banks. In particular, the view that the central bank first create reserves and then private banks 'multiply' those reserves seem to have been proven wrong several times. Yet the wikipedia article still present this as the commonly accepted truth. I was just trying to bring this piece of controversy, because right now the BoE paper is sourced in a way that gives credit to the fraction reserve theory section, while in fact the BoE is clearly saying that some of this theory is wrong. Any advice on how to integrate this point better into the article would be welcome. Stanjourdan (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazaro's talk page concern[edit]

Hi, I didn't join your WikiProject here yet, but I have a question: Is it possible or rather are you allowing any user talk pages on inputting your stub projects on their own talk page? As I linked on this title of the message, I observed that this Wikipedia user is putting the said stub on his/her talk page that is NOT your concern / not related to the topic. Can you please investigate this? Some users are (I don't think it this way, but I feel it is) abusing those stub to use for themselves. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add a "RECENTICITY" table for starters in economics.[edit]

  • There is a lot of information available about economics which includes also much that no longer is relevant and/or otherwise is of no current importance. Given the superior knowledge of the participants on this project, probably it would help beginners in economics to find here a list showing which articles, where, to start with that are likely to be for free, reliable and up-to-date. (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Add a link to World Basic Income's website[edit]

A new organisation has been set up, based in the UK, to campaign for a world basic income. The concept is discussed in detail on the website

Please could a link to this website be added?

World Basic Income (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


In view of the recent surge in anti-trade sentiments in the US, the article on Protectionism needs to be more closely watched. Can I suggest that people add it on their watch list. Thanks. LK (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Deflation article[edit]

I just reverted an edit at the deflation article. Although sourced, I believe the sources are cherry picked, doesn't reflect mainstream views, and are fringe. It appears to be from the Austrian/Misean 'inflation is always bad, deflation not so much' viewpoint'. Other eyes welcome, please. LK (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lawrencekhoo, I think that was pretty rude and not constructive, to revers big commit without even addressing original article issue. Question of who is "mainstream" is personal bias and speculation, best case scenario that is original research. All facts needs to reflected and referenced carefully.

  • Deletion of backed by data and citation from academic sources and respected media is not a good approach.

Original article is purely POV. Several claims you do defend and restored are not even supported by valid sources linked and reflects POV, not a general consensus (if we can talk about one).

Author of "03:58, 9 September 2016‎" (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Irresponsible reversal of edits on economic topics[edit]

Removal of well framed commits without particular complaints for each block, isn't a good practice.

Please respect work of other people and if you do edit, at least read what you are editing. Removal of relevant pieces from articles makes it biased.

Citation/opinion that is supplied by link to reliable source MUST be present in linked materials. Otherwise you dis-inform people about citation and subject. Opinions that are not supported by link (e.g. "majority of economists" (who counted? original research?) and/or reliable source can't be part of Wiki Article. Please review Article before and After commit, before you decide to undo whole edit. If edit is problematic but better than original Article undoing it is unreasonable. Make your modifications, clearly communicate your vision of problem with the edit. Support it by evidence, especially if you are removing facts supported by links on reliable sources and restoring speculations. (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Indian cities by GDP per capita[edit]

An anonymous user, who changes IP addresses daily, has been deleting content from List of Indian cities by GDP per capita. If anyone with knowledge of the subject can review this list, that would be appreciated. NYCRuss 16:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)