Talk:Economics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

A question for people who watch this page

What, currently, is the most popular and/or authoritative textbook in economics, or microeconomics? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the books selection by University staff, and/or practising economists who want to keep a 'manual' for the basics.

All the text books borrow from a diverse range of authors, aggregating theory that has been accumulated over a number of decades. Try Simon Begg if you want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.100 (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Das's Traders, Guns and Money? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If gas was 5.09 a gallon and it jumped 6 cant on saturday and another 6 cent on sunday and another 5 cent on monday. how would it look in graph form? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.168.194 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the standard in undergrad intro classes. If you're asking about graduate level textbooks, see here. II | (t - c) 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Real economy"

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on what the "real economy" is, since I've heard that phrase used lately, and it seems very strange to me. The phrase "real economy" link to this page, but the article does not mention it at all. My questions are (1) should there be an article about the "real economy" and (2) if not, should there be a section in this article explaining it? Squandermania (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Real economy" is not an economic term. It is sometimes used in the popular press to refer to the markets for goods and services -- i.e., non-financial markets. Wikiant (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of economics

"The science of decision-making" is not correct. There are fields outside of economics that focus on decision-making (e.g., operations reserach), and there are fields within economics that have nothing to do with decision-making (e.g., econometrics). What is true is that economics is a social science. So, whatever comes next, we should begin with that statement. Wikiant (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points wikiant. Science can be connected to any thing... even things that make no particular sense, such as the human invention of economics. Data can be used to make models and determinations within most any context of data http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html skip sievert (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skip. Economics is not the 'science' of decision making, no matter what some individuals say. Economics is far too abstract and broad for that. Also, physics starts with "Physics is the science", as it should. II | (t - c) 03:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Applied economics

I have just started a page on applied economics that used to simply redirect to economics. I was looking on wikipedia for some discussion of applied economics but found none. So I have produced this. I realise its content and style might be a bit problematic and it is over-reliant on Backhouse and Biddle but I think we needed a page on applied economics. More on econometrics might be desirable. Just thought we could try this for starters and see how it goes. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

1st line in the Microeconomics section + Applied Economics

Under the microeconomics section the first line is:

• A common distinction is between positive economics (describing "what is") and normative economics (advocating "what ought to be") or mainstream economics (more "orthodox") and heterodox economics (more "radical").

I think this would be better in the introduction. I would also like to change it/add another "distinction".

It might then read

• Common distinctions are made between positive economics (describing "what is") and normative economics (advocating "what ought to be"), between theoretical economics and applied economics and between mainstream economics (more "orthodox") and heterodox economics (more "radical").

Does anyone mind? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

I think I and at least one other editor are still uncomfortable with the applied economics page--you're doing a great job developing it, but I'm still not clear that "applied economics" is a coherent topic within the field. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that there is sufficient evidence in the article on applied economics that it is a notable concept although it has an ambiguous meaning. And some of the criticism seemed rude, unconstructive and unclear. This is not perhaps the place though. But what about moving the positive - normative and the ugly orthodox - heterodox? (Msrasnw (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm fine with your suggested change regarding positive/normative and orthodox/heterodox. It makes sense for that not to be limited to microeconomics. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of economics, again

There is an interesting article in the new Journal of Economic Perspectives on the definition of economics. This article could be useful for the introduction, which seems to have been discussed again and again on this page, without a clear conclusion. Well, the article will not really help in establishing consensus, as the conclusion of the authors is that even in the profession there is no consensus definition (not even among mainstream economists). It would also be good material for a longer discussion in the main text, as first paragraph before discussing subfields of economics. Afroghost (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The intro here definitely sucks. How about in a nutshell "study of supply and demand as functions of price and quantity". 121.209.235.20 (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's one important part of economics, but very, very far from the whole thing. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but what you've said is incorrect. Supply and demand are functions that relate price and quantity; they aren't functions of price and quantity. Wikiant (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Disputed removal of descriptive material in "External links" section

Descriptive material in the Economics#External links "General information" section for "Resources for Economists" (RFE) was recently removed here with comment "fmt links." On this see the wp guideline Wikipedia:External links#External links section, which suggests including such material, in particular:

External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article. (Emphasis added.)

Many potential readers of RFE might be interested in it with the following addition:

": American Economic Association-sponsored guide to 2,000+ internet resources from "Data" to "Neat Stuff," updated quarterly."

It serves a function similar to a wp:lead, which has language similar to the first indented quote above. Would it not be reasonable to consider the interests of such readers? P.S. I did appreciate the earlier point of not including unnecessary links. In fact, that is how I came to the above Edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the description again. It is too generic. It's basically: "This website has this many articles from A to Z." Gary King (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you removed some other descriptions on external links as well. I don't agree with you on this. These short descriptions give some valuable information on the links. Dick Bos (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments above. I'll use the grammatical third person below and add background to facilitate others following the discussion. I do agree with Mr. Bos's point that added descriptive comments for other sites besides RFE could help (e.g., the U.K. university-based Intute: Economics).I'll concentrate on RFE below. The article Edit here accompanying Mr. King's comment above restored only "American Economic Association" from my indented Edit above and in the process obscured what was a clear RFE-AEA connection (as "sponsored" & "sponsor").

Besides the above, there is this article-Edit summary by Mr. King:

removing an unhelpful description of the page; doesn't tell us much, other than it's like any other website with thousands of articles about economics

I believe that restoring (for a 2nd time) the rest of my Edit above:

"guide to 2,000+ internet resources from 'Data' to 'Neat Stuff', updated quarterly."

is also warranted, on the following more-specific informational grounds:

1. RFE is identified as a "guide to 2,000+ internet resources," as distinct from an online repository.
2. "2,000+" may attract or repel, but it surely informs. The assertion that RFE is "like any other website with thousands of articles about economics" begs the question of which other websites those might be. The point is to describe for the general reader (per first indented quote at the top), not only for those who already know.
3. "from 'Data' to 'Neat Stuff'" is not equivalent to "from A to Z." The first-quoted classifications are from the Abridged RFE Table of Contents to illustrate the point in the RFE Home page that that RFE includes material for interested persons besides professional or academic economists (despite the AEA sponsorship).
4. "updated quarterly" suggests what RFE is: a quarterly publication. The quarterly-publication format might be notable enough for readers who ignore RFE at first to visit and re-visit it later. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Thomas. The "updated quarterly" and AEA information is particularly relevant. II | (t - c) 19:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical political economy Should be Summarized!

I think the detail given in the section named Classcial Political Economy is rather extra extensive. It contains some useful information about classcial economics, but I think, that it would be better to put this detail about the various proponents and econmists of the classical school under the article dedicated to that school.

The article Classical Economics[1] does not have much detail about Ricardo, Malthus or Mill. But this article explains them in quite detail.

I think that the information in this section should be summerized and the detail should be placed in the relevent page on Classical Economics.--Sajjad Arif (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Feynman Quote

I removed the Feynman quote because its use appeared to be over reaching. Feynman was speaking about social sciences in general, not economics specifically. The example he uses in the subsequent (unquoted) sentences doesn't deal with economics. He does mention economics specifically earlier in the book (p. 105). There, he says that economics achieves "somewhat similar success (to the physical and life sciences)..." Wikiant (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I saw page 105 and he does not say what you imply. Your quote is wrong, and you can read the context of the pages before and after, and the context of the whole book. He is saying that some social sciences are using the techniques of exact sciences, but with incomplete success because of the difficulties (e.g. ability to perform controlled experimentation, reproductibility, etc.) And he goes on to say that many just keep the forms of science, but not the substance.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Md0IirlFUfEC&dq=richard+feynman+pleasure+finding+things+out&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=rq4qSs69D5jqtgOC6dHfCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 --DTMGO (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

There has been a recent flurry of POV edits. The latest (in part):

"But even with these advances (some of which can be also used by astrology) economics is limited as a science because it cannot perform controlled scientific experiments. Another example of it shortcomings as a scientific discipline is its lack of reproducibility, one of the main principles of the scientific method."

