Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Progressiveness versus amount of tax

Mean annual growth in U.S. employment, by top income tax bracket rate, 1940–2011

Can someone please help at Talk:Progressive tax#Why isn't causation supported? and the subsequent section? There is some confusion between the effects of increasing and decreasing the total amount of tax and changing its progressiveness. EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the chart to the right that EllenCT is trying to insert, one created by the SockPuppet Cupco / Nrcprm2026. It tries to make a correlation between "Average Employment Growth" and "Top Marginal Tax Rate" as if to suggest that the top marginal rate is causality for growth. In addition, the increase marginal tax rate suggests a much higher tax burden as it progresses on the X axis, such that 75% is a significantly higher burden then 35%, but the average rates on the top income levels during those periods show that exemptions reduce the burden to much closer levels and the higher rates effected a smaller group (completely different tax codes). In short, the graph is extremely misleading to readers by suggesting causality of the X / Y axes and that the rates correlate with each other. I think it violates WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYN, and insufficient WP:V for the claim. Morphh ^(talk) 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the source of the graph, and I would prefer that it start at 1945 to eliminate World War II and to more closely match the shape of the Laffer Curve. The suggestion that it violates WP:WEIGHT has not been justified with any reason why the graph might not be on topic, the WP:SYN concerns have been addressed by [1], [2], [3], and [4], and the WP:V concerns are addressed by [5] and [6] both of which have been removed from the internet.

Inclusion of the graph doesn't matter to me as much as clearing up the confusion between extent of progressiveness and amount of total tax levied. The statement, "in 1950, U.S. federal taxes were 14% of GDP, the top income tax bracket rate was effectively 88%, and jobs grew by 7.7%; in contrast during 2012, federal taxes were 19% of GDP, the top tax bracket rate was 35% (but effectively much less) while jobs only grew 1.4%," has also been repeatedly deleted. EllenCT (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This cherry picks years to reach an invalid conclusion by correlating such rates with a complex economy. The top rate in 1950 was 91%, not 88%, and while the economy grew at 7.7% that year (likely due to post WWII spending), the next year it grew at 3.1% and by 1953 it was -0.9%. So these rates fluctuate wildly even when the tax rate remains the same. The statement and the graph take selective facts to paint a misleading picture to the reader. In addition, the statutory rate does not evenly compare over the long timeframe due to changes in the tax code - exclusions, avoidance, and evasion for higher rates. It declares "but effectively much less" on 35% without noting the effective rate on 91% was significantly less. It's a poor comparison. For WP:V, you can't point to a source for the data of the X axis and then separately point to a source of data on Y axis and say that they support causality for a correlation - it is the definition of WP:SYN. I have not seen that the other primary sources, which is coupled with government spending, provided for the defense of WP:SYN. As for WP:WEIGHT, these conclusions represent a tiny minority as compared to widespread views that higher top tax rates can and do negatively effect economic growth in any short term measure (a view we don't currently include in the article) - beyond that, it's extremely difficult to see the effect as other economic forces are at work, to include deficit spending and the relative tax competition in today's much more global economy. Morphh ^(talk) 14:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

EllenCT, that you are trying to connect tax rates, or collections, to job growth statistics is also subject to a critical eye. Why not present government spending as a percent of GDP? That would tell the opposite of what you intend (goverment investment & spending has increased, job creation has decreased). Anyone can select statistics to make a point, even if there's no causal link. I'll add the source article for that chart [7] makes exactly the point that tax rates cannot be linked to job growth. Mattnad (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

[8] shows that business investment has decreased. EllenCT (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. How does business investment relate to tax policy/government revenue or high marginal tax rates for wealthier people? That written, the section of the article does suggest a cause for declining US job growth - globalization and lower domestic investment by private enterprise as capital shifts to growth markets. Mattnad (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Business investment is related to aggregate demand per [9] summarized at [10]. EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's quite telling that all examples are from the USA. There are other economies out there... bobrayner (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

[11] (discussed at [12]) and [13] study other countries and reach the same conclusion. [14] involves the general principles. There is a lot of material out there in opposition, but all of it is opposed to the historical record and therefore only primary at best, and most likely as reliable as conflicted interest opinion. EllenCT (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

None of these publications support the chart or the sentence. They're about income inequality and economic growth effects. Morphh ^(talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The sentence and the chart are historical facts supported by the numerical data sources. The implication you are complaining about is supported by the peer-reviewed sources, and has recently been shown to be correct after 35 years of error in regression analysis. Where do you think employment and income come from? Economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The data is fact, but the correlation or causality is not (an extreme example - Global Warming / Pirates). I think I understand what EllenCT is thinking and it's WP:OR and WP:SYN. Like the chart that falsely links one thing to another, she does the same with the sources. The sources make the argument that certain levels of income inequality can hurt economic growth. Other sources say that progressive taxation can improve income equality. Putting these two ideas together brings the theory that highly progressive taxation (with progressive spending) can improve income equality, which can lead to economic growth. A=B=C However, the sources do not say A=C. A achieves B under certain conditions. B achieves C under certain conditions. Too much B can hurt C. A can have adverse effects on C, which may negate any effect of B on C. Short term / long term scenarios, who knows - the causality is not in the sources and they certainly don't support what is implied in the graph or the sentence. Morphh ^(talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and I think your accusations of OR are completely absurd given the sources above. The SYN claim is equally absurd, and you seem to be trying to use it to exclude what has become the dominant point of view in favor of the now-minority point of view which you prefer or at least preferred before you came to see the flaws in Art Okun's 1970s regression analyses. I can't help you unless you are willing to include both points of view and an honest discussion of the strength of the evidence in support of them. EllenCT (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

EllenCT, I happen to agree with Morphh on this one. The sources you have supplied do not support the conclusion of that chart which is high marginal tax rates led to high job growth in the United States as well as the inverse. It's quite simple - we need an authoritative reliable source. What you've provided so far are bits and pieces and drawn inferences from them. If the graph represents the dominant point of view, economists would refer to it, or something like it. But they don't. An economy is a complex system, and marginal tax rates are only one, small, competent. If you don't agree, explain why Greece, with a top marginal tax rate of 45% (not including VATs) is not swimming in jobs.Mattnad (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The chart doesn't have conclusions but people draw subjective inferences about what it shows. [15] and [16] are peer-reviewed articles supporting the most likely such inference, and unlike all the peer-reviewed reports which reach contrary conclusions, they are consistent with DSGE and prisoners dilemma models, and more importantly with Berg and Ostry's correction of Okun's flawed year-over-year regressions. Greece has tax avoidance and evasion issues. EllenCT (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

EllenCT, what's the point of the chart then, if not to foster subjective conclusions? If you cannot articulate why we should include the chart, and point it makes, then it's a waste of space. As for connecting tht chart to peer reviewed articles, that's WP:SYN. Even if we wanted to, the first article is behind a paywall but the abstract mentions "We present empirical results that show that inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth" but makes no mention of the elements in the chart. The second article makes no mention at all about taxes but does focus on unemployment and growth. So if that's what you're using to justify including the chart, you'll need to find something else.Mattnad (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you recognize my articulation of the reasons for including the chart? It is historically correct. The inferences which everyone is afraid people will draw from it are mathematically correct for the reasons the four cited sources explain. If you are having paywall problems, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. EllenCT (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The individual facts may be historically correct, but the juxtaposition of the two historical facts suggest causality for which we need a source. And not just any source, but a source that basically says, "The drop in top marginal tax rates is linked to, or the cause of, the drop in job growth in the united states." Your sources from what I've read do not say that. The refer to piece parts of a hypothesis you have. To give ridiculous example, I could create a graph that shows as women have become more educated, job growth stalled in the United States. All historically accurate, but would unacceptable unless we had an authoritative source that made that exact point.Mattnad (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Berg and Ostry (2011). Have you read it? Pages 362-70 in Peterson, W. and Estenson, P. (7th ed., 1992) Income, Employment and Economic Growth, Chapter 9, "Public Expenditures, Taxes, and Finance," describes progressivity in terms of transfers. If you can't find it in your library try inter-library loan. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read the IMF publication and it doesn't support the material. Morphh ^(talk) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think it says on the topic then? It says that greater income equality is the most effective determinant of economic growth. Economic growth produces employment, right? Progressive taxes produce greater income equality, right? If you think that's SYN then read Peterson and Estenson, which says it outright. Why don't [17] and [18] say it well enough? What are the specific things you think are SYN in order for those two to support the statement about the US in 1950 vs. 2012 and the job creation by top tax bracket rate graph? EllenCT (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What they say in theory (and I'm taking your word on it) still needs to be connected to US history, as depicted in the graph, by a reliable source. It's a bit remarkable to me that evidence that would so vividly illustrate their concepts is not mentioned, at all in their texts. The US is not exactly a corner case that they'd ignore on purpose. What you are trying to do is apply an academic paper that makes no mention of the facts you are trying to present as related. Since you have access to the texts, why don't you quote them for us?Mattnad (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ostry and Berg (2011) study the factors affecting the duration of economic growth in developed and developing countries, and find that income equality has a more beneficial impact than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment.

EllenCT wrote "It says that greater income equality is the most effective determinant of economic growth". Where does it state that? Maybe I'm missing the socialist success story. Let me quote what the paper says "Still, there may be some win-win policies, such as better-targeted subsidies, better access to education for the poor that improves equality of economic opportunity, and active labor market measures that promote employment. When there are short-run trade-offs between the effects of policies on growth and income distribution, the evidence we have does not in itself say what to do. But our analysis should tilt the balance toward the long-run benefits—including for growth—of reducing inequality. Over longer horizons, reduced inequality and sustained growth may be two sides of the same coin." It is not an analysis on tax policy. Reductions in progressivity are often "short-run trade-offs between the effects of policies on growth and income distribution". I've looked over the other publications as well and I'm not seeing the evidence you describe - I'm seeing the same WP:SYN analysis. So to Mattnad's point, please provide some quotes that support the material. Morphh ^(talk) 03:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Chart 4 at right. I'll excerpt the other three sources in the next few days. EllenCT (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, chart on its own is better from the perspective of linking a source and the subject matter. But we could not use it to synthesize another chart. However, if we wanted to include it, we could with the source. Another thing to consider is whether this belongs in progressive tax article, or more aptly, an article on income inequality. To link it to progressive taxes, we'd need a foundation that progressive taxes reduce income inequality, which is likely doable.Mattnad (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking the economic gains through income equality to progressive taxation is still SYN, even if you have sources supporting each on it's own. Progressive taxes can reduce income inequality (best when coupled with progressive spending), but that doesn't mean the gains result in economic growth. The manufactured redistribution of wealth through the tax code could have negative economic effects, which completely negate any gain and even hurt growth. It depends how much and where the spending is placed. Suggesting progressive 75% marginal tax rates are optimal for growth is not supportable in these sources. Saying that economic equality can increase economic growth has to be taken in context. History has show extremes in this area have been disastrous to economic growth. So without direct sources supporting that increased progressive taxation (and to what degree) leads to economic growth, we're doing original research and synthesis of material. We're forming our own analysis, which is not appropriate. The latest graph offered by EllenCT doesn't offer anything except what it directly depicts. It can't be used to piece together conclusions.. since this graph says this, and this graph says this, then we can create this graph that says this new thing. We can't do that. Morphh ^(talk) 15:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is causation intransitive?

