Talk:Economic problem

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic problem article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Falsifiable?

Is the economic problem ("finite natural resources and human capital are insufficient to satisfy infinite human wants") falsifiable? It seems that by prefixing "finite" or "infinite" in front of each of these three terms, it's possible to make 8 different variations of the "economic problem," but it's not clear which of these is correct, or testable. As far as I can tell, "human wants" in the context of this theory seems to refer to "consumption of goods and services" [1], so asserting that "human wants are infinite" is equivalent to an assertion that people are consumption-limited. So while this theory may apply to most people and allow descriptive models, it's normative. I'm basically searching for a substantive discussion of whether the economic problem is falsifiable, but I don't know the subject well enough to figure out where to look. - Connelly (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be "stubised"

This needs to be "stubised" and the english cleared up, also it could do with renaming! --JDnCoke 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC) - Done[reply]

four reasons wrong

The article says:

There are four reasons why wants and needs may exceed production possibilities:

  1. Goods eventually wear out and need to be replaced.
  2. New or improved products become available.
  3. People get fed up with what they already own.
  4. As wages increase, demand increases."

None of these seem appropriate here. 1) and 2) merely restate that people want things, and that wanting things is why they have to be produced. 3) does the same but with a slightly disparaging inference. 4) is pure tautology, either wages increase (absolute) which cannot lead to a demand increase, or wages increase (real) which is neccesarily the case with demand increase as they are equal and opposite sides of the same thing. The second section on finite resources and commodities said too little to be of any use. Re-wrote article to give more concise definition and added the stub tag.

Article defaced

Somebody has interfered with the text (e.g. 'Jesus and friends') 81.144.199.142 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously A Mess ...

May need to be merged into something else. ATM there's an implicit conflation of the Fundamental Economic problem with what would probably be titled Socialist calculation. Lycurgus (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be merged with socialist calculation: socialist calculation only deals with questions of efficiency, scarcity is much more general and makes perfect sense using even Marxist economic theory, while socialist calculation does not. Walras101 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Relevance

"The Economic Problem" is not a term used in the literature; it is a very common CONCEPT in economics but it is not a term as such and could be confusing to the uninitiated. Perhaps it should be merged with the article on scarcity but first eliminate any implication that the word itself is a term in usage. If someone can find an example of the term used in this way in mainstream literature I'll back off, but if not the article should be removed. If it appears this way heterodox literature fine but than it should be made clear it is term only in specific circles. Unless these problems are somehow dealt with I'm going to delete the article because as it stands the article is actively harmful to the readers lexicon. Walras101 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the term often. It is commonly used in intro textbooks. For example, see page 39 in "Economics: Principles and Policy" by William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sex larki ki bund ho or larkay ka lora ho to maza hi a jai is known as sex problem in ecnomic term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.177.184 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues Tag

This article is not suitable for Wikipedia in this form. It's just some kind of extract from an economics textbook with some pseudo-science thrown in. It's not bad per se - given that economics works with these kinds of hazy, unchallenged basic concepts.

This, for example

"Needs are things or material items of peoples need for survival, such as food, clothing, housing, and water. Everyone has a different needs and wants. Until the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of the world's population struggled for access to basic human needs."

is very vapid. Economics, like anything in an encyclopedia needs to be referenced down to sources, not just link to other articles and overall be taken as given. jmanooch 09:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jmanooch (talk · contribs), agreed, it's a mess. I tried to clean it up a little bit as it is true that this is often described as the fundamental economic problem. II | (t - c) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for your work. I agree with the assessment, but as an instructor in this field trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool, I think we clear this issue up. I'll try to work on this more ...Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confuses economic problem with science of economics?

I share the confusion that others have expressed about the validity of this material as a separate Wikipedia page. As it currently stands, the opening sentence does not make sense to me as it appears to distort/borrow Lionel Robbins classic definition of the science of economics:

Current text: Economic problems are the science that studies human behavior in relationship with ends and scarce means that have alternative uses

Robbins: Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Robbins, L. C. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.

Also, I see people use "the economic problem" but this article begins with a plural term. Maybe the author mean something like: "Economic problems are a set of problems studied in Economics, which has been defined as "the science that studies human behavior in relationship with ends and scarce means that have alternative uses" (Robbins). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcobb99 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic economics problem

Economics problem means the problem people encounter in the society while attempting to society. The basic economics problem are 1. What to produce 2. How to produce 3.for whom to produce 105.112.177.42 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Importance of opportunity cost to an individual ,a farm and a goverment 105.112.17.101 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]