1. The parenthetical phrase in the first sentence, whether true or not, is POV by virtue of the sense it lends to the sentence. 2. The first sentence is false. Experimental Economics is an entire branch of the discipline devoted to controlled experimentation. Vernon Smith (a recent Nobel Laureate) receievd his prize for his work in this area. 3. The second sentence is similarly false. For example, look at the voluminous literature on minimum wage for an example of (literally hundreds) of studies that conform to reproducibility.

Wikiant (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• You cannot delete text based on describing them as POV (see Wikipedia tutorial). Text has been edited to consider your points.

Galbraith criticism

This bit in response to the Galbraith quote might be WP:OR: Noteworthy, however, is that Galbraith's comments were made in 1975 -- well before the ubiquity of computers for data analysis, the availability of large data sets, and the advent of modern econometric techniques for forecasting.. Does the article specifically respond to Galbraith on that? If not, I don't think it's appropriate there. (I'm not sure if the Galbraith quote is appropriate itself or not, but that's a different question.) CRETOG8(t/c) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not respond to Galbraith specifically. I'd ditch Galbraith quote. It is juxtaposed to lend credence to the criticism re failure to forecast the financial meltdown. However, the fact that the quote came 30+ years before the meltdown, the quote is either irrelevant or POV. Wikiant (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

the date of the quote is irrelevant, i can find criticism on the dismal science of any year, the complaint is the same and consistent: economics, like other social sciences, keep the forms of the scientific methods, but have been very little successful. the proof is the limited number of laws produced in the science of economics.

I've pulled the bit "responding" to Galbraith, and the bit "responding" to the response. That's becoming competing WP:OR and both were non sequitur. I think that the recent "criticism" edits are trying to make a valid point, which is that economics is often criticized for being crappy at making predictions. It is so criticized, and such thoughts could be written appropriately for the article. The criticisms need to be framed better as criticisms from someone other than the WP editor adding them, and it would be good to use criticisms which have responses, so the responses can be included as well. Specifically on the Galbriath quote, I don't read it as applying to the recent financial crisis specifically. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

These responses were edited in (deleted by you) subsequent revisions. --DTMGO (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss before deleting

It would help the discussion if you discussed, otherwise do not delete stuff with the excuse of discussing.--DTMGO (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of economics

I propose the following addition to 'Criticisms of economics'.

(addition starts)

Money-Bargaining

The theory of Money-Bargaining offers a more realistic representation of economic transactions than neoclassical economic theory. The differences between money-bargaining theory and neoclassical theory may be summarised as follows:

1) In money-bargaining needs and value are related to situation rather than marginal utility or simple preference. If we have a large family, we need a large house. If we have a burst water pipe, we need a plumber. If we are sick, we need medicine. Situation is understood as including social affiliations, so that we need clothes, furniture, haircuts and other products or services that accord with notions of what is appropriate among our associates. This situation-related selection means that choice is limited, rather than open, as in the universal markets of neoclassical theory.

2) Companies design products in anticipation of the situation-related needs of potential buyers. Companies are specialist money-bargaining agencies. They seek to achieve viability. The condition for viability is that Revenue is greater than Costs; or that Sales x Price is greater than Production x Unit Cost. These four variables are interdependent. Price is derived from unit cost, unit cost is influenced by the level of production, sales are dependent on price, and production must be equal to sales. Companies establish a format which they expect will meet the viability condition. In neoclassical theory, a firm supplies a standard product in quantities determined by its marginal cost of production to a pre-defined market at a price determined independently of any particular firm.

(addition ends)

If an established user approves of this addition, perhaps he or she would edit the article. Please include a link to the Wikipedia article on 'Money-Bargaining'.

This doesn't read like a criticism of economics so much as an alternate characterization of agents' objective functions. Further, it appears that all that "money-bargaining" does is to redefine what "utility" means. Wikiant (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of money-bargaining theory, it appears to be little-recognized within the field, and so isn't significant enough to include in this article. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say add some mention of it in that criticisms area. It is a published concept and theory written about and sourced, and it is interesting also. At the very least it deserves a one or two line summation and an article link. It is not a redefinition of 'utility'... it is something different with different ideas connected. I wonder if that main article could have a heterodox template on it... or if it is still a pretty much mainstream idea that is just not very mainstream?

Also the main article Money-Bargaining looks like it could be improved as to the sourcing a lot. For instance none of the books have ISBN numbers... and none of the ref/note material can be looked at or clicked on for easy inspection and to confirm information. There must be more references around for this idea and people that wrote about this idea besides the two sources mostly given in the Money-Bargaining article right now. skip sievert (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A search for "money bargaining theory" on google yields a grand total of 1 (you heard that right) result -- and that's the Wikipedia article on the topic. JSTOR (a major electronic archive of academic journals) yields no references for "money bargaining theory" and only one reference that I could see for "money bargaining" -- and that one was not in an economics journal). I've never heard of money bargaining theory, but from reading the Wikipedia page on the topic, I honestly don't see how it is anything other than standard economic theory with a footnote that reads, "By the way, the consumer has limited information and is restricted to local markets." Wikiant (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well ok... good point. Maybe it is not notable enough then to make the article if it really has not been written about. The current article (Money-Bargaining) is sourced and reff/noted sort of oddly also. Here is one google search for more information I did.. [2] and your right it does not say much. Part of the sourcing/reff/noting of the article Money-Bargaining is given as Schumpeter, Joseph (1994). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London and New York, Routledge, which was written about ten years after this theory book came out, so that is suspect, I think... so I wonder if the sourcing of the article Money-Bargaining might be a little suspect even? Maybe what ever this is is too obscure to include in the current article. Comments? skip sievert (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that it doesn't belong in this article. The only real question is whether it is notable enough to deserve its own article. To my taste, I don't much care if a very fringe idea gets its own article, as long as it doesn't confuse more mainstream articles. All the same, by standard WP criteria, I don't see that the idea is significant enough to even be called "fringe". (I'm quite willing to be proven wrong--I think I saw a review of one of Spread's books, which I haven't read yet, that might clarify things.) CRETOG8(t/c) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is more obscure information about it also Subject: Mutualism. Interpersonal relations. Negotiation. Paradigms (Social sciences) Social psychology. Notes: Bibliography: p. 295-310. Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--London Business School, 1980. Includes index. [3]. skip sievert (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Response:

Thanks for all the comments.

It appears I am now permitted to edit the page directly, but the comments indicate that it would not be appropriate to make the proposed insertion. There is, in any case, a proposal to delete the main entries on 'Money-Bargaining' and 'Support-Bargaining', to which I have responded on the Money-Bargaining deletion page. I am copying this also to the Money-Bargaining deletion page, since it is relevant to the proposal for deletion.

We have to separate the questions of what is right and what is respectable. If Wikipedia is only concerned with material that is derived from respectable sources, then the queries about the sources (meaning the publisher, Book Guild), may be relevant. The question of what is right would be of no significance.

While the Book Guild is not a conventional publisher, it is not of the undiscriminating kind. It has some distinguished authors. It has published Lord (Denis) Healey, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer. It also publishes Peter Evans, who was Home Affairs correspondent on the Times for seventeen years. [All the references have ISBN Numbers: Spread (1984) 0-333-36569-0; Spread (2004) 1-85776-860-4; Spread (2008) 978-1-84624-251-9.]

As regards what is right, the 'open edit' approach of Wikipedia suggests a commitment to a wider range of opinion than can be accommodated in formal 'establishment' encyclopaedias. This seems to suggest also acceptance of a broader range of sources. There is an implication that the establishment and its 'respectable' sources could be wrong, or at least incomplete.

In this case, there is a real probability that respectable sources are wrong. If needs and wants are situation-related (see 1 in the proposed insertion above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Situation related selection' in the Wikipedia article proposed for deletion), then economics has been wrong for over a hundred years. Money-bargaining gives a much more realistic account of monetary exchange. Democratic theory is more principles and aspirations than a theory of how government works. The people cannot possibly govern in any direct sense. Support-bargaining gives a realistic account of political, social and intellectual processes.