Even if the same source reported that increased marginal tax rates (or increased progressivity of taxation, which are not the same thing) increased income equality, and income equality supports improvements in the economy, we couldn't make the connection. We cannot conclude from A tends to cause B and B tends to cause C that A tends to cause C. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying causation is intransitive? Every source states, and my personal experience supports, that causation is transitive. Is that not a logical truism as referred to in Wikipedia:Common knowledge#Acceptable examples of common knowledge? EllenCT (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, causation (in social science) is not transitive. There should be an example in systems theory, but, as a specific example with forcing factors:

One unit of A causes one unit of B and one unit of D

One unit of B causes one unit of C

One unit of D causes minus 5 units of C.

Then:

One unit of A causes one unit of B

One unit of B causes one unit of C

One unit of A causes a loss of four units of C.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To quote WP:SYN "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Morphh ^(talk) 23:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to include the necessary number of sources, then. Thank you both. EllenCT (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I just want to point out to whomever was not clear on this matter that Arthur Rubin was talking about partial effects in a system. This is almost always what economists do. Thus if you see an economist claim that one thing causes another, be slow to make general claims based on that source. Figure out exactly what is "held constant".Rscragun (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Source excerpts

1. "Taxes are a leakage from the income stream in the same sense of saving. Equilibrium requires that leakages in the form of net taxes plus saving must be offset by investment expenditures and government purchases of goods and services.... 'our fiscal policy targets have been recast in terms of "full" or "high" employment levels of output, specifically the level of GNP associated with a 4-percent rate of unemployment.'" —Peterson, Wallace C. (1992). "Chapter 9. Public Expenditures, Taxes, and Finance". Income, employment, and economic growth (7th ed.). New York: Norton. pp. 364–70. ISBN 0-393-96139-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Quoting Walter Heller.
2. "inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth.... there will be a strong demand for redistribution in societies where a large section of the population does not have access to the productive resources of the economy.... rational voters have to internalize this dynamic problem of social choice." —Alesina, Alberto (1994). "Distributive Politics and Economic Growth" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 109 (2): 465–90. doi:10.2307/2118470. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
3. "high unemployment rates...have a negative and significant effect when interacting with increases in inequality.... increasing inequality harms growth in countries with high levels of urbanization, as well as in countries with low levels of urbanization in which there is high and persistent unemployment.... High and persistent unemployment is likely associated to increasing inequalities. Furthermore, there are sensible reasons to expect that this process of high and persistent unemployment, in which inequality increases, has a negative effect on subsequent long-run economic growth.... In sum, unemployment may seriously harm growth not only because it is a waste of resources, but also because it has serious distributional effects: it generates redistributive pressures and subsequent distortions; it depreciates existing human capital and deters its accumulation; it drives people to poverty; it results in liquidity constraints that limit labour mobility; and finally it erodes individual self-esteem and promotes social dislocation, unrest and conflict. Hence, the experience of the 1980s, and the subsequent cycle of low long-run economic growth is a cautionary tale about the future risks for growth of high unemployment and increasing inequality in our current times. «The economic slowdown may entail a double-dip in employment... exacerbating inequalities and social discontent... and further delaying economic recovery» (ILO, 2011). Policies aiming at controlling the dramatic rise in unemployment associated to the current crisis, and in particular at reducing its inequality-associated effects, are not just pressing for the obvious current difficulties that they represent for society today, but also because of the handicap that they represent for future long-run growth." —Castells-Quintana, David (2012). "Unemployment and long-run economic growth: The role of income inequality and urbanisation" (PDF). Investigaciones Regionales. 12 (24): 153–173. Retrieved 17 October 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

These and the historical facts about the U.S. tax rate should all be included. EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EllenCT. These sources do not provide support for the graph in the least. The first argues the if the government is going to tax, it should spend so the impact is neutral. The second quote basically says more broadly that income inequality leads to less growth, but given they mention land ownership, aren't they referring to more agrarian economies? The third say that high and persistent unemployment, particularly in urbanized cultures, leads to income inequality and lower economic growth. Not one of them discusses top marginal tax rates, and applies it to the US. That graph and the related sentence are WP:OR. Mattnad (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. The first says that government should and has tax and spend to achieve "full employment" (4% unemployment.) The second specifically refers to income as well as property wealth. The third specifically supports the data shown in the graph, from a survey of many countries. EllenCT (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

4. "A Yale professor who was among three Americans who won the Nobel prize for economics said Monday, 'The most important problem that we are facing now today, I think, is rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world,' Shiller said." —Christoffersen, John (October 14, 2013). "Rising inequality 'most important problem,' says Nobel-winning economist". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 19 October 2013. EllenCT (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

An RFC on this topic has been opened here Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth Mattnad (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional editors needed at Talk:Progressive tax

My attempt to get the diversity of editor engagement which experience has shown is usually necessary for the instructions at Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 3#Section on Psychological effects has so far been unsuccessful, and so I urge editors skilled in economics to please participate in that and subsequent sections. EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge Community currency into Local currency

Since mid 2013 it has been tagged to consider merging Community currency into Local currency, I've started a discussion regarding this on the Local currency talk page.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding importance of Open field system to this project

There is a discussion regarding where to grade the Open field system on this project's importance scale. The discussion is here.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding using 'Where Does Money Come From?' as source

Discussion regarding whether 'Where Does Money Come From?' (book) is a reliable source for the Fractional reserve banking article. The discussion is here.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 24/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SinkRank. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Rodríguez Braun

onomiThis old abandoned Afc submission about an economics professor and journalist is soon to be deleted as a stale draft. The article has claims to notability, but no independent sources. I'd like to add some, but I don't speak Spanish. I can't find a university profile, and without knowing the language it's hard to separate news reports about him from those he has written as a journalist. Is this a notable person, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Could people keep the fractional reserve banking article on their watchlist? We have a dispute ongoing and could use more eyes (although I can't seem to figure out what the dispute is about exactly). LK (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is how the situation appears to me, @Reissgo: claims @SPECIFICO: is reverting edits but won't take a formal route to resolve the conflict.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

My potted history of events is here. Reissgo (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either of the two positions as described there are correct. Reserve requirements do limit money creation, but not always in a linear way, depending on savings pattern differences between producers and consumers. EllenCT (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV - FRINGE?

I thought I would bring two articles to the attention of this forum that I have tagged for possible bias and questionable sources, Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee and Bill Murphy (GATA chairman). These two related articles are about an organization and its founder that have been widely dismissed by mainstream economists and press/media as cranks and purveyors of fringe conspiracy theories. The article on GATA has been deleted previously. Both articles seem to have been written in a manner suggestive of an attempt to rehabilitate their subjects. And in both cases there appears to be a significant reliance on sources also known as outlets for fringe conspiracy theories.

I was wondering if I might impose on the members of this forum to take a look and give me a second opinion before I take things any further. Thanks for your time... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What actions where you considering? Adding specific points of criticism would improve the articles.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 17/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SinkRank. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking for community support on a new grant proposal

The Global Economic Map project (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Economic_Map) plans to build a bot that will upload economic/corporate/financial data into Wikidata and systematically display the data in articles such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States. Our goal is to make an article for every country that looks like that one. The economic/corporate/financial data uploaded into Wikidata as part of this project will be usable for Wikipedia articles as well. We are looking for community support and people who want to get more involved with this Wikidata project. We would love to get more involved with WikiProject Economics and hear your input. If you are interested to hear more please send me a message, write an endorsement on the grant page or ask questions below. Thank you Mcnabber091 (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Global Economic Map task force/Properties

Perhaps this is of interest to people here: d:Wikidata:Global Economic Map task force/Properties. These properties could be used in future for info boxes of cities to indicate factors of economic rankings etc. Jane (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Content Economy

Dear economics experts: This old Afc submission will shortly be deleted as a stale draft unless someone takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention European_Sharing_Economy_Coalition in Sharing economy article?

See discussion on the talk page.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Request: simple better graph for Lorenz curve

Please see my comment at Talk:Lorenz_curve#Better_graph_suggestion. Can anyone help create it? If so, please post there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quadratic Voting. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gini coefficient discussion

Project members are invited to look at Talk:Gini coefficient#Gini in Template:infobox country and to provide input. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eco Industrial Development

Dear economists: This is another one of those old abandoned Afc submissions. Is this an economics topic, and if so, should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should be kept. I added a link about the National Centre for Eco-Industrial Development. All the references use a hyphen between Eco and Development, so maybe rename article. Not too sure what the rejection comment means about 'curious phrases'. However the article could probably be trimmed. Not sure what is mean by 'Community of States' in the history section. The subject is related to economics, but also the Environment and Engineering projects. The term is closely linked to Eco-industrial park and Industrial symbiosis. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis. I have moved the page to the title you suggested. Now that you have edited it, it won't be deleted for six months. Anyone is welcome to work on it! —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, is the article ready to be moved to mainspace? If there is a dubious bit, it could always be removed until someone can explain and source it properly. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I start tidying up some of the references, but my browser crashed. I will re-edit when I get a moment. Jonpatterns (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I've done what I can for the article for now. Its ready for submission as far as I can tell. Some sources capitalize and others use lowercase for eco-industrial development. I think the article should use 'Eco-industrial development' for its wiki name, this is in line with Eco-industrial park. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is happily living at Eco-industrial development. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: great stuff, I will try to improve it further if I get time. ; -) Jonpatterns (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why two articles on the same subject? ... the economic notion of "surplus"

It is unclear to me why Wikipedia has an article on both Excess supply and also surplus. Seems to me that the latter term is much more widely used in economics, and that perhaps the two articles should be merged. N2e (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a project Talk page with little interaction between other editors about improving Wikipedia. Anyone have a view on this? N2e (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: Thanks for the reminder. After looking at the pages Excess supply seems to deal an excess in goods desired by consumers at a certain price, the opposed being Excess demand - not enough goods. Where as Economic surplus relates a pricing surplus - the difference between the market price and the highest amount a consumer would pay, or the difference between the market price and the lowest amount the producer would sell at. They are obviously related but I not convinced merging the pages would benefit the reader. A mention linking to and from each page could be useful. Further, there is also surplus product, but this is use for an earlier Marxist theory. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 15/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Price Revolution. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: the article should be merged into Price revolution. The Price revolution article covers the same/similar events and would benefit from being expanded.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

List of currencies in South America

Hi, please can someone check over the text, economics isn't my strong point. Thanks, Matty.007 19:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: The article looks okay, anything specific text that you would like to query? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I was just thinking of any major prose issues, economics isn't so much a strong point of mine. Thanks, Matty.007 17:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Paco Ahlgren listed as AfD

The article for Paco Ahlgren has been listed under "article alerts" as an WP:AfD, but there is no information about why it has been suggested or by whom. Maybe it was listed by mistake? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Paco Ahlgren (talk · edit · hist)was AfDed; see discussion

RepRisk 'esg' data collectors

I've attempted to make the RepRisk article for creation more neutral, any help improving the page appreciated Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/RepRisk.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Long and short term U.S. Natural Rate of Unemployment derivations?

