Talk:Beckstrom's law

Not a law

This "law" is utter nonsense and totally useless, no economist in his right mind would ever propose such a silly abstraction, let alone defend it or even promote (!) it. With all respect for people positing laws named after themselves, there should at least be a hint to this fact in the article. In fact, I would appreciate if this article be dropped from Wikipedia completely. Mbaer3000 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean ... it is twaddle dressed up with equations (but isn't a lot of economics like that!?). I haven't read the referenced paper, but the concept probably has some sound basis (without the phoney math), but "law" is clearly hyperbole (although I expect the reader is expected to understand that, for example, Moore's law is not a "law" in any normal usage of that term, and I guess these other laws are named in a joking fashion in the same way). At any rate, to get this deleted as you seem to suggest, you would need to argue that the concept is not notable, that is, it is not discussed by secondary sources. I haven't done any searching, but if the law is discussed in a variety of places, it probably is notable and would be kept. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its about the ADDED value of trnsactions

Not the NET value. Please see this presentation for the right definition: http://www.slideshare.net/RodBeckstrom/economics-of-networks-beckstrom-national-cybersecurity-center-department-of-homeland-security — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.50.120 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]