My entries and proposed insertions are designated 'fringe theory', which is fair enough from the viewpoint of orthodox economic and political theory. The designation makes it easy to delete them. But bear in mind that the fringe may become the mainstream when the paradigm changes. If my entries are designated 'alternative paradigm' it may not be so easy to delete them.

Furthermore, alternative paradigms will probably not be promulgated through orthodox institutions and publishers. Orthodox, or respectable, theory uses orthodox and respectable publishers. Because of the viability condition (see 2 above, and 'Money-Bargaining/Companies as money-bargaining agencies' in the article), orthodox publishers find it hard to publish unorthodox theory. Academics generally approve, buy, read and teach orthodox theory. So unorthodox theory has to use unorthodox publishers. If Wikipedia rules out the use of unorthodox sources, it may also be excluding right theory.

Papersign (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Papersign, are you actually the author of the sources which the Money-Bargaining article cites? (ie are you Patrick Spread) If so, it seems like a bit of a conflict of interest that you are editing your 'own' articles, and gives further weight to the idea being a fringe theory. If the idea had any credibility, it would not require the creator of the theory to write the wikipedia article, as it should be WP:NOTABLE enough to be written by an independent 3rd party editor. Of course you are well within your rights not to reveal your true identity, however if you are indeed Patrick Spread, you aren't really helping your cause. My apologies if this is not the case, however my reading of your comments here and on the article deletion page led me to this opinion. Suicup (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Spread, Patrick (1984). A Theory of Support and Money Bargaining, London. Macmillan
Spread, Patrick (2004). Getting It Right: Economics and the Security of Support, Sussex, Book Guild
Spread, Patrick (2008). Support-Bargaining: The Mechanics of Democracy Revealed, Sussex, Book Guild

Papersign (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Complete Fringe Theory. Stepopen (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a simplified version of the neoclassical economics is criticises, with the same problems to a greater degree. "Price is determined by unit cost"? Really? Ever buy music on a CD or digital download? There are several highly notable alternatives to the orthodox perspective: this clearly isn't one of them. It doesn't belong in the Economics article and it's dubious whether there should be an article on WP about this at all. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Diminishing marginal utility

I'm afraid this image is completely wrong :

Diminishing marginal utility, given quantification

Total utility can only fall when marginal utility is negative. --Hooiwind (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what the picture shows, note where the zero is on the vertical axis. All the same, the plot isn't as clear as it should be. I've replaced it with another, thanks to SlamDiego. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The new pic is not wout problems IMO. A step function is one thing Dots are somehting else. Also, econ is filled with simplifying assumptions, including the smooth supply and demand curves right above. Why choke on the gnat but swallow the camel? Econ. faces up to such challenges. So, should this article, in due course, not ad hoc IMO. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the MU-TU figure be in the article at all?

Didn't want to break the flow from the above if there is more to say there.

Well, given the the discussion 3 (corrected) paragraphs up from the MU figure diagram in Economics#Supply and demand, one can make a case that that any MU figure is unnecessary in this survey article, which is on Econ., not Microeconomic theory. The latter, note, does not include the MU-TU fig.§ Demand-curve paragraph measures MU in, well, the local currency, not "utils". It identifies MU as what people would be willing to pay for an extra unit sliding down the demand curve, which should not raise insurmountable questions. The MU rising at first on the face of it suggests a positively-sloped demand curve. Sure, there's an answer to that (eventually declining MU). But why raise the question unnecessarily unless the question is answered there? Methodological individualism in the economic sense of botom-up model-building is fine, but typical uses are for explaining patterns of aggregate behavior, whether of a group of students in a laboratory or buyers in a market per deamnd and price. Sure, falsifying a widely-used simplifying assumption about individual behavior can win you a Nobel prize, but that's for a different section of this article. In short, I believe that in the present section, the figure unnecessarily raises more questions than it answers, and so has a net negative value added because of the nice explanation of MU 2 para. above without resort to it.

§ Maybe because it's about a century out of date (superceded by ordinal utility), and many principles students (distinct fron intermediate-micro students), are the last to hear of it, giving their instructors something to unteach them about later. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One follow-up. There is no attempt to explain the MU curve in the figure or relate the text to the figure. It there was such, the text might make this large figure seem more overblown, risking violation of the policy precept Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook or scientific journal. If there is no contrary consensus, I'd propose that the figure should be removed in say 3 days. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed MU-TU figure per above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Inclusion of Criticism of Economics by Noam Chomsky

Besides being a linguist, Noam Chomsky is a prominent all-around social critic. I'm not all that impressed with the quality of his criticism, but he qualifies in general to include in a "criticism" section.

I don't really think he is a good addition here as he is seen as an advocate really of his "personal visions which are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism" and he has praised libertarian socialism … "Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment." He is a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism Chomsky wrote the preface to an edition of Rudolf Rocker's book Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.

Maybe he could be in the general criticisms area for those views instead of using the long rambling quote that was added, which is too long and very unfocused.

I added this in that section

Start Noam Chomsky, a social/economic critic since the 1960s is also known widely as a political dissident, and anarchist, and a libertarian socialist., and has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism". Chomsky has praised libertarian socialism. He is a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism. End

Thoughts and ideas? skip sievert (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article is about economics, I suggest that we either stick to commentary from actual economists or, alternatively, make it clear that Chomsky is not an economist. Wikiant (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant, I think your basic approach was a good one. I don't think we can reserve the "criticism" section to economists, but I forget that not everyone knows who Chomsky is, so making that clear is good. Skip, I think Wikiant's approach was better. It quickly identified Chomsky, and then gave the criticism. Your version concentrates too much on Chomsky, and leaves out his criticism. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That said, Skip, you're right that the quote is too long. I think that rather than chop it down, we should try to paraphrase it shorter. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Its basically impossible to make it shorter as the whole thing is a rambling reflection and none of it really is succinct, long or short, so it is a bad addition here. Also this is not a thing that Wikiant did, it is something that was put in by DTMGO, and Wikiant removed it and then changed it slightly, and originally requested that it be removed altogether, which I think was a very good idea, as it is not intelligible as it is... shorter or longer. If Chomsky is in the article and I do not think that is a great idea, then it makes more sense to add his general beef about things in the general critical section,,, and not some abstracted quote, that is more or else unintelligible, or at least is extremely hard to follow or figure out as to meaning. I added some very good sourced info as to Chomsky... and really Chomsky is about Chomsky as a personality, and a general critical informative thing such as was done is fairly good. So, please do not add the rambling quote again Cretog8. skip sievert (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Skip--your version is just an introduction to Chomsky with no substance relevant to this article. I'm going to pull it out. As for everything else, this is threatening to become personal, so I'm going to withhold comment for a bit and hope someone else chimes in. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So in the end the result so far is total deletion of the Chomsky criticism...smells like censorship again. I think we should include but reduce Chomsky's criticism on the assumptions of economics, after all he is one of the most important living public intellectuals, an outstanding researcher, the most quoted person in the social sciences. The proposal to limit the article content to the view of economists is preposterous, economics affects everybody's lives as economists are usual advisors to government, and to limit criticism of economics to economics is again, preposterous. Furthermore, it doesn't matter who Chomsky is, because what he says about this is what matters, and I think he found economists with their pants down on this one.

--DTMGO (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that Chomsky is being censored? Did you see his main article, and do you think that is being censored also DTMGO?