How are [19] and [20] derived? I'm also asking at WP:RDH and promise to cross-merge best answers. EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hyperinflation

Just a note that the Hyperinflation page has been subject, for the past few days, to a series of edits by a user MonteDaCunca that have rendered the page awkward and difficult to understand. As the talk page shows, the edits seem to be part of an academic dispute over the definition of inflation, with the Hyperinflation edits being used to wage that academic debate. The changes are now fairly extensive, and probably require someone with some expertise or real interest in the subject, and in editing, to go through and check things. The user who has made the changes is accused of being a sock puppet, but I don't know if that's true. But I thought that the Project page ought to be aware of things. Prof. Mc (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He's back

Special:Contributions/78.130.81.221 MonteDaCunca is back, as is evidenced by his edits. I've filed a report, but may have done it wrong. If so I apologize. It appears at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MonteDaCunca but not at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. Prof. Mc (talk)

Global financial system nominated for GA review

About a week ago, I nominated Global financial system for Good Article review at WP:GAN#ECON after undertaking a major revamp of the article. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, feel free to take a look. Also note that we have 13 other articles awaiting GA review under the Economics & Business section.

Please note the depth of the improvement:

• Previous (before revamp)
• Current

If you aren't able to commit a full GA review of the article, I am still particularly interested in any feedback on the quality of the article's lead. John Shandy` • talk 08:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed guideline on finding and using sources

WP:ECONRSW, a proposed guideline on finding and using sources has been sitting there for some time. Since the page has been linked to from the main page for some years, and silence suggests consensus, I'ld like to propose that we elevate the page from proposed guideline to actual guideline for our little group. LK (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It would be good to be able to recommend more books than just the Handbooks in Economics.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff! I believe the page also suggests university level texts and review articles in refereed journals. Should we add Journal of Economic Perspectives and Journal of Economic Literature as a good place to find review articles in? Any other suggestions? LK (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not fully convinced having our own guideline is wise, here are some thoughts on improvement. We may want to include something regarding WP:PSTS as many journal or academic sources may be considered a primary source such as " a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment". Such sources may be used, "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". It then goes on to describe misuse, such as "... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. ..." So in Wikipedia, depending on the context, using a secondary source from a news organization may be better then using the higher quality primary source from academia (or source both), particularly if the content is more easily verified in the secondary source. If the content can be verified in a one page summarized article from the AP, I find that source preferable to the primary 100 page academic publication. This also goes to a question of weight if the only source available is primary. It might also be nice to include a reference to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as too often I see statements based on the opinion of a particular source made in Wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it may be unnecessary work to maintain a separate reliable source standard for this project. What specifically would make something reliable for this project but not generally, and vice versa. Maybe just have a list of places that generally provide reliable sources.

Regarding AP (associated press?) and academic source. Wh y do you favor the peer review of the former to the latter? Jonpatterns (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The AP source would likely reference the academic source, so I see it as a matter of secondary source vs primary source and the ease of which someone without specialized knowledge can verify the material and see it is accurately and neutrally represented in Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States

Could we please have some more help with some of the recent discussions at Talk:Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States? This is my preferred version. Is it more accurate? Less biased? EllenCT (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank negative interest on excess reserves

Can anyone figure out how to excerpt the June 5 news article at Talk:Negative interest on excess reserves? Two of the news articles were single sentences, including the headline. EllenCT (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

European Price Revolution merge into Price revolution proposal

Suggestion European Price Revolution be merged into Price revolution, see discussion Jonpatterns (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Economics At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

EU in lists?

• See the discussion at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)#EU. --John (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Rogernomics

There is a dispute about whether we can imply that Rogernomics, the free market reforms undertaken by the New Zealand government in the 1980s, were effective, because the economy grew in the 1990s. Please comment at Rogernomics#In the long run. TFD (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata: Economics task force

Wikidata: Economics task force

Mcnabber091 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am so glad to see your efforts have been so successful! Good work! EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Keynesian full employment policies are not represented well because of meaning shifts in sources

I've been looking at noninflationary full employment recently, and I have to agree with this source, particularly in regard to some of our highest-readership articles, that we inaccurately represent "Keynesian" policies throughout as what Keynes would have called half-measures clearly doomed to failure because they don't go far enough. However, most of the press and reliable sources do use the word "Keynesian" to refer to such measures that Keynes would have had nothing to do with, and likely would have rejected outright prominently and vocally. How do we deal with the diluted shift in meaning over time? EllenCT (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please get agreement before making changes to the wikiproject page or creating new pages

I'm sure NotYetAnotherEconomist means well, but with only just over 100 edits it's best to discuss changes to project pages, creation of new project pages, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• How long I have an account is completly irrelevant. I am trying to make this project active again. An overhaul of the project page is part of that. You are not a member nor do or did oyu ever contribute to this project. You also do not give an argument against the change. I am very interested what people interested in the project have to say, sadly you are not one of them. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been contributing for years on this WikiProject, and I'd say that it has been active, just not very active. I don't understand how redesigning the page is going to help. What we need are many more editors willing to track down good sources and contribute to resolving controversies, not cosmetic measures. I agree that major changes to the WikiProject page, article talk page banners, or the like should be discussed while they are controversial, especially since they don't really improve the encyclopedia content. In any case, please don't edit war on such minor issues. You should review WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BOLD#... but please be careful! please. EllenCT (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. But how should editors know what they need to do? When you compare our project site with for example WP:MIL you see a huge difference. There people find easily what to do and how to do it. So improving accessibility will at the same time improve general willingness to contribute to the project. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I actually think it would be a huge improvement to have better formatting and a more aesthetic presentation, having taken a closer look at what you are trying to do. The way to make it happen is put your proposed redesign in a sub-page, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Redesign and then ask here for comments once you have it the way you think it looks best. Most of the objections you are getting are probably because it's a huge change which needs to be discussed before implementation to satisfy people that you aren't trying to skew the presentation or introduce some theoretical hidden agenda (the mere contents of the to-do list have been controversial in the past year....) You probably also want to make sure that it doesn't end up looking terrible on small screens, as tabbed menus can when they don't wrap, scroll, or otherwise act intelligently in narrow widths. Once you get comments, you can address them one-by-one and as long as the result looks better on all device sizes, I doubt you will encounter further opposition. EllenCT (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The opposition was only from administrators that were completly uninvolved in this project and became irate because I removed a project banner from an article about a newspaper. The design is copied from other Wikiprojects and the content doesn't change at all. It only gets split into seperate, easy accesible pages. It isn't done yet and you are very welcome to improve what you think is neccessary. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Project scope being narrowed?

We have a brand new editor that I think misunderstands the scope of this project. At Talk:Warren Buffet he wrote "Warren Buffet is neither an economist nor is he relevant for economics as a science. There exists a popular misconception that economics is about the stock markets and therefore stock brokers are relevant. This is incorrect. Thanks." And thus he removed the project banner there. But if you look at the Featured Articles, we have a politician, C. D. Howe, we have khtar Hameed Khan, a Pakistani development activist and social scientist. He promoted participatory rural development in Pakistan and other developing countries, and widely advocated community participation in development and the Cross of Gold speech. With NotYetAnotherEconomist's definition we'd have to remove the banner from those articles. 19:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

• Please sign your post. C. D. Howe "He is credited with transforming the Canadian economy from agriculture-based to industrial. During the Second World War". This has great economic relevance. Akhtar Hameed Khan was actively engaged in economic development. They both have relevance for economics. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And Warren Buffet was temporarily an economic advisor for Obama.[21] Why would you insist on excluding him for the project? Exactly how does it help the project? As for signing my post, I accidentally added 5, not 4, tildes. Sinebot came along and added my signature. No need to tell me what do do, I've got over 128,000 more edits than you do. You need to cut editors some slack. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I won't bother finding a user that has more edits than you so he can represent me. Having more edits than someone else doesn't give you any authority. As an administrator you definetly should know better. Nevertheless I accept your argument. about the substance. Maybe you can now spend time on improving Buffet's advising activities? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that a project's scope shouldn't be so broadly encompassing that it becomes poorly defined or unmanageable, I don't think that's happened with WikiProject Economics. I agree we shouldn't include every topic, newspaper, or BLP on sole grounds that they may have small or tangential ties to economics. Every major newspaper has some kind of economics or business section. However, some major newspapers and magazines quite obviously commit themselves heavily to economics (The Economist, Bloomberg, etc.) and so I don't see a problem including them. It could also be argued that perhaps BLPs about famous investors are better suited to a more narrowly scoped project like WikiProject Investment (although that project recently had a proposal to merge with WikiProject Finance). Many project scopes overlap and some degree of that is fine and sustainable. There's probably a broader discussion to be held on refining the scopes of economics and finance WikiProjects. In some cases, it may be exceedingly difficult for contributors to discern which projects care more or pay more attention to a given article with multiple banners, so I think that's where the discussion should center.

