Talk:Abnormal profit

suggest a merge

I suggest a merge with profit, as "supernatural profit" or "abnormal profit" are just other words for economic profit (or at least almost the same). Marc K 23:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on profit should of course be the main article also on profits in general, also including abnormal profits. The term abnormal profit needs however its own entry, as in any economic dictionary, since it is significantly different from a normal profit. --- Arnejohs 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but not from economic profit. But I concur :-) Marc K 15:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Marc K stating that abnormal profit is just another word for profit. On the contrary: By profit we normally refer to "normal profit", a situation where the opportunity cost of input factors, including own labour and capital, equals the profit. The "abnormal profit" on the other hand, exceeds the opportunity costs of input factors and reflects some kind of market failure making this possible. The different properties of the active market failure characterise the type of abnormal profit. I think this article should be extended rather than deleted. Absolutely. --Arnejohs 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored this article. The 2006/7 debate about merger and the decision to close the article appears to have been incomplete, with voices in favour of its retention, the term 'abnormal profit' is still in use and there is still a need for the article. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Article name change?

The problem is that in the article, "abnormal" profit is equated to "economic profit". Either that is

• wrong, in which case the equation of abnormal profits to profit should be deleted OR
• right.

If it is the latter, the article might be renamed (say, "Profit (economics)) to reflect standard usage in economic theory, which refers to "economic profit" or "pure profit" or simply "profit". "Abnormal" is, well, abnormal usage for economic profit, a suggestive gloss, rather than standard usage. This article is an Econ.-Finance stub. So, it makes sense to reflect standard or most common usage in those subjects. There does need to be a distinction between accounting profit and economic profit. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. BUT: The article is equated to economic rent and should ideally be merged with this article. The term abnormal profit is however usually used in another context, which makes it a little bit more tricky. I am not sure what should be done. But it is definitely distinctly different from economic profit, which is equal to normal profit. ---Arnejohs 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is not standard economics usage as to equating rent and profit. Hoary but standard factors of production in theory are land (economics), labor (economics), and capital (economics) with (pure economic) rent = income to land.* I sympathize with you, but 2 wrongs don't make a right as to merger. Just as you say in the last sentence, "normal profit" is a not uncommon gloss of zero (economic) profit in a competitive industry (as also indexed in New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, p. 1013 and at v.1, p. 768.) "Abnormal profit" ia just not common usage in economics (not in the latter, and otherwise quite ambiguous). Without a citation, that's an argument for deleting the article. One alternative would simply acknowlege in the article in the article that it not a well-defined term and clean up the mistakes. Comments?

* Income to labor including wages, and return to capital in relatively risk-free form including interest, etc. (minor edit)--Thomasmeeks 18:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, not standard as you say, but real enough nevertheless. Abnormal profit is related to the existence of market failures, without such a normal profit would occur. Some market failures could be establish by altering the market conditions, some are consequences of technical properties (like natural monopoles) and some derives from lack of ownership. In the production of fish catch for examples, the cost of producing the fishing effort is real enough, also the opportunity costs of labour and capital, while the price of using the biological resource usually is zero, in spite of these being scarce. Therefore profit maximisation yields more than what is needed to cover the costs, including the opportunity costs. So, an abnormal profit coexist with the normal profit, the first being the resource rent. If the abnormal profit derives from nature it is resource rent, from the properties of other production factors than nature, it may be labelled intra marginal rent or even differential rent (the Ricarian differential rent is really resource rent) and from market power monopoly rent. I don't see that we have other terms covering the same. But I agree that this is not a very dominant issue in current economic research, except the resource economics outside environmental economics. ---Arnejohs 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, below the Edit window is this: Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. I agree that the above might be a good distinction. But unless there is a standard usage of 'abnormal profits' ascertainable from reliable sources, that makes the article a candidate for deletion. Or else article title name should change. Any thoughts on that? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)