Thats nice, but it sounds like you view Chomsky in a very personal way. after all he is one of the most important living public intellectuals, an outstanding researcher, the most quoted person in the social sciences. end quote... Your opinion? That may be your opinion but that does not really count here, and as Wikiant said... and he did delete the entire comment before and I would support that ... this person is not really connected with serious economic thought... and is known as an anarchist variation, which is politics and not economy. This article in general is pretty good. But the Chomsky addition as it was is not a good addition. Lets just remove the whole thing or do the version I suggested where it at least makes more sense in a critical context in the article. skip sievert (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Chomsky himself is not censored. What is censored here is criticism on economics. Chomsky not connected to economic thought? says who? There is one thing that some specialists here need to understand. Economics is very related to politics. YOu cannot separate them. So far here all the PHDs or whatever titles people carry as banner here have avoided the issues he is raising, why don't we talk about those, like labor and capital mobility, and the role of MNC in the economy, the nanny state, and how economic assumptions have not or do not take those into consideration. This has nothing to do with Chomsky's regard for anarchosyndicalism. Stick to the topic. Stick to the issues.

Anyway that economists do not coer the role of nanny government in economic issues is a pretty extended view, just look around. Or that economists like Friedman or the Economist magazine preach "free trade", but only in the manner that is advantageous for some, e.g. England in India, or more recent to the dislike of some, NAFTA. I am very surprised that this is news to many here. --DTMGO (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not news... and the views you are expressing are not news either. You are also using some buzz words that are very familiar as Libertarian or Ayn Rand adherants buzz words... like Nanny state, Nanny government. Chomsky is not really known as an economist. He is a self-declared adherent of libertarian socialism which he regards as "the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society. Thats fine but all that is much more in the political vein than economic, or socialism is an economic system, and that is pretty well covered in the article already, with connectors as is Marxism.

Chomsky advocates for a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, but this article is really about economics. skip sievert (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

let us put it in plain English for you, Chomsky covers a wide range of subjects, in this case, his views (not mine but I and many others agree) are, among others:

1.-that economic assumptions used in economic theories to justify free trade and free markets do not apply in the real world, that is, they are invalid in practice

2.-that economists do not consider the big role government has in assisting multinational corporations in their development, etc.

It is irrelevant whether or not Chomsky is anarchist, just at it is irrelevant that Newton may or not be gay in analyzing his ideas about the laws of motion.

the question here is, do we want to discuss the issues raised by Chomsky in criticism of assumptions of economics, yes or not, if so, how.. that is the issue you have been avoiding by observing who is Chomsky or if the language used is this or that tag.

--DTMGO (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing Chomsky's issues is indeed valuable, but not relevant to this particular article. A visitor to this article will want to know what economics is. The rich intersection (and it is indeed rich) between economics and politics and the resulting cascade of discussion on "power from above" vs. "power from below" is incredibly valuable but far beyond the scope of this article. Perhaps a better solution is to have a section titled something like, "Economics and Political Thought." The section would have a single paragraph describing the natural link between economic and political systems and then include links to articles on anarchism, libertarianism, etc. Wikiant (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I do realize that a long quote is not adequate, and also that Chomsky is not an economics recognized expert. But he did bring up some interesting points. Still nobody here addressing the fault of Ricardo's comparative advantage theory in light of today's conditions of international capital movements and labor inmobility, and nobody addressing the other two criticisms of Chomsky to economic assumptions. Leave everyone in the dark about these shortcomings? Just talk in general about the relations between economics and politics? Don't think an encyclopedia should do that.

--DTMGO (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Immobile labor does not invalidate comparative advantage. Immobile resources is merely a special case within the construct of comparative advantage. Similarly, other "real world" violations of economic assumptions (e.g., perfect competition, full information) result only in a moderation of economic principles, not an overturning of the principles. Rather than go into each, I'd have a single paragraph to the effect that economic assumptions, like the assumptions in physics of frictionless surfaces or ideal gasses, are meant to remove noise so as to focus on fundamental underlying relationships. Wikiant (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha you still raise economics to the level of physics. Its light years away in standing as a science. The big difference is while economics fails to predict, exact sciences do not. Consider Nash Equilibrium, its theoretical founder was literally nuts and assumed many things about human behaviour without basis. Game theory was used to justify the cold war arms race which was wasteful of trillions of dollars....... Furthermore, economic models based on flawed assumptions can be used politically to justify certain policies, such as 'free' trade or 'free' markets. This is known to many sold out economists. This is what Chomsky is saying. Of course there can be crooked chemists too, but we are not in an article about chemistry. Still not convinced? --DTMGO (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Convinced of what? Economics and physics have nothing in common [4] and we all probably know that, though economics uses data, and configures it, using the scientific method of constructing things, even though those things might be abstract concepts (yes, it sounds contradictory), but that's how they do it. Economics has one real function and that is as a social control mechanism. It was never anything different from the beginning, and that includes Chomsky's political/economic version also. Nash may have been nuts but that is a value judgment as others may think that Chomsky is a nut, so it has nothing to do with anything here. I think the point may be that Chomsky may not be the go to guy here to explain the economic system. As a general critic he may be interesting, and a synopsis in the criticisms maybe could be done, but I would not support that either, and only put it in as a kind of compromise before. skip sievert (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiant: so according to you Chomsky is wrong, according to you, Ricardo did not build his theory of comparative advantage based on mobile labor assumptions, and immobile capital. According to you, there is still a scientifically demonstrated comparative advantage if these two assumptions are reversed. Right? Can you verify your source of this claim? ........besides I am not fighting for the truth here, I think we can follow Wikipedia policy and just put what Chomsky has to say about criticism to economics....Chomsky is highly read and regarded, its not a fringe or minority view.... About Nash being nuts, that was what doctors said, clinically nuts, something that cannot be said about Chomsky. --DTMGO (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DTMGO why are you so adamant at pushing your agenda here. If we start putting Chomsky in its a slippery slope. There are plenty of valid criticisms of economics, but this isn't one of them. No offence, but from reading your comments, I am coming to the conclusion that you have little to no understanding of economics, and what knowledge you do have has been from amateurish 'web research' or 'listening to pundits on the news'. Indeed this problem of 'armchair critics' hijacking serious articles is endemic at Wikipedia, and unfortunately cannot really be eliminated due to the inherent nature of the project. Suicup (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suicup, stick to the article content and to the topic of criticism of economics, don't focus on the editors, follow wikipedia policy. Otherwise you are adding no value to the discussion. --DTMGO (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid ad hominem and even the appearance of ad hominem, but the editor is truly becoming the subject. I have to agree with Suicup that DTMGO repeatedly displays not only a lack of understanding of economics but also a hair-trigger temper when any editor has the audacity to take a contrary view. Conducting an ECON 101 lecture is probably not the best use of our time here. If you are *really* interested DTMGO, pick up any introductory economics text on trade theory and then come back and we can have a reasonable conversation. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everything you read, but please be informed of what the orthodox position is before attacking it. Wikiant (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The classic case of ignore the view, attack the editor. Maybe you should reexamine Neutral Point of View policy. Also keep in mind that the same policies of verification of claims with reliable sources apply to the discussion page. So far you have presented none of this, but attacked the author saying he/she does not know about economics, that he should go to an introductory textbook, and so on.