On a side note, please understand that Dougweller is not trying to single you out or pick on you. There is something to be said for experience on Wikipedia and edit count is a convenient, albeit imperfect indicator thereof. (I myself am more concerned with quality over quantity and prefer to make larger, fewer edits. To each his/her own.) I have interacted with Dougweller extensively and I've found him one of the most grounded and level-headed administrators around. His only concern is to understand and to encourage resolution. His incidental unsigned comment is an unnecessary distraction. You're welcome to contribute and the community wants newcomers to get acquainted and stick around. I'm all for rendering WikiProjects more active, but experienced editors may consider it abrasive or dubious when things are changed suddenly without consensus, discussion, or sometimes without even explanation. They will rightfully challenge such things as part of the WP:BRD process, but such challenges are not of a personal nature. John Shandy` • talk 16:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States

Please see Talk:Affluence in the United States#Good article review request. I think the article has strayed from its purpose, but I may be considered biased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Middle-out Economics

Middle-out economics, as envisioned by Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, is held in opposition to trickle-down economics. Middle-out economics maintains the middle-class is ultimately the job creator due to its buying power. Higher demand for products and services produces economic growth.</ref> Economic growth provides for greater employment opportunities. Therefore, create a sufficiently progressive tax code, i.e. one that puts more money into the hands of the middle class, and the economy will grow and create more employment opportunities.Jothwu (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jothwu: What about 'Middle out economics'? If you wishing to create an article see WP:AfC. Although note, it may not be a notable term. Alternatively you could add something about the term on Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, or perhaps create an article for their book The True Patriot if it is notable.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see [22]. They support stuff like [23] which takes money from the health insurance industry to try to supress single payer health care, even though that's what Medicare is. Not exactly paragons of logical consistency. EllenCT (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you post the correct second link? I don't see anything in that article about healthcare.--greenrd (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Input welcome for VPIN at Articles for Deletion

The article VPIN, which stands for "volume synchronized probability of informed trading" (a mathematical model of financial markets), is up for discussion at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VPIN. Comments would be most welcome. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a mising article: in-place economy

Hi,

I couldn't find any interwiki links to en:wp from fr:Économie présentielle (or économie résidentielle), which this article says that it would translate as "in-place economy". That looks like a quite important subject isn't it ? Have I missed something or would you write it ? :-) Astirmays (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking econometricians' expertise re Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ADF-GLS

Should this old AfC submission be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? Or could some of it be merged with the existing article on the ADF test? Crossposting Anne Delong's request from WT:WikiProject Statistics#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ADF-GLS, so please continue the discussion there (which I've started but I lack the specific expertise to do any more). Regards, Qwfp (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

History of the graduated income tax

Could someone with access to a more definitive history please try to integrate [24]? I note that "a flat rate on incomes over a certain level" is a two-bracket progressive income tax that some Scandinavian countries still use. EllenCT (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of project banners

NotYetAnotherEconomist is removing banners for this project from multiple pages (e.g., The Economist, Warren Buffett, b ut see their contribution history for more), claiming that these articles do not fall in the "category" economics. Because they joined this project a few minutes ago, they cite Wikipedia:PROJGUIDE#OWN for battling anybody who is trying to revert them. I'd be interested to hear what regulars here have to say about this. --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is correct. A newspaper that has a section about politics and economics like 'The Economist' is not in the scope of this project (or else we would have to include pretty much every news media). Just like Warren Buffet is neither an economist nor does he do anything related to economics. I explained this to Randykitty in the talk pages, but he quickly reverted my explanation. I am glad people care about their articles, but this should not violate Wikipedia:PROJGUIDE#OWN. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not a member of this project, but came here from seeing the discussion on Randykitty's page. Common sense ought to inform NotYetAnotherEconomist that "If you place a banner for an outside WikiProject, and a member of that project removes it, do not replace the banner. A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project." doesn't mean you can remove a banner, and then, when you meet opposition, go join the relevant wikiproject in order to remove the banner yet again. That is what we call wikilawyering (please click on the link), in this case wikilawyering the guideline WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN which is obviously not meant to be used in such a way. I have placed a warning to this effect on the user's page. Meanwhile, of course, we're all interested in hearing what regulars here think about the disagreement. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC).
    • Yeah, whatever. Please make an argument why a newspaper should be included in WP:ECONOMICS a wikiproject about economics, not newspapers. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "Whatever" is an excellent argument of course, but if you read my post closely, you'll have noticed I'm not a project member. I'd rather listen to what the regulars here have to say about your question, and I think the three of us had better wait for input from them. My own interest is merely in your lawyerish abuse of a guideline, and I've said my say about that. Bishonen | talk 14:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

• You just behaved in the definition of wikilawyering. No interest in the real issue but only interested in repeated rephrasing of guidlines. Take a quick look at the other pages our project has banners on. They all concern economic issues, but not newspapers. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Again, joining the discussion from seeing the dispute on RandyKitty's page. If articles like The Economist and Warren Buffet don't fall under the scope of WikiProject Economics, then this project may as well be WikiProject Norse Poetry. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oh wow. Now the third musketeer arrives. Again not a single argument for the case but at least he doesn't threaten to block me (we could call this an improvment). Maybe get some more of your friends to post here? I am surprised how much psychological pain a removal of a project banner in the talk page has on some people. I sincerely hope your pain will vanish with time. NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You can call us however you want, but the fact remains that The Economist (who maintains things like Big Mac Index) and Warren Buffet (who's advice is heeded by thousands of investors and policy makers, e.g. the Buffet Rule) deal with economics to a great extent. Excluding them from this project makes no sense to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Neither the Big Mac Index or the Buffet Rule are excluded (well the buffet rule was, but thanks to you, not anymore). NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• You need to stop now please. I see that you were reverted again at Talk:Warren Buffet by User:Onorem because you haven't got agreement. You seem to think you don't need it. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and my comments below about project scope. You need to see what other project members think. Don't you want to get input from experienced members? Don't you think you should consider them before rushing in to make major changes. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The project banner doesn't endorse the subjects of the articles as being economists or of publishing rigorous economic analysis or anything else for that matter. It merely flags the articles as having some content which is relevant to economics and which could be improved by having the eyes of Project Economics members watching. We don't need unanimous or majority support for each such tag, and as long as the tags identify articles on which some of us wish to contribute, I think they should remain in place. I endorse replacing the deleted tags unleass there's strong reasoned consensus here against any of them, case by case. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not a project memmber but just noting that in most projects the practice is that if some project member considers an article to be related to the project and tags it as being of interest it requires a rather good argument and a strong consensus to remove the tag. All in all a project gains nothing by excluding possibly interesting articles from its scope.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not a project member. Tried to be once, but as you editors can see, the project is somewhat abandoned. No "regular contributors" have shown up to defend what NotYetAnotherEcon has changed. Although I understand that your concern is somewhat part of your job, the only way "Wikiproject economics" can thrive is if we keep the project confined to those articles that are actually related to economics. Since most human endeavour and all human beings participate are part of the economy, not drawing a strict line can represent serious trouble to define the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.70.20.39 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
• Project member, I agree with SPECIFICO that we should err on keeping project tags. Tags can be removed, but if the removal is reverted, it shouldn't be removed again - not unless there is a consensus from a discussion on this talkpage that the article is not within the domain of this Wikiproject. LK (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Who originally reduced the number of allowed threads here?

A large number of unresolved threads on this page were recently archived, and when I attempted to increase the number of threads allowed I was reverted by an administrator who has for the past several years been trying to push fringe views held by a very small minority of economists in economics articles, and who has recently been deleting thanks to other administrators from users he claims are banned, on what I believe is profoundly unpersuasive evidence. @Sandstein: what is the correct way to ask that User:Arthur Rubin's sanctions be extended to prevent him from attempting to censor wikiproject talk pages by adjusting bot archiving instructions, and to refrain from trying to make economics articles look like radical anarco-libertarinism is a mainstream view? EllenCT (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You could attempt to justify turning off archiving entirely (my mistake in saying that you needed to obtain consensus before doing that; you needed to request consensus immediately after doing that), but setting "minthreadsleft = 25" is just absurd. Furthermore, my sanctions are only in regard the Tea Party. Can you say the same?

The question of who is using mainstream theories and who fringe theories, and whether, even if you are correct, your actions damage Wikipedia, are matters for another forum. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As for who reduced it, it was 5 in June 2013 (500 revisions back) and in October 2011 (1000 revisions back). The "current tasks" list should not be dated, which means it will not be archived. If it's in archive 8, it appears it was archived a long time ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, a WikiProject page should rarely link to a specific section of the talk page; I haven't researched it fully, but I suspect the "Current tasks" list on the WikiProject page is entirely due to Ellen, without input or acceptance from other editors. At least, that's the way the archived conversation reads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, you may request discretionary sanctions at WP:AE if after reading WP:AC/DS you think that there has been misconduct in a topic area covered by such sanctions, and your own editing record stands up to scrutiny.  Sandstein  19:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion needs some economics expertise

Some economics expertise is needed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesse_Colombo about Jesse Colombo (Forbes contributor/anti-bubble activist). Thanks!Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Field-configuring event

Dear economics experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States's GAR

Affluence in the United States, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Imperfect competition

We need a source for the following claim: A market with a single seller and multiple buyers is a monopoly. A market with a single buyer and multiple sellers is a monopsony. These are the extremes of imperfect competition.

From Market_(economics)#Mechanisms_of_marketsLbertolotti (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Input on merge discussion

I’m requesting input and expertise from uninvolved editors on a merge discussion between distressed securities fund and distressed securities. The discussion has been active since September 12, 2014 with no consensus met yet. Users are in gridlock and discussion has came to a halt. Input on the discussion and eventually closure will be much appreciated. Thank you! Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Project tags needed, but which?

• Talk:Regional development
• Talk:Rural development
• Talk:Proterra (Brazil)

help please In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

European Central Bank's GAR

European Central Bank, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 03:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

B-class assessment request for Unemployment in Poland

I wonder if the article could be submitted to WP:GAR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Economics: The User’s Guide by Ha-Joon Chang

Wikimedia UK is delighted to announce that we have been given some copies of E-books from Pelican Books to give to Wikipedia editors, of which Economics: The User’s Guide by Ha-Joon Chang may be of particular interest to people in this WikiProject. More details including application details are at Wikipedia:Pelican Books. Sorry, but for commercial reasons this offer is not available for editors in the USA. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for quick comments and greetings for a class

Hello. I do outreach in the Wikipedia Education Program. As a volunteer, I presented Wikipedia to a class called "Economics and Developing Countries". I checked some of the students work, and my initial observation is that the students are adding content with references and commenting on each others' work. These are all new students. If anyone here would also comment on what they have done, say hello to them on their talk pages, or otherwise acknowledge their contributions, then I and the class would appreciate it and perhaps the professor would be more likely to continue to do this. I met the professor at a library during a Wikipedia meetup, and he seemed enthusiastic about having Wikipedia better represent issues of economics in the developing world. I would like to sustain his interest in Wikipedia.

If anyone has questions about the Wikipedia Education Program or this class, feel free to ask. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

List of circulating currencies

The list of circulating currencies now sorts properly when sorted by name of currency. Previously, e.g., "Thai baht" sorted under T; now it sorts under B. See the Talk page there under Sorting the table by "Currency".

If you would like to discuss this with me, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment - fractional reserve banking

It has been suggested that I make a "request for comment with participation from people at WP:ECON" with regard this discussion about the fractional reserve banking page. I do not know how to do this formally (maybe I have just done it by virtue of these words?). Can anyone help? Reissgo (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Although RFCs are an informal thing, there exists a process to establish one described at WP:RFC. However, per that page, there's certainly nothing wrong with seeking input from the relevant WikiProjects. WikiProject Economics is probably a good start. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 04:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So the page at WP:RFC states "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." (and the issues in question are indeed technical) but does not state exactly *how* to "ask for help at the relevant WikiProject". Have I already done it by virtue of this thread on this talk page? Or do I need to put something on the main WikiProject Economics page? Reissgo (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The specific section I linked you to provides a template that you can add to the article talk page as well as some other steps so that bots will add your request for comment to lists elsewhere on the wiki (I imagine to cast a broader net for more commenters). You may not feel the need to do so if your mention on this project talk page garners enough participation. John Shandy` • talk 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Economic growth#Income equality

Could we please get some more eyes at Economic growth? People have over the past four or five months been slowly trying to include obscure primary source studies of relatively tiny datasets to try to imply that inequality causing economic growth is still a viable theory. These studies have huge caveats that went unmentioned in the inclusions. And now User:Volunteer Marek is trying to claim that Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) aren't primary source studies, and that my insistance on agreement with secondary sources is against consensus because "at least one other user objects" to my edits. EllenCT (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the talk page as well as my response over at [25].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Contributions from others requested for Thomas M. Humphrey Wikipedia entry.

The entry for economistThomas M. Humphrey currently has a COI banner on it. Objective contributions from others with a knowledge of the history of economic thought or the career record of the subject of the article are needed in order to remove the COI (Conflict of Interest) banner. Please include reference information for the footnotes. Thank you for your contributions.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hugh E. Conway

Hi folks! I created an article on Hugh E. Conway, a labor economist and professor. It was initially given a START rating. I contacted Meno25, the editor who did the rating, for feedback on the article rating. He replied that he wasn’t an expert on the Wiki-Project areas that applied to that specific article so he suggested that I ask you folks for a re-assessment. While it isn’t a particularly long article, I think it covers Dr. Conway’s life/career pretty well. I even tracked down some hard-copy military documents to ensure all the facts had solid sources. Would someone from Wiki-Econ please take a second look at this article rating? Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

housing/real estate discusiion

FYI Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#House_prices:_domino_effect. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Marginal Standing Facility

Dear economics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject that should be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: its a shame I didn't see your message earlier. Is there anywhere the text of the draft can be seen? Jonpatterns (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, it's short, so I'll post it here.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Marginal Standing Facility(MSF) announced by the RESERVE BANK OF INDIA in its monetary policy of May 2011 and came into effect from 9th may 2011. With effect from October 2013 under this (MSF) facility the scheduled commercial banks in india can borrow upto 2% of their net demand and time liabilities by pledging approved government securities. The rate of interest charged on this facility has been kept 9%, which is 100 basis points(1% ) above Repo Rate under Liquidity Adjustment Facility. This facility will allow banks to meet short term liquidity needs by availing funds for overnight. MSF will be available to banks on all days for overnight borrowing except on Fridays when it will be available for three days. The Facility will be available on all working days in Mumbai, excluding Saturdays between 3.30 P.M. and 4.30 P.M. Marginal Standing Facility will allow banks to meet short term Asset- Liability mismatch, and the rate is considered penal rate as this will be opted by the banks after they have exhausted the Repo option. Requests will be received for a minimum amount of Rs. One crore and in multiples of Rs. One crore thereafter.

References

Jonpatterns, now that you've seen it, do you think it should be made into an article?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong Yes, but I have run out of time this week.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Three-way article merge needed for important economic history topic

Please take a look at and merge the following: Price revolution, European Price Revolution and Spanish Price Revolution. All three articles are clearly about the same topic, thus they are forbidden content forks. There is almost no overlap of the sources used in each of them, each article concentrates on different aspects of the topic. Unfortunately I know just barely enough about economics to keep my own check account under a modicum of control, so I do not feel at all competent to perform this mandatory merge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur Roger (Dodger67). I've left input over on the Discussion page, and tried to straighten out the merge tags. Please go over yourself and weigh in.

I hope a few other WP Econ editors will go over there and leave a WP:!vote rationale on the matter. N2e (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Could a competent editor please complete the merge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject dead? Will someone competent please do this merger asap. There is already another draft article about this exact same topic submitted for review at AFC (See User:Mbarakad/sandbox/). We do not need any further discussion about this - in terms of the content fork rule a merge is compulsory, so please just do it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: There is some activity relating to this project, so I don't think its completely dead. Regarding WP:FORK, the way I read this rule is that its for external copies of articles. Rather than for duplication and overlap within wikipedia itself. Anyhow, thanks for drawing the issue to attention. I will look over the articles later today. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Labour economics

Good morning, can an economist review the changes made to the labour economics article from 22 March and 25 March. My suggestion for the article is:

1. Labour theory of value: concept and history

2. Neoclassical theory of labour and an explanation of why LTV is no longer used by economists

3. Information economics: expand this section with classic references on the field

4. Personnel economics: someone needs to check the old references

5. Criticisms

Morning. Here is the Labour economics diff March 22 -> March 26 for anyone who is interested. @Lbertolotti:'s article structure seems reasonable. It would probably be useful to discuss on the article's talk page to build consensus between editors.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice work! bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Economy of the Iroquois FAR

I have nominated Economy of the Iroquois for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

inflation

im not really clear on most economic matters, i hope that my concern will shed enough light on the issuues of unemployment particularly for graduates who obtain their degrees through bursaries, internships and learnerships. what happens when a substantial portion of these graduates's credit profile should they not find employment, and are unable to repay their student debts,. Does this in anyway have an effect on the economy, looking at the accumilating costs of their loans on a national scale.

163.195.192.174 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Student Debt may be considered in a persons Credit score. It does have an effect on the economy the precise effect may be hard to pin down. Before with the grant system the government paid student directly who paid the universities, and the monies was written off. Now the government pays the student debt company who pays the student who pays the universities, this monies is paid back to each institution in turn.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Default on student loans would not be inflationary because the nominal increase in money supply would be accompanied by a decrease in monetary velocity, which is what has been constraining inflation for a couple decades now. Please see also "Why American Workers Without Much Education Are Being Hammered". The Upshot. New York Times. April 21, 2015. EllenCT (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Energy deflation

Another factor to consider here is the potential of very rapidly falling costs of (solar) energy (see the graph captioned "Welcome to the Terrordome..." here) which is going to be so highly deflationary throughout the entire real and secondary economy that everything else will look tiny in comparison. I, for one, welcome the likely urgent scramble to spend several trillion dollars per year for two or three decades to have any hope of avoiding deflation. See also the rapidity with which communities are converting to solar and wind wholesale in the US. EllenCT (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

See also http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/T10YIE which is the most accurate predictor. EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Consumer economy

Should it be rated as High-importance or Mid-importance? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say high-importance, because all of the developed economies have been very steadily transitioning from producer to service economies for decades. Consumer spending is about 68% of the US economy, and less than five years ago topped 71% before subsequent adjustments associated with "re-shoring" manufacturing. I'm not sure it makes much difference, though. EllenCT (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There a guide to the importance scale here. Is a service economy always a consumer economy? The article is problematic because it doesn't clearly define what a consumer economy is and what it isn't. It should probably discuss economic growth more as well.Jonpatterns (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Islamic economic jurisprudence listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Islamic economic jurisprudence to be moved to Islamic economics. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Braess's paradox listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Braess's paradox to be moved to Braess' paradox. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NEM - New Economy Movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for NEM - New Economy Movement to be moved to NEM (cryptocurrency). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Jevons paradox GA reassessment

Jevons paradox, an economics article rated as 'Good Article' under the review of this project, is up for GA reassessment. Since this is a somewhat technical article, it would be great if an uninvolved Econ project member could review the Jevons paradox article, the GA criteria, and the reassessment page; and come to a determination to either keep or delist -- closing the discussion on the reassessment page. Much thanks, LK (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Undervalued Chinese currency

I would like to include some of the main ideas from [26], [27], and [28], for example, but I thought it might be best to ask for discussion here first. Where are the most reputable opposition viewpoints to the ideas promoted in those articles? EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Where would you like to incorporate those ideas? I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for the article on the renminbi, a small mention may be OK for the article on the Chinese economy, but discussion in the US economy would probably be overweight. Also, as much as I like Krugman and Bernstein, those ideas are not exactly consensus view. I guess what I'm trying to say is, context matters. Where would you put those ideas, and how would you express them? In any case, you should just be bold and do it, if there are disputes, you can always ask back here for more eyes. LK (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Romer Model

Dear economists: Here's an old AfC submission that is about to be deleted. There appear to be quite a few book references to this topic. If anyone who understands this wants to improve it, now would be the time.—Anne Delong (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Should this draft be fleshed out into its own article and released into main name space, or would it be better to merge contents into Endogenous growth theory, or none of the above?Jonpatterns (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good article

Draft:Protective Tariffs. What do you reckon? Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems ok for a start, maybe C class. It's OK to start the article, it can be improved later. LK (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and Weight Guideline

Any objections to changing Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight from a proposed guideline to an accepted guideline? It apparently has consensus as it's been there and stable for years. LK (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I would support promoting it to "guideline" status. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Greek government-debt crisis

Hi all,
Any economics editors with a taste for controversial current affairs would be welcome over at Greek government-debt crisis; it would benefit from more expert opinions. bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Current tasks sources

Why does the link to the sources for "Current Tasks" lead to an archive page? --Calton | Talk 15:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of sources at the archive. Not sure if they have been considered for the 'current task' articles yet, or not.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library donations

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of three recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Cairn, WP:World Bank and WP:Erudit. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of 18th century currency to modern currency

We have an article stating that 500,000 Spanish pieces of eight in 1735 translates to €140,000,000 by current standards... Is this exchange rate accurate? And for that matter, what would be the exchange rate of 500,000 pieces of eight in 1735 to current US dollars? Thank you. 24.50.236.140 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of factors to take into account. Why use 500,000 instead of one? ref 1 Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Economy of Somalia article

I've raised concerns over the neutrality of the Economy of Somalia article. I'd appreciate it if members of this project could look into the discussion and share their views (please see the article's recent editing history and Talk:Economy of Somalia#Cleanup for my concerns and the response from other editors). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Individual Titles of US Code

Articles about individual Titles related to economy, like Title 11 of the United States Code and Title 12 of the United States Code, are stubs. I welcome your help. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chinese stock market crash at WP:ITN/C

I nominated the article for ITN. But it has a couple days before the nomination is archived. Please comment there. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Measuring GDP

I'm not nearly expert enough to know if this article is any good, redundant to the main GDP article or a basket of OR, but it is pretty much unreferenced. I'll leave it with you. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The article is a mess but is probably a valid topic.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Information Age, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 03 August 2015. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by North America1000 23:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Should United States say anything about relative wealth of minority women?

Please see: Talk:United States#RFC on relative wealth of Americans. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with EU financial directive article?