I have tried to include Chomsky's view here "Rollback", Noam Chomsky, Z Magazine, January-May 1995:

"Ricardo's "science" was founded on the principle that capital is more or less immobile and labor highly mobile. We are enjoined today to worship the consequences of Ricardo's science, despite the fact that the assumptions on which they are based have been reversed: capital is highly mobile, and labor virtually immobile -- libertarian conservatives lead the way in rejecting Adam Smith's principle that "free circulation of labor" is a cornerstone of free trade, in keeping with their contempt for markets (except for the weak). Other assumptions of the "science" are so radically false that the whole topic is hard to take seriously: among them, the abstraction from severe market distortions resulting from the centrally-managed transactions of the huge corporate structures that dominate the international economy, and the reliance on the "nanny state" that has been such a decisive factor in economic growth and the specific forms it has taken throughout history, and remains so." [5]

--DTMGO (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally it is not a good idea to interrupt Wikipedia to make a point DTMGO, especially when you have made the same point several times. As to the Chomsky statement We are enjoined today to worship the consequences of Ricardo's science, despite the fact that the assumptions on which they are based have been reversed: capital is highly mobile, and labor virtually immobile, it mostly sounds either really out of context to something else or a little like nonsense. Tell the Chinese labor market that labor is virtually immobile and they would probably disagree. skip sievert (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DTMGO, to give you an example of what I was referring to, I will respond to a point you made above:

let us put it in plain English for you, Chomsky covers a wide range of subjects,:

1.-that economic assumptions used in economic theories to justify free trade and free markets do not apply in the real world, that is, they are invalid in practice

International trade is a highly active area of economic research. Much work has been done to address some of the failures of the traditional Ricadian 'comparative advantage' analysis to explain real trade flows, for example New Trade Theory. Indeed, the most recent Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to one of the founders of this field in international economics. To be honest, I don't really know what you are trying to argue here. Simplifying assumptions are deliberately put into economic models, because despite the simplification, the key economic insight can still be gained. Deconstructing these assumptions is what you spend most of your time doing in higher level economic study. And if some piece of economic theory turns out to be wrong or flawed, that doesn't mean that Economics as a field is completely discredited as you seem to be asserting, but rather it is a sign of healthy academic progress. In fact, this is the same for any field of knowledge. For a layman like yourself, I highly recommend books like Freakanomics, and blogs including Krugman's NY Times one, as they are quite accessible IMO. If this piques your interest, then consider buying an introductory/intermediate textbook, which will then enable you to understand the higher level blogs, academic literature, and media. If you are hooked, then consider enrolling in a Bachelor of Economics... :) I don't mean to be patronizing or to attack you personally DTMGO, however it is hard to take your points seriously, in a serious article like this, if you are unable to demonstrate a proper understanding of issues. Regards Suicup (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Condescending Siucup, again you are focusing on me and avoiding the issues raised. As I said above, Chomsky is a top figure in the social sciences, and his critical views of economics are very generalized. It does not matter whether he has the "truth" as you think there is in economics or not. The point is whether to include his criticism on assumptions or not. I say we do. Now on your points let me address them:

it does not matter if economics do a lot of research or not, the point is whether they find anything useful, that is, if they contribute to science.

it does not matter whether someone got or not a Nobel Prize, it does not prove squat. Nobel prize is a political institution even though some may think it is a neutral unbiased heavenly body that came out of nowhere and has no interests whatsoever.

The point continues to be that if you think Chomsky is deadly wrong in his claims, so wrong that his views do not belong in a "serious' article, why dont you point out to the audience here in the discussion the article, paper or book chapter that demonstrates this? Why don't we present both points of view? I am sure I am smart enough to read it, maybe not as smart as you since you are sending me to a 4 year university school so I can first come up to your level and discuss ha ha ha .

it seems very naive to support the view that in this day and age, much economic theory that is junk science used to maintain and expand the current structure of international economics based on dubious and obscure unproven theories is just so disinterested, neutral and objective, so complex that the layman as you put it cannot understand it. Come on, wake up. Even the most complex theories in sciences with better standing and stature like physics can be explained to the layman. besides you know squat about my background, perhaps I have more formal training than you, that is your assumption.

Freakanomics is junk science. But you recommending it to learn economics says a lot.

btw do you suggest university degrees or textbooks to anyone that holds different views from you instead of discussing the point at hand? To me anyone that avoids the point has.....no point.

--DTMGO (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky vote

There is no point in our continuing to discuss this as we appear not to share a common intellectual starting point. I suggest we simply put it to a vote to see whether or not there is a compelling consensus. The question is: Do we include Chomsky's criticism and corresponding counter-criticisms. My vote is "no." Wikiant (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, though Wikipedia is not a democracy and thats good, I vote no to including the Chomsky material because it is does not seem to offer a good value as to thinking about this issue because it is too general and abstracted. I do agree though with user User:DTMGO that Freakanomics is pure junk, but thats another issue. skip sievert (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes--some shortened, paraphrased version. Regardless of the quality of the comments-which I think are an embarrassment to Chomsky-he's prominent enough that some kind of comment from him is appropriate. If it turns out that he has better comments in another source, we'd want to limit his contribution to this article, but right now this is what's on the table. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment If that is the case then a more generalized Chomsky comment is more appropriate in the Criticisms of economics section and not the Criticisms of assumptions section, because Chomksy is a generalist in this regard if he is notable at all, and is not known as an economist except maybe as a general flinger of ideas against some concepts connected. I also do not think it is possible to shorten or paraphrase this quote by Chomsky... because as it stands it is just not interesting or would it be an improvement to the article. skip sievert (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of the "vote", although non-binding, I suggest we not muddy this section up with debate, but just see where people stand. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• No Does putting in Chomsky mean the gate is now open to include anybody who has some opinion - and this just leads to massive bloat because where do you draw the line, who decides this line? There is plenty of valid criticism out there - I hate to keep using Krugman as an example, however he did a fantastic series of lectures at the LSE a couple of weeks ago outlining the current state of economic pedagogy and what should be done. As a side note, DTMGO's language such as 'junk science' and his characterisation of the Nobel Prize, further reinforce my original views. Good idea on the vote Wikiant, lets hope common sense prevails. Suicup (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will look for something more specific from Chomsky on economics (and economists) otherwise I think its a 3-2 in favor of not including the Chomsky view. --DTMGO (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Business cycles

I rewrote this section as I think it is far more useful to classify 'business cycle' as a major topic in macro, rather than 'depressions'. Also it fits better with macroeconomics. That said, I still have some more work to do. Suicup (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

framing criticism

I'm willing to discuss how to include the criticisms that DTMGO seems to want to include in this article, but to do so, I need to understand those criticisms. Right now, it reads as if the point is "Economics sucks!" and then choosing bits here and there which kinda support this view. That's not good enough.

So, what's the point? Is it specifically about the success or failure at predicting the recent financial crisis? Is it about prediction/forecasting in general? Is it that economics isn't a real science? There are already criticisms in the article. New criticisms might fall in with those. In any case, whether one agrees with the criticisms or not isn't the point, it's whether they are notable criticisms by others. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be a worthy addition to the article, but I'm concerned that it remain free of POV (on both sides). For example, the view among non-economists is that economists did not foresee the financial meltdown. That isn't the accepted view among economists. The criticism might be useful if it highlighted the disconnect between orthodoxy and orthopraxy (and, in the process, highlighted the difference between "economist" and "macroeconomist" as well as the difference between what the business and academic communities means by "an economist." WRT the "real science," I don't see that becoming anything more than axe-grinding. However, if treated carefully there are some valuable topics for discussion. For example, economists are restricted in their ability to perform experiments, but then so too are astronomers (though for different reasons). Replication is a problem, but not because of discipline but rather (again) because of moral restrictions. In short, if done well, this could be a nice addition to the article. Wikiant (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Econometrist: astronomers can perform controlled experimentation, because their subject are inanimate and they can keep all other factors controlled, they can scale down, and many phenomena in astronomy is repetitive, e.g. an eclipse, whereas with economics, you have humans, and time, very complex, so everything is changing. Plus you can't perform many experiments in economics not only because of ethical issues, but also the scale to be representative is uneconomical.

--DTMGO (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Astronomers must observe what the cosmos gives them to observe. They can't, for example, create a star in a test tube and experiment with it. So too with economists -- we must observe what the cosmos gives us to observe. Now, there is a difference in that stars tend to remain constant over short periods whereas humans do not. But that difference is in degree, not type. You're mistaken re performing experiments. One can perform many and at low cost. I run a dozen a year myself and at very modest cost. Wikiant (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course you can perform some experiments, but very few controlled experiments of significance, and even fewer that are reproducible... Now to compare the ability astronomy to perform experimentation to economics is an insult to astronomy, and a lack of knowledge of the physical sciences. But it would take an engineer or a physics scientist who also knows economics to know the huge gap in the ability of each discipline to perform scientific experiments. Why don't you recognize the wide limitations of economics in this respect, its subject of study is very complex and important, but that does not mean that economists can disregard their limitations.