Hi there, I'm looking for editors who are interested in European financial markets, and the laws governing them, to provide their input on the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive article. I've proposed some improvements to the article, but as yet haven't received any responses. Due to my financial conflict of interest—I'm working as a consultant for the Managed Funds Association—I won't make any direct edits to the article and am instead looking for uninvolved but knowledgeable editors to review my suggested additions to the article. If you'd be interested to help, let me know! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed merger of Cooperative Stock Market into Cooperative

The discussion for the proposed merger of the Cooperative Stock Market article into the Cooperative article is at Talk:Cooperative#Merge from Cooperative Stock Market. --Bejnar (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Cooperative Stock Market was subsequently proposed for deletion at Afd. The result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooperative Stock Market was to redirect Cooperative Stock Market to the Cooperative article. No text needed merging. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Book-to-bill ratio - new article

Dear economics experts: This article created last October hasn't yet been assessed. Is it about a notable topic? The references don't seem independent to me, but I am not knowledgeable in this area.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Thanks for the comment. The article seems to be about a notable term. I've added a further reference. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Onward and upward!—Anne Delong (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Referring to output of a region

Is it appropriate to refer to output of a region as GDP? I generally have not heard the term applied in that way and articles such as Economy of New York refer to output as "Gross state product". On the other hand, our article on GDP states the term is applicable to a region. I've never personally heard GDP used to refer to the output of a region, but I'm leaning towards thinking it's appropriate to do so. This has come up in relation to the merge of {{Infobox subnational economy}} into {{Infobox economy}}. ~ Rob^Talk 02:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in the title 'Gross Domestic Product', that suggests that it should be restricted to countries. Also, there are various reliable sources that refer to GDP of particular regions (the EU for example), and the GDP of US states (see List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP), so I would say it's absolutely fine to do so. LK (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article - British statistician Roger Thatcher

I've created a new article on the British statistician Roger Thatcher.

Additional input for further research collaboration and secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Roger Thatcher.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

Hello Folks,

I think there is something wrong with this page. The European Union has the number 2 position with $2,173 billion, following no. 1 China with $2,210 billion. However, if you combine for example Germany, France and the U.K. this already counts up to more than China's number.

Max

The reason is that exports from Germany include exports to France, while exports of EU doesn't include intra-EU trade. i.e. individual EU countries' exports include exports to other EU countries, whereas exports from EU only include export from EU countries to non-EU countries. LK (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxi industry, and competition in and across that industry

I could not find any article on the Taxi industry, or Taxicab industry; both are redlinks. And doing a search for related articles found nothing of substance.

The new ride-sharing companies and their drivers are clearly affecting competition in that industry, by providing substitutes, actually very close substitutes. I did add a section on Competition to the Uber (company) article, as a recent Wall Street Journal article took a somewhat long-form look at what is happening there.

My question to others in this project: where on Wikipedia should a) the industry in general, and b) competition within and across the industry in particular, be addressed? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Liquidity Preference edit needed with regard to interest rate effects on bond prices

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_preference

Article mentions that bond prices decrease as a result of decreasing interest rates. However bond prices increase with a decrease in interest rates. If interest rates were to fall, prices of bonds would increase, which would decrease Yield-To_Maturity In current form, article states that bond prices fall, which also decreases Yield-To-Maturity. This is incorrect as Yield-To-Maturity is decreasing with the bond price. Can someone with more expertise on Keynes either edit this to state that bond prices will increase with a fall in the interest rate, or insert a footnote describing the error.

Error speculative motive: people retain liquidity to speculate that bond prices will fall. When the interest rate decreases people demand more money to hold until the interest rate increases, which would drive down the price of an existing bond to keep its yield in line with the interest rate. Thus, the lower the interest rate, the more money demanded (and vice versa). the more money demanded (and vice versa)."

Suggested Fix speculative motive: people retain liquidity to speculate that bond prices will rise. When the interest rate decreases demand for bonds increase as bonds would offer a comparatively higher return. Existing bond prices would increase, resulting in a lower Yield-To-Maturity until equilibrium is restored. Thus, the lower the interest rate, the more money demanded (and vice versa).

Please note; my background is mainly in Finance, and someone with a greater Economics background would be better suited to making an edit to the article

Jarryd Johnson (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Keynesian economics article is in poor shape

The article on Keynesian economics is in poor shape, and frankly, an embarrassment to the Econ wiki project. I'll try to work on it over the next weeks, and I'll like to invite others here to work on it as well. Let's see if we can take it to GA status. Thanks in advance, LK (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Was the USSR socialist?

At Socialism there are few active editors participating. Several have asserted that the USSR was not a socialist nation, that it was at most "nominally" socialist. Since it is a High importance Economics Project article I was wondering if there are any thoughts here about the issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Government revenue/expenses and deficit

If anyone is interested, I've just noticed that the article on the UK's economy has had its data on revenue, expenses and public deficit updated for the 2015/16 financial year based on a budget from July 2015. See Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom#Update to deficit, expenses and revenue. I would appreciate some help, as I'm not an expert on the reliability of budgets. Jolly Ω Janner 17:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Expert needed at industry

I've asked for expert advice at the article industry. I'm proposing to split it and input/support/help would be more than welcome. Thanks, --S.K. (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

List of wealthiest families

I just started List of wealthiest families and could use a bit of help finding non-American families for the list. Many thanks for any help you can offer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International education funding maps

The amount of bilateral and multilateral aid contributed or received by Djibouti

Hi All

UNESCO (where I currently work) has released 120 maps of international education funding which you can find on Commons here.

They have also released a lot of other content which may be useful, I created a set of pages on Meta to help people navigate it.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of European countries by average wage

List of European countries by average wage is a mess.

There was at some point a complete and accurate list of average wages in each country but due to repeated edits by unregistered users, it is filled with random information - there is too much there for me to check and I don't know which version is correct. I suggest either closing the page or returning it to its original state (which would take a fair bit of work) and completely locking it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Citation styles for Economics related articles ?

I am not an economist but I have recently become involved with the Category:Microeconomics article Money Pump. I am trying to cleanup/help the article a bit, including fixing some MOS issues. The article is just a baby right now and had no clear citation style to start with. I converted the URL refs to inline cite tags but I am wondering if there is a community consensus for a preferred citation style that is used in most Economics articles? Would members of this WikiProject please visit the Talk page for the article and make suggestions on this matter under Talk:Money pump#Cleanup discussion? Thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a standard reference style for Economic article, so probably revert to your own preference if you are doing most of the work on the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorporating economists' comments on Economics articles

Hello everyone,

I am new to WikiProject Economics. I have been working on a research project with colleagues at Michigan, Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh to involve economists to comment on economics articles in their area of expertise. We have curated a number of comments and plan to launch the project at a larger scale. We plan to post their comments on the article talk page. How can we get Wikipedians or participants of this WikiProject to incorporate their comments into the articles?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

YanChen (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YanChen (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Anyone who creates an account can post comments on article talk pages. If you want responses to those comments from economists from this wikiproject, then post here, asking for comments on a particular article. LK (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think these comments by YanChen and LK are talking past each other. The goal of the Economists' Initiative is to encourage academic economists to review and comment on Wikipedia articles in their areas of expertise, without necessarily incurring the costs of becoming registered Wikipedia editors and mastering Wikipedia syntax and policy. The project is designed to allow Wikipedia to benefit from their domain expertise while lowering barriers to entry. To do so, the Economists' Initiative uses algorithms to match Wikipedia pages to peer-reviewed articles that the economists have written, reaches out to them by email to ask them to comment on the Wikipedia article and uses an approved bot to post the economists' comments on the relevant article's talk page. As of March 3rd, 2016 roughly 40 economists listed at [[29]] on the WikiProject_Economics have offered suggestions about how to improve Wikipedia articles in their domains.

We're trying to understand the best way to help Wikipedia take advantage of the domain expertise of these PhD economists. Would the best approach be to post the economists' comments on a relevant page under WikiProject_Economics as well as to an article's talk page, as LK suggests? Are other solutions possible? For example, it might be possible to partner with WikiEd to encourage students in economics courses to translate the economists' suggestions into content written on Wikipedia articles. Perhaps members of WikiProject_Economics might want to act as mentors or translators for these non-Wikipedian economists. Are their ways to encourage the economists to do their own editing?

We welcome suggestions from members of WikiProject_Economics.

Robertekraut (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I just had a look at a few of the pages, and would like to point out a couple things. The examples I will use are Economic freedom, Meta-analysis, Support vector machine, and Population ageing.

First, I want to criticize the comments themselves. In all four cases (five commentors), the comments are very short, about three lines. In Meta-analysis and Support vector machines, there are no sources mentioned, except a note that the commentor has published in this area and a citation for that publication. The comments look like editor or referee reviews for a journal submission. In most cases, something like this would (and often by wikipedia etiquette will) receive a reply such as: "so you fix it"; but in these four cases I don't see that reply - possibly because the posts were made by a bot. Better comments would focus more on changing particular aspects of the article. Also, better comments could be incorporated into the article without the editor incorporating them having to read a bunch of literature.

Second, I want to mention that these are great reviews and could be very valuable for wikipedia. In all four cases there has been little or no significant edits (increasing size by more than, say, 200 bites) to the pages by registered wikipedians since May 2015 when the first of these comments were posted. An minor exception is in Meta-analysis which has seen some action by an editor that has mostly only posted to that page (which can be great!). In part, the lack of changes to these pages is because wikipedia can change very slowly. There are not a lot of active editors in economics and there is lots of room for improvement (I think there are only two or three active editors at this project and I am not one of them). I don't see evidence that the lack of change to these pages is because there is disagreement. Rather, it is because people watching those pages are mostly just watching to revert poor edits and there is no one to make the improvements suggested (or make any improvements). In my mind, it is too bad the reviewers don't want to jump in and improve the pages themselves, and it would be great if they suggested to one of their undergraduates making such changes described (for extra credit, perhaps).

Third, I want to make a note about the Meta-analysis reviews. Two reviews are contributed and these are less constructive than the reviews to the other three. That said, Economic freedom and Support vector machine are already described as "B class" articles, that is the wikipedia community already agrees with the commentors that the articles are pretty good. However, the reviewers to Meta-analysis are roughly correct in their criticisms; in my opinion, that article should at least have a number of citation needed and npov tags in it and should probably be overhauled. Its length is not a marker of its quality. But that is what happens when anybody can edit, ie. this is a feature not a bug. This is why non-mainstream writings or even conspiracy theories are mentioned on otherwise high quality and/or high importance articles. I certainly wish the improvements suggested would be made, but if they were the article would eventually creep towards including more non-mainstream work.

Forth, listing the comments here (or elsewhere) so that wikipedians not following those pages in particular can see them is great. Thank you!

Finally, and I apologize for the long comment, I'd like to make a suggestion based on my first point. Comments would be more useful if they requested less of editors. It wold be great if, for instance, the outside party copied the text of an article into a word processor of their choice and edited or commented on it with track changes, and then sent that to an interested wikipedian. I don't know it this is possible for existing comments, but in the future, I'd be happy to implement changes suggested in this way - since it wouldn't require additional research on my part. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the helpful comments, smmurphy. The last point (starting "Finally") is especially helpful. We will incorporate your suggestions into our instructions for those who choose to review and comment. I am wondering how we might find interested wikipedians and email them these comments. We can't email all of them to you. YanChen (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Bringing it here is a good place to start. If a topic touches on other wikiprojects you can ask there. There is a wikiproject dedicated to classroom wikipedia involvement, but I'm not sure that quite fits your effort. I've never used the village pump or the signpost, so I don't know if something like this fits there. Finding volunteers to do anything is hard and is not something I know how to do. I'm not sure what other volunteers you might find; wikipedia's volunteers generally are editing the articles they want to edit. The fact that these comments haven't gotten much traction suggests to me there just aren't many volunteers editing in those areas right now. It is really too bad if the people you are working with don't want to get more involved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Effects of inequality and finance industry size on growth, tuition subsidy, and typical middle class expenses

I have been skeptical that the editing on income inequality and economic growth over the past few years has been improving their quality, and I believe the issue is related to the attraction that austerity still holds for many unaware of the rearing head of deflation brought about by persistent energy sector cost trends. The large size of the finance industry is inhibiting growth[30][31] Higher education seems to be involved with capture of finance, because tuition has been matching increases in both public grants and debt subsidies.[32][33] Please refer to [34] for context on the importance of these sectors.

I would like other editors' comments on those sources, and Krugman's recent column on Canada, for that matter. EllenCT (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Extreme wealth navbox

I've redesigned it and wish to see it in the mainspace. Please consider commenting at User talk:Robsinden#Navbox Extreme wealth with your views on how it may best be organized. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Paul Singer

Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Marx's Law of accumulation

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of accumulation on what to do with this article due to the overlap with Capital accumulation. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RePEc integration

Recently I (successfully) requested the addition of RePEc Short-ID (for authors) and RePEc Series handle (for journals) as authority control to Wikidata. This means that articles on Wikipedia for economists and for economics journals can be associated with their RePEc identifiers and link back to IDEAS and EconPapers respectively. Ideally, the RePEc Series handle could be added to the `Indexing' section of the Journal infobox. RePEc is an excellent resource and I'm sure there are a ton of other ways it could be integrated with Wikipedia. I'd be interested to hear other people's ideas.--ChrisSampson87 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisSampson87: does the citoid service (e.g. [35]) automatically fill that out? @Salix alba: do you know who to ask? EllenCT (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Economic stagnation

There are two issues in need of comments: 1) should the US content be split off and 2) is the term secular stagnation the same as economic stagnation, and if so should the article be renamed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

1) Instead of the whole article being only about the U.S., there should instead be a U.S. section. 2) No, "secular stagnation" is one theory of economic stagnation which is always expounded after every recession and has never been correct. However, this time may be different. The references supporting statements about secular stagnation currently in the article have obvious strong conflict of interest issues rendering them extremely unreliable.

The article is not currently based on reliable sources, and is so misleading as to be worthy of deletion unless someone has time to base it on reliable reviews such as [36] ("In all the theories reviewed above, technological progress drives structural change, but it is frequently the demand side that is crucial for determining which industries grow faster than others and which shrink, and it therefore shapes the direction of structural change.") and [37] for international perspectives, and [38] for balance on the reliability of the secular stagnation hypothesis. EllenCT (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

add a link the "see also" section of Leading Economic Indicators?

How about putting a link to the Baltic Dry Index in the 'see also' section of the Leading Economic Indicators article??? ---- jj 5/11/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.37.247 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me. EllenCT (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

A new type of economic organization? (and article improvement help requested)

I've been observing for several months now the area of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) in general, enabled by smart contract capability of second-generation blockchain databases. These are at an intersection of two areas I've been interested in for years: digital technology and economics.

Today may be some sort of tipping point, with several major media outlets now covering the emergence of a particular DAO (called The DAO) for the first time (Fortune, Wall Street Journal, etc. articles published yesterday/today; all are cited in that article). The entity is notable for a few reasons.

1. it has raised over US$100 million in a crowdfunding effort in the past 2+ weeks.
2. it does seem to me, and to some others now as a " something entirely new. It’s something between a traditional corporation, a VC fund, and a Kickstarter — only entirely decentralized, democratic, and existing only in code. Because of this, the DAO is a paradigm shift in the very idea of economic organization. It offers complete transparency, total shareholder control, unprecedented flexibility, and autonomous governance." (quotation in one of the media pieces today, now cited in the article on "The DAO")

In other words, DAOs in general, and The DAO in particular, seem to be important to economics in general and the field of Industrial organization in particular.

I'm hoping some other econ-interested editors will take a look at the space in Wikipedia and help improve articles. Two specific initial requests:

1. The DAO (organization) needs some additional eyes, and copyediting by serious editors other than me.
2. The article on Decentralized autonomous organization is currently a mess. Lots of it was deleted in recent weeks (I deleted some of the unsourced material myself; but the article then got rather massively cut by others until it is now makes no sense at all), and there is a, shall we say, "active" dialogue going on on the Talk page by some questioning whether the term "decentralized autonomous organization" is even a valid term. If others would pop over and provide more opinions, or improvement to the article, that would be most helpful.

In short, it seems to me that we have the early/incipient emergence of a new/different type of organization, but now (this month) that is in practice and execution, not just in theory which, for DAOs, goes back several years in the scholarly literature. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A way to approach systemic supply side bias on Wikipedia

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

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. ~ Rob^Talk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Recovery participation rate

How should [39] be characterized? How should [40]? Please see Talk:Economic stagnation#Recovery participation rate. EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Group of Seven (G7)

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

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

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, [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Also, I suggest better policing of the economist BLPs category. LK (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

New sources on college subsidy

(A) "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[50]

(B) "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[51]

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

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.

Thanks

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

Kazaro's talk page concern

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)

Money creation article

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)

Please add a "RECENTICITY" table for starters in economics.

• 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. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyperinflation article 99% wrong.

{{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?

89.115.121.112 (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. 89.115.121.112 (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? 70.27.152.243 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

GDP forecasting

I would like other editors' comments on the graphs at [52]. 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. 70.27.152.243 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Add a link to World Basic Income's website

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 www.worldbasicincome.org.uk

Please could a link to this website be added?

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

Deflation article

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 192.55.55.41"

192.55.54.36 (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Irresponsible reversal of edits on economic topics

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protectionism&type=revision&diff=740276223&oldid=739941833 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflation&type=revision&diff=738850160&oldid=738647591

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.

134.134.139.76 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Indian cities by GDP per capita

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)

Protectionism

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)

Done. Good call. -- econterms (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Indian banknote 'demonetisation'

This page needs some input from editors with knowledge of the subject. The page has been moved about 4 times and is now at the rather ridiculous:

The 8th November 2016 Indian delegalization of 500 and 1000 rupee notes issued till that date

The move 'discussion' is at:
'Talk:The 8th November 2016 Indian delegalization of 500 and 1000 rupee notes issued till that date#Change title. Change demonetisation to delegalization' 220 of ^Borg 04:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ExpertIdeas subpage

An ExpertIdeas group member has expressed interest in updating their list of edit requests. As the list now numbers in the thousands, I've created a subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/ExpertIdeas, for that purpose, and added a link to the subpage in the edit requests subsection of the project page. I think this is better than having the list on the main project page. I hope that sounds ok to everyone. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Economics/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary source added to article Great Depression

Please see discussion section at Talk:Great_Depression#Primary_source_added_to_this_article_-_Joseph_Stalin. Sagecandor (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A recent Forbes article

A recent Forbes article stated that the Indian economy surpassed that of the UK. However, Forbes used an unconventional method to arrive at this conclusion - they took the recent 20% slump in the value of the pound, and used that exchange rate for the entire 2016 GDP of the UK. Needless to say, this method of calculating GDP is completely wrong; the IMF and World Bank (etc.) take average monthly exchange rates. However, over at the Economy of the United Kingdom, Economy of France and Economy of India articles, many (uninformed) editors are taking the Forbes article as gospel. This is bad practice and I think it better we stick to official figures as provided by the IMF, where the methodology is proper. It would be nice if other editors here could help me keep an eye on those articles. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Separation of investment and retail banking

There's a Cfd to delete a related category, so I threw together a skeleton article on the Separation of investment and retail banking by recycling the ledes of some related articles. I'm no expert on the area, but this is a very topical subject and an important one. We've got quite good coverage of Glass-Steagall etc in other articles, my aim was to try and push this article towards a more global overview - any Europe and Asia experts are more than welcome to contribute! Also this project might be able to contribute more on the theory of the pros and cons of separation. Le Deluge (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about economics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Need article

We need an article Monetary policy credibility. Right now all we seem to have is a single paragraph in Dynamic inconsistency#Stylized examples. Loraof (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

100s of economy related graphics being made available on Commons from the UNESCO Science Report

Dear all

I'm currently uploading a few 100 graphics from the UNESCO Science Report to Wikimedia Commons here, many are related to economics. Please do keep checking back to the category as I continue to upload images over the coming weeks. Here are a small selection, almost all are .svg files to allow best quality, adaptation and translation.