--DTMGO (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very valuable to include the verified view that most economists missed the upcoming global financial meltdown, in an article on economics under criticism. The point of view mr. Cretog8 is basically this: economists are the specialists that study economics, but failed to predict a major global financial crisis that is ongoing today and affecting billions of lives. We can present other points of view, that some economists did predict the crisis. Let us do both and give them the proportion they deserve, as is Wikipedia policy. Not delete both. Wikipedia policy is to build existing knowledge. --DTMGO (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, if it's about the current crisis, let's concentrate on that. In that case, the quotes from JKG and Feynman are irrelevant, since they were writing/speaking well before the crisis. Most likely so is discussion about experimentation in economics, unless some people specifically connect experimentation with analysis of the crisis. My feeling is that, if discussion about the success or failure of economist in predicting the current crisis belong sin this article, it probably fits best in the macroeconomics section. Possibly a better alternative is to put a bit of it in the Contemporary economic thought section of History of economic thought? CRETOG8(t/c) 04:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, there is been several comments in discussion (in which you participated) on Economist to move this criticism to Economics. Now you are taking it to somewhere totally different. So I have heard a bunch of things, first that it was biased POV not verified out of place and so on, your latest take is let's move it to the so and so minisection? The fact that economists missed the second greatest financial crisis in history? Talk about neutral point of view. --DTMGO (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I found the evidence that Wikiant was looking for, from another reputable source, the New York Times [6]: "Recessions are signal events in any modern economy. And yet remarkably, the profession of economics is quite bad at predicting them. A recent study looked at “consensus forecasts” (the predictions of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions that hit around the world in the ’90s: in 97 percent of the cases, the study found, the economists failed to predict the coming contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated the severity of the downturns. Worse, many of the economists failed to anticipate recessions that occurred as soon as two months later." So we have Businessweek, Wharton and NYT saying the same thing, a couple in article titles. Does this qualify now? --DTMGO (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, its not just about the current crisis, its about profession of economics is quite bad at predicting them. Let us keep at least the references to Businessweek, Wharton and NYT saying the same thing. I will proceed. --DTMGO (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with including a criticism section in the Economics article (not Economist) discussing those who did and did not forecast the downturn. I would not use the term "economist" but "macroeconomist." There is a difference in that the macroeconomy is far harder to forecast and does not draw as heavily on behavioral theory as does (for example) microeconomics. I would lose the JKG and Feynman quotes. Cretog8 is correct that the quotes are not germane to the downturn. If the desire is to include a section criticising economic forecasting in general, that's a topic that will require (IMHO) more discussion. Wikiant (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the addition where and as it stands is OK. It's just OK, I think it could use improvement and would be better elsewhere, but it's in a section which is kind of a jumble in any case. My mild objection to it in this article is that it's so narrowly focused, which makes me think it belongs in articles more narrowly focused. Anyway, I'm OK with it unless someone convinces me otherwise, and I'm glad we got it tuned to an improved version. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a minor problem -- maybe not worth making changes, but I'll register it now for the record. This section talks about the inability of economics to make predictions, but the example presented is one of quantitative macroeconomic predictions. In contrast, qualitative tools tend to be yield much better (though less informative) results than quantitative tools, and predictions of microeconomic phenomena tend to be more accurate than predictions of macroeconomic phenomena. To take the hardest tools to wield and to apply them to the more difficult prediction problem and then to hold up the result as a "failure of economics" is rather one-sided. Wikiant (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the addition of this material as it is not appropriate for a general overview article on Economics. I am open to the addition of a paragraph on criticm on the ability of economists to forecast the future. But a paragraph solely on current events, and a paragraphy that solely says rehashes newspaper headlines is completely inappropriate. Use scholarly sources on this topic, explain why economists actually might be bad at forecasting (i.e. Lucas critique, complexity) and do not use just one current event to make the points. Stepopen (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read well the newspaper, magazine and ACADEMIC article, you will see that the bottomline is that economists are bad at forecasting (as you said it is very complex but so is physics, chemistry, medicine, etc). The current events not being foreseen and prevented are just one more example of this generality. Economists are very good to explain things past, but not the future, otherwise there would be many economists in the Forbes list. I and many here think this topic is very interesting and important, and should not be deleted. If you want changes, make improvements, but not blank deletions. There have been many discussions here to arrive at this part. I don't see you improving, creating, adding value. It is very easy to say, no that is not the way to do it. You suggested academic approach and throw some names around but do nothing, why don't you contribute instead of talking about it. And if somewone wants to know why economics is bad at forecasting, there is already plenty of context in the rest of the article that covers it.

--DTMGO (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above the topic is of interest, but that is no reason to add crap to the article. There is exactly zero value in writing that a random business journal examined this topic, that business week claimed something or that Rubini is called Dr Doom. Discussion of this topic yes, but in such a way that the reader actually learns something about this topic. And the way to go, as I said above is not to use newspapers, but scholarly articles, not to use a single current event, and not actually explain things instead of have extremely general and uninformative statements by random newspapers and economists. Stepopen (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stepopen, I agree that a rigorous treatment of forecaster rationality would be superior to what we have here (which is minimally acceptable at best). Are you willing to draft something that, for example, discusses bias, efficiency, Lucas critique, etc.? Wikiant (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because this would take some time that I would rather spend on Stalker and other film articles. Having said that, I will keep this page watch-listed and I might have some input if someone tries to add a serious and scholarly discussion of this topic. As you said what should be addressed are potential biases (and by bias I mean what cognitive science defines as a bias), the Lucas critique, forecasting with regime shifts all that. But I am afraid that it is quite a bit of work finding authoritative citations as there is just to much literature on these topics and can easily get lost. But that is no excuse to use newspapers for more than just summarizing popular sentiment. Stepopen (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Its well established your only contribution here was to delete then.

"Popular sentiment" is not just sentiment this time, unless you believe that criticising economics in the area of predicting recessions and forecasting is a "sentiment".

BTW can you provide a list of academic institutions that are reliable in your view, and your criteria.

You don't seem to go around other articles and delete all those parts that reference newspapers. Why aren't you consistent? This is not the first time. --DTMGO (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DTMGO, please discuss the article rather than the editors. I don't have a lot to add now, except to say that criticisms from outside the profession--including popular sentiment--are appropriate, if they are significant. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting crap from articles is a more valuable contribution than adding crap to articles. I am not sure whether your question about a list of reliable academic institutions is a joke, or whether you are just not familiar with how academic publishing works. If you would be familiar you would know for example that a public relations brochure by the Wharton School is usually not called an academic article, because academic articles are those that have gone trhough a peer-review, and peer-review journal articles are exactly those that should preferably be used. Stepopen (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used."

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTMGO (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And apparently then you stopped reading, because in the next paragraph it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." and then again, in the next paragraph there is a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where it also says: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context." Stepopen (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And apparently then you stopped reading, the "out of context" comment comes from talking about science. The problem is that economics is thought by many to not qualify as an academic field, i.e. a science in the strict definition. This might be offensive to some here, but it is a generalized view. And that is not a small minority view, but a very significant one. Any real scientist knows what it is to really know something, what it takes, for example to understand a chemical reactor and predict its behaviour exactly over a wide range of conditions and scenarios. Because how many laws has economics come up with? one or two? Plus we are in the section of criticism, and economics is being criticised for its lack of understanding of the economic system, in cover pages of major newspapers and magazines, and even within business schools. Economics, politics, business are not considered science by a significant proportion. You are not talking about physics or something like that, don't squarely extrapolate to economics. --DTMGO (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right. The policy only talks about science. And surprise, surprise, by science we only mean the natural sciences and not economics. You are wasting everyone's time here. Stepopen (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What determines whether or not a field is a science is the method of inquiry, not the result of the inquiry. Economics employs the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing -- that makes it a science. DTMGO's comments suggest that his knowledge of economics comes from the popular press. To claim that one understands economics (as a discipline) from reading the popular press is like claiming that one understands automotive engineering from watching NASCAR. In short, this line of discussion would be far more fruitful if DTMGO could demonstrate that he actually knows something about that which he derides. Wikiant (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Stepopen please read NPOV , all significants views are to be presented. Plus the inconsistencies in Wikipedia's policies are to be resolved with Wikipedia, not a random article. Pluse like I said, I don't see you deleting newspaper sources from all the purported academic fields in Wikipedia. Your rampage on a significant portion of this encyclopedia would be reversed. Wikiant, stick to the article, not the editors, follow Wikipedia policy. --DTMGO (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the lead article in Economist What went wrong with economics Its got links to two articles on macroeconomics and financial economics, and their flaws. Good material for framing criticism on economics. Let's discuss. Don't shoot the messenger. --DTMGO (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic predictions

Wikiant and Cretog8: I would propose the following: Establish that criticism of inaccurate economic forecasts is notable, then discuss how forecasts are made (i.e. econometric forecasts, predictions markets, or non-quantitative forecasts a la Nouriel Rubini, for lack of a better word). Then explain why forecasts are usually not very accurate, i.e. econometrics problem (is GDP trend stationary or a random walk with drift, regime shifts etc.), cognitive biases of the forecasters, the Lucas critique and complexity. Seems that these issues are the important ones, probably possible to summarize in one paragraph by using appropriate wikilinks to the technical terms.

I am probably not going to write this section, but if anyone with at least some expertise will write a paragraph similar to what I proposed he or she has my support. Anything superficial, taken from newspapers or randomly googled studies without any context, I will remove that on sight. Stepopen (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm going to accept things you wouldn't. What you propose above sounds pretty good, but if there's something which falls short, it could still be adequate. For instance, if there's something which establishes that criticism of forecasts is notable, but leaves out the rest, that criticism should still stay in the article. I've returned the section with the bit from the IMF, but removed the bit from Wharton. I removed the bit from Wharton because the sentence that used the reference didn't say enough to make the reference worthwhile.

I'm also on the generous side for matters like these because, frankly, the criticism section is already a mess. I'm not going to hold additions to very rigorous standards. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put together a draft in the next couple of days. Wikiant (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Only fair Cretog8, I dot not really realize how bad this section is, but I am not surprised as the usual criticism and controversies section are a mess in most articles. Stepopen (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This technical proposal beats the whole idea. To try to separate economics from politics is just infantile and a narrow view. I will delete any narrow view that does not conform to the NPOV by ignoring other significant views. I am not surprised of the state of the criticism section (which is not very good) given the level of censorship practiced here.

BTW why don't go on to delete the definition of Science in Wikipedia, because it does not mesh well with economics here. --DTMGO (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DTMGO, you keep saying "economics," but your arguments suggest a misapplication of the term. Economics is about describing and predicting human behavior. Sometimes we are concerned with how humans behave within the government (public sector economics). Sometimes we are concerned with human behavior solely in the private sector (microeconomics). Sometimes we are concerned with statistical techniques for analyzing economic data (econometrics). Sometimes we are concerned with how human behavior playing out through the government interacts with human behavior playing out in the market place (macroeconomics). Finally, sometimes we are concerned with generating quantitative predictions for the interaction of government and people. This last is properly called "applied macroeconomics," but you seem to regard it as the sum total of economics. Wikiant (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this is more about macroeconomics. Point taken. However, this doesn't address the controversy of economics as a pseudoscience, which one major point of criticism of economics. A real science comes up with sound demonstrated laws that explain and predict, they identify patterns, some scientific findings are so precise that they can be expressed by a mathematical model, that is equations, some can model something as complex as a nuclear reactor, in a computer, using a combination of laws. Mankind has gone to the moon with the help of science. Economics has what two laws that apply over a range of conditions? 1.law of demand 2. law of diminishing returns. Some other of its findings can be attributable to finance, accounting, management, banking, governance, law, etc. other branches of study. So for example, fluid dynamics is claimed to be a field of study of chemistry and also by physics. There is an overlap. Same thing happens with economics with history, politics, etc. So to try to separate it from them, and treat it like a science is just plainly ignoring reality. Economics much like eugenics, astrology, ethics, Scientology, alchemy, political "science", etc. is just in diapers compared to other sciences or should I say pseudosciences? True, the object of study of macroeconomics is very complex, but so is nuclear physics, and furthermore complexity and keeping appearances does not automatically give it credit as a science, just because it goes around doing observations, measurements, statistics, mathematical attempts to model, use of computers, rare experiments, etc. you can follow the scientific method, but that does not mean that you have found any scientific knowledge. A sciences finds scientific knowledge, that is what divides science from pseudoscience.

About peer review, astrologists can review other astrologists work, that does not make it reliable or scientific. Misery loves company, so two wrongs don't make one right.

Biology doesn't have laws in the sense that I believe you mean, yet am I correct that you consider biology a science? What about fluid dynamics? The laws of fluid dynamics only apply when you have enough molecules so that the effects of Brownian motion becomes negligible. Economics has many mathematical models that describe the behaviors of large groups of people. But, the number of people required to overcome the human equivalent of Brownian motion is prohibitively large. The way economists deal with this is via econometrics -- a branch of economics developed for the purpose of filtering out the massive noise in data sets so as to reveal underlying relationships. Extending your argument, you would conclude that fluid dynamics is a science only when one has enough molecules. Thus, you appear to be defining science according to what is observed rather than the method of observation. Wikiant (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Wine New Bottles

Having read the "Criticism of Economics" section (I haven't read the preceding section just yet) I would like to voice a concern.

Firstly, economics is quite simply the study of the economy. The quote in the articles' introduction (Lional Robbins) tells the reader of the focus of the study. None the less; it is simply the study of an economy or economic phenomenon.

The author of the criticisms section has provided us with a number of issues that only highlight the issues within the subject field itself. Whether or not the Malthusian trap is possible should not be considered a critism of economics but simply a criticism of the economist (or more appropriately his conclusions). Furthermore, while such disagreements are not the sole criteria of a 'science', it could not be a science without internal disagreements. Then it would be a hegemony.

Before we lose our footprints in mud (and believe me we are in the thick of it) I do recognise that the article is concerned with the field (or perspective)of economics that is predominant throughout the world; call it capitalism or laisse faire, or whatever you like. However, the section of the article I am referring to does not address the short comings of the filed itself but mis-applications of science itself. Basically, economics doesn't open sweat shops, people do.

I do feel there is room for a criticisms section, but could the author please bear the above points in mind.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

need for guide to understanding the basic concepts.

It is difficult to navigate the various articles touching on the broad subject of economics. I feel it would be of value to tabulate a suggested sequence of links to expedite an understanding of the basics for the beginner. Don Seib 00:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEIBasaurus (talk • contribs)

guide found

By accident found article Outline of economics which fills the need described above. Added link to it in article Economics. Don Seib 01:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEIBasaurus (talk • contribs)

Removing article links on article

Recently an editor removed an article link to information in a section and gave not so good a reason. This is a pattern of one editor that has a certain view of weight and mainstream, in economics articles in my opinion. Maintaining a neutral pov is essential for subjects and this material has been stable, and that is meant in a positive way for some time and it was directly connected to the information below it. I am thinking if this type of editing continues by this one editor, that editor could be topic banned on economics articles, as having difficulty in my opinion in evaluating weight which is misconstrued with fringe and giving a false weight to mainstream also. Here is the edit with the information taken out, which has been put back in again in the next edit here Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics and other subjects

The Economics and other subjects section some time back became a bit of a ghetto where we turned a blind eye to material which didn't belong in order to avoid argument. This desire to avoid strife if it's contained is understandable, but still, ideally the section should be cleaned up.

• The paragraph beginning "The relationship between economics and ethics is complex...." is unreferenced.
• The paragraph beginning "Others see the influence of economic ideas..." reads more as a critique of capitalism than something which belongs in the section. The only ref to Small is Beautiful is inadequate, since it doesn't provide a page number to verify.
• The paragraph beginning "The premise of ethical consumerism is..." likewise reads as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and again the only reference doesn't provide page numbers to verify.

The last two paragraphs are a bit of a muddle of inter-related ideas, so it's hard to know what should stay or go. It's possible something should stay, but likely the weight should be cut down.

Currently the "main articles" links up top are: Philosophy of economics, Law and Economics, Political economy, Natural resource economics, and Thermoeconomics. I apologize for removing the Thermoeconomics link, since it's appropriate there so long as thermoeconomics is mentioned in the section. However, looking at those categories, I would remove Philosophy of economics and Thermoeconomics as not being nearly as significant as the others. I don't know that Natural resource economics really belongs in "other subjects" as it's a typical application of economics just as Labor economics is. If it does belong in the section, it should be given a paragraph or so related to it, possibly one combining natural resource economics, environmental economics and possibly ecological economics. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

As I mentioned above, the Economics and other subjects section has been a mess, but ignored for some time. The criticisms section has received similar not-so-benign neglect. I don't hold much hope for it at this time, but I do hope once we've hashed out weight issues better, we can come back to this section to figure out the appropriate weighting of various criticisms. I think it would be valuable if, instead of being a grab-bag, this section had enough coherence that we'd feel right taking something from it and putting it in the lead as part of the article summary. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics' fundamentalists

I am getting motivated to be a builder on the section of criticism of economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTMGO (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view --DTMGO (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone here is an economist or not should not affect the neutrality of criticism to economics. Otherwise it just shows your lack of professionalism objectivism and scientific training to be self critical. --DTMGO (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the latest adbusters magazine, its about Thought Control in Economics, very timely given the current low status of economics amongst wide sectors of the population. https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/85 --DTMGO (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out the 8 page article in New York Times Magazine, September 6, 2009, How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? By PAUL Krugman, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?em This is starting to look very far from 'recentism', and the problem is not restricted to 'macroeconomics' as some here believe. The problem is structural and social, affecting a pseudoscience whose practitioners claim it is a science, hahaha. --DTMGO (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The only lack of neutrality I've observed is coming from you ("...affecting a pseudoscience whose practicitioners claim it is a science, hahaha."). I'll ignore the "pseudoscience" claim since, without a clear definition, neither of us can argue the point. The Krugman article is talking about macroeconomists and financial economists (a close relative). Yes, he uses the word "economists" but to anyone who knows the fields, it is clear that he is talking about macroeconomists. Interestingly, while he focuses on the "love of mathematical models," he ignores the fact that some of the best pro-market arguments come from the Austrian school -- a branch that eschews mathematical modeling. Wikiant (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's now a clear pattern of "taking stock", re-thinking the strengths and weaknesses of economics, inspired by the crisis. Some of the criticisms are quite foolish, and among the serious ones, I don't think there's any consensus on what the strengths and weaknesses are. But anyway, there's a recognition that something's gone wrong with the field of economics. It'll be tricky writing about this. If it is to be written about, I think that the History of economic thought article is a more appropriate place than here, because it would allow a bit more space. I'll create a new discussion topic there. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics is not a SCIENCE, results can not be reproduced, results can not be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.96.137 (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Go outside and offer to exchange a $20 bill for 2 quarters. See if some one takes you up on it. Do this five times. Did someone take the offer each time? LK (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The economy is no longer based on scarcity. There is an abundance of resources, including food, clothes and all necessities. Mechanization has allowed for this to come to be. Only waste and inefficiency makes resources scarce in some areas, while abundant in others. It is on these grounds that I contest the definition of Economy in the main section. --Jsg278 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thermoeconomics

As suggested above, I've deleted a bunch of references to the fringe theory of Thermoeconomics, which has almost zero currency within economics. At best this is a subset of econophysics which is (appropriately) mentioned very briefly. There are a number of more notable schools and approaches that don't get mentioned at all (feminist economics, the historical school, and more listed in Schools of Economics). This article should be a guide to what is actually happening in economics and not to the enthusiasms of particular editors. JQ (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information that is encyclopedic with reliable sources because weight as to mainstream or an opinion of mainstream, is in contention. See this post of discussion on the Wiki project page for more information here - skip sievert (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Any theory that has never been mentioned in an academic source is a fringe theory. Removal of fringe theories is encouraged by guidelines. LK (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You are calling this a fringe theory Net energy analysis or this Ecological economics and natural capital and this Biophysical economics fringe theories? How can that be? This is the basis of systems ecology and industrial ecology. Read this for more information Economy and thermodynamics. Read this also here please about Energy and economic myths (historical). Removing encyclopedic information from peer reviewed articles from sources like Encyclopedia of Earth is not suggested. The idea on Wikipedia is to present a well rounded view and overview of information that is reliably sourced. See this post of discussion on the Wiki project page for more information here skip sievert (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There are overlapping problems with some of the material, and it's possible that there can be improvement to solve some of the problems. There is a problem with weight, and there is a problem with a non-standard identification of energy economics (which is a field within economics just as labor economics and agricultural economics are). The Encyclopedia of Earth doesn't sit well with me as a reliable source, which might be worth taking to discussion by itself. And there's other things, but there's also a problem of a confusing bunch of apparently related stuff-the writing is just not clear. If it was made more clear, then it would be easier to decide how/if to include it in the article. So here's a couple paragraphs which were pulled, if those could be clarified on the talk page, then it might help to include some in the article. It might also help to distinguish these approaches from econophysics. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Energy economics relating to thermoeconomics, is a broad scientific subject area which includes topics related to supply and use of energy in societies. Thermoeconomists argue that economic systems always involve matter, energy, entropy, and information. Thermoeconomics is based on the proposition that the role of energy in biological evolution should be defined and understood through the second law of thermodynamics but in terms of such economic criteria as productivity, efficiency, and especially the costs and benefits of the various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing available energy to build biomass and do work. As a result, thermoeconomics are often discussed in the field of ecological economics, which itself is related to the fields of sustainability and sustainable development.

Georgescu-Roegen reintroduced into economics, the concept of entropy from thermodynamics (as distinguished from the mechanistic foundation of neoclassical economics drawn from Newtonian physics) and did foundational work which later developed into evolutionary economics. His work contributed significantly to bioeconomics and to ecological economics.

The information is cited and sourced to much more than the link mentioned Encyclopedia of Earth. Again the reasons for removing information are not being discussed as asked about in the post above. An encyclopedia is about presenting all aspects of things... not those things considered mainstream or not by some. Using arguments of weight belonging to a certain category of reliable sources is not a good argument for excluding things from reliably sourced information sources such as the information that was removed. skip sievert (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Based on this NYT bit, I'm willing to accept a link to thermoeconomics, but to me, that only establishes its notability enough to be tacked onto the list of "other schools and approaches". I've carried this over to The Wikiproject talk page for more general discussion. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's undue. Unless there is a reliable source out there that discusses thermoeconomics as a part of economics, I would argue that it's fringe and therefore mention here is undue. LK (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a recurring problem. There is no shortage of reliable sources... out there, here is another one on biophysical economics, fringe it is not. Not only is it not fringe it is well known... and has been discussed for decades... and is currently undergoing a resurgence as noted here in the N.Y.Times article. Cretog8 if you have a problem with something like the Soddy quote and information in the future please tag information rather than removing it. That is not really a good idea, discussion is better. That information could have been easily sourced to the other article above. skip sievert (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, that NYT article looks to me like a reliable source, and discusses biophysical economics in relation to economics generally. I don't give it any credence myself-if the NYT article is a fair representation of the intellectual state of biophysical economics, then I'm negatively impressed. (The article might not be a fair representation, which goes along with treating newspapers skeptically when dealing with the substance of an academic discipline.) As I read that article, "biophysical economics" wouldn't