• 
  GDP per capita, GDP growth and public section deficit in the USA, 2006 - 2015
• 
  Gross domestic expenditure on research and development financed by government as a share of GDP 2005 - 2013
• 
  Mutually reinforcing effect of strong government investment in R&D and researchers, 2010–2011
• 
  Proportional allocation of federal R&D spending in the USA by discipline, 1994–2011
• 
  Scientific specialization in large emerging economies
• 
  World shares of GDP, GERD, researchers and publications for the G20, 2009 and 2013

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Grey market, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Latin American economy

Would someone mind taking a look at Latin American economy and assessing it? It's a newly created article by a member of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northeastern University/Advanced Writing in the Technical Professions--ONLINE (Spring 2017). It did not go through WP:AfC, so it has not really been reviewed yet. Personally, the first part seems fine, but I do have a few concerns about the second part per WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL. I am also wondering whether the page should be renamed to Economy of Latin America since that appears to be the preferred naming per Economy of South America, Economy of North America, Economy of Europe, Economy of Asia, etc. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide distribution as redirect for discussion

The redirect page "Worldwide distribution", currently retargeted to "Film", is tagged as RfD. I invite you to the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Unicorn Bubble

Unicorn Bubble is a new article created by a student participating in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northeastern University/Advanced Writing in the Technical Professions--ONLINE (Spring 2017). Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at it and assessing it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Massive deletions of free-market think tank sources

WP:REFSPAM campaign underway that should be brought to the Econ Project's attention. The initial scope looks reasonable but seems to have broadened to a general blacklist of free-market think tanks. While not always optimal, sometimes we need to reference partisan sites to best represent and source significant opinions on a topic as described in WP:BIASED. Here is the Administrative Noticeboard discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 17:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This campaign also resulted in the removal of Marginal Revolution and Marginal University links. See User_talk:JzG#Problematic_mass_alleged_REFSPAM_removals and User_talk:JzG#Removal_of_sources_as_not_complying_with_RS. I'm didn't find the response I got there very satisfying, but I don't know if other editors have something to add. jhawkinson (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably time to escalate this to an RFC or something, before further damage is caused. We don't want to set a precedent that it's okay to add libertarian think tanks to the spam blacklist willy-nilly like this. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not 'willy-nilly', one of the accounts spamming this got blocked after a rather unilateral AN/I suggesting the block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Escalation failed, anyhow. Oh well! Maybe it's time to just abandon the field of economics on Wikipedia, and leave it to be the Keynesians' fiefdom. Wikipedia is a Google-sponsored project, so of course it's going to lean leftist, and not want to host links to libertarian sites. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on whether econlib.org blacklisting is appropriate

@Morphh and Jhawkinson: There is now a discussion underway on whether econlib.org blacklisting is appropriate, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org Jonpatterns (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So did the pushback on that accomplish anything? It doesn't look as though User:JzG was persuaded by the many people who expressed concerns. Are we really talking massive deletions, though, or a number closer to 50? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has picked up so maybe something will be decided, not to sure on the processes involved. I would say 50 is a significant number, depending on the actual edits - some appear to be justified. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about sites like openborders.info getting added to the blacklist. Does this mean that if I want to get, say, pfaw.org or americanprogress.org blacklisted, all I have to do is start spamming their links everywhere and then announce I was a paid editor? Sounds like a pretty good way to provoke a prohibition on linking to sites with a given viewpoint, which will then apply to editors who had no involvement in the original spamming. And apparently all we have to do, to make this happen, is get one sysop to go along with it! N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick poll on white-listing part of econlib

Poll on white-listing part of econlib, see Quick poll. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

GDP for countries

Which numbers should be quoted in infoboxes for countries:

• last year
• current year estimate ? Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xx236:Either would be good. Last year's would be more accurate, and potentially better for comparisons. Did you have any particular countries in mind? Jonpatterns (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I believ taht I was interested in Russia, but I don't remeber now. I believ ethat every country should contain similar data in the infobox, more data may be quoted in Economy section.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

DRV on Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids

See here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an index fund of ideas?

Here's an essay I wrote, Wikipedia:In the marketplace of ideas, Wikipedia is an index fund. I'd be interested in your thoughts. St. claires fire (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pay grade

Would someone mind taking a look at Pay grade? This seems like something more suitable Wikitionary per WP:NAD than an encyclopedic article, and it's also unsourced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest AfD for it. Hardly any content, uncited, and not looking likely to expand. LK (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be merged with wage or salary. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on the page history, this was once a reasonable article which was forked, leaving a disambiguation page. My opinion is that it is find as a dab, and could perhaps be more formally turned into a dab. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The history shows the article used to include a table of wages. Not sure if it was used for another article. I support turning it into a disambiguation page.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 2#OR and UNDUE and BLUDGEONING which editors might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Economics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Economics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Leisure, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Poverty in the United Kingdom

There is a discussion at Talk:Poverty in the United Kingdom#UNDUE section that editors here might be interested in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Consumer theory has been nominated for discussion

Category:Consumer theory has been nominated for possible renaming to Category:Consumer choice (microeconomics). The nomination is related to a very old article move from Consumer theory to Consumer choice. As we often harmonize article names and category names, a possible alternative outcome of the discussion could be that the old page move should be reverted. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gross state product

The article Gross state product has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The usage of the term gross state product has been discontinued in favor of gross domestic product by state.^[1][2] At this point, there is no value in making a distinction from gross regional domestic product.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joel Amos (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Protectionism

Eyes needed on Protectionism. Some very iffy edits have been made there. In short, there is major obscuring of the near universal opposition to protectionism among economists. LK (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at Economic sociology

Hello, Economic sociology has been repeatedly edited in recent months to re-add information about minor research groups and a personal website, but these edits lack independent sources to show their significance (imo). Please see the article's history and talkpage for more information. It would be great, if uninvolved editors could take a look at the dispute and offer additional opinions and advice - I have started a thread to summarize my concerns at Talk:Economic sociology. Thanks in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this guy has also incessantly spammed other websites with links to his website, as well. Not much to say, though--he's very persistent and I've never seen him respond to negative feedback. WeakTrain (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bowed Outward Production Possibility Frontier

What are the ways by which I could able to provide more information to write article for this particular title?The three PPF curves must be given more priority according to Economics point of view.Abishe (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubts related to Opportunity cost concept

If a particular product has no alternative uses,definitely opportunity cost becomes zero.Then does a railway track bears an opportunity cost?Does the railway track has alternative uses?Or if I suggest an idea that people sometimes use the railway track for walking or for any other purposes.Is this statement of mine makes it to be practical in modern world?On the other hand,if resources don't have alternative uses do we call them as Single factor resources?Abishe (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

FRASER links being added to External links sections of multiple articles

User:FRASER Jake has joined Wikipedia with the avowed goal of adding FRASER links to articles. While FRASER is undoubtedly a valuable resource, I'm wondering if this sweep of added links runs afoul of our External Links policies. I know there was a fracas about links added to sources at Library of Economics and Liberty. I've asked the user to justify what they are doing in light of the WP:LINKSPAM policy. At this point, it looks like only something like 30 pages have been affected. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

FRASER is, by contrast, a nonpartisan agency, so it seems a little different than the issue with Econlib, but no reason not to pay it some heed! WeakTrain (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Econlib and Concise Encyclopedia of Economics blacklist

An admin has made the website EconLib a blacklisted source. This prevents us from linking to articles on the freely available Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. I have found the CEE to be a great resource. It includes articles from great economists across the ideological spectrum. The ban is supposedly related to an issue of editors spam-linking to the site, but the admin has been removing non-spam usage of the site as well and the site is now blacklisted. Please weigh in on the request to remove EconLib from the blacklist: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bkwillwm:

Update on Econlib. The following have been whitelisted and can now be used, urls starting with:

1. econlib.org/library/Enc/
2. econlib.org/library/Enc1/
3. econlib.org/library/CEETitles.html
4. econlib.org/library/CEEBiographies.html

As detailed on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Whitelist_articles_on_Concise_Encyclopedia_of_Economics_.28CEE.29 Jonpatterns (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Intermediate good, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Jevons paradox

The discussion here might be of interest to members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Is working with wikipedia considered as working age population if a particular user's age is even less than 15 years?

Are Wikipedian users even under age of 15 classified according to working or non-working age population?Are the Wikipedians economically motivated?I am asking this in the Economics point of viewAbishe (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find your question incoherent. A) Wikipedians are unpaid volunteers, their efforts on Wikipedia are not a job in any normal sense, more like a hobby or avocation. B) I don't believe Wikipedia has any information about the ages of its contributors. It does not collect it when a person first signs up, and many editors never sign up but edit anonymously. C) What flavor of "economics" are you using when asking if Wikipedians are economically motivated? Whatever their motivations are, they are clearly non-monetary motivations. But Wikipedia has only a little information on what motivates its volunteers, from conducting formal or informal surveys of its users. D) working-age population is a concept that applies to the general population of a region; exactly what age range is considered "working age" may vary somewhat from one place to another and there are always exceptions of very young people (think of babies and small children who "act" in films or television shows) and very old people who continue to work, despite what's considered standard retirement age. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Under fifteens working on Wikipedia are adding to the digital commons, it could be consider a form of voluntary child labour.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Which, if I understand the definitions correctly, are not considered as part of the work force. LK (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Was hoping to find some collaboraters here! Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusion over whether capital good may be considered to be an investment good

Are Investment goods completely different from  capital good ?

I noticed that there are 2 different articles but almost with the same meaning.Investment goods are also known as capital goods according to Economics point of view.Investment goods are the goods that are used to produce other goods and capital is the man made resource. We all know investment means investing money in bank,putting money in savings deposit,current deposit,fixed deposit,treasury bill and bonds,purchasing shares,acquiring fixed assets.But probably we aren't considering investment is a production process of producing capital goods/investment goods. Abishe (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Progressive Utilization Theory

Could someone take a look at this page? An editor keeps removing the well-sourced "Criticism" section under the rationale that it is "non-factual" and "defamatory". --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Economics journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Empirical studies and the claim that tax cuts from current-day tax rates would increase tax revenues

An RfC is being held due to a slow motion edit war on Laffer curve. The question is whether the lead should state that 'empirical studies generally reject the the claim that that tax cuts from current-day tax rates would increase tax revenues'. Please comment here. Thanks, LK (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Martin A. Armstrong with his theory, the 'Economic Confidence Model'

Please comment on a merger proposal for Martin A. Armstrong with Economic Confidence Model. If you are interested, please participate at the merger discussion. Thanks. Ratel (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Karl Marx

Should the categories Ashkenazi Jews, German people of Jewish descent, Jewish atheists, Jewish philosophers, Jewish socialists, Jewish sociologists be added to this article?Talk:Karl_Marx#RfC RolandR (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Backus-Smith Puzzle contains claims by individual with citation from individual's personal website

After the main section describing the puzzle and those who it is named after, this appears in "controversy."

"Robert Kollmann from ECARES claims to have obtained Backus–Smith conditions two years before the publication of the Backus and Smith article in his PhD dissertation in 1991 at University of Chicago."

The source for this "controversy" is robertkollmann.com, the personal website of Robert Kollmann himself. This seems like a personal stunt without real substantiation.

166.123.216.46 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)A.C.L

Vandal (sockmaster and sockpuppets) has been introducing pro-mercantilist text to various econ pages

Can someone help cleaning up this editor's[53] edits? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Money creation

A longtime single purpose account with some strong POVs about monetary economics is now repeatedly changing the title of this article from Money creation to Money creation and destruction. This does not follow common usage or academic terminology and suggests some kind of equivalence between "creation", which results from purposeful voluntary actions and "destruction" which occurs as the result of complex market and institutional factors. I undid the change once, but he is edit-warring and more eyes are needed on this page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that dude has been around for like 8 years now or something. I thought he was banned cuz he stopped for awhile. But I think he just jumped to more obscure articles. Now he's back. Volunteer Marek  19:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude kinda reminds me of Sir Winston Churchill: “Never give in, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in." SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Price ceiling, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Economics

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 15:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Shortages in Venezuela

I was wondering if someone could take a look at the shortages in Venezuela article and provide ratings on the talk page. Any other edits on the article would be appreciated as well. Thank you!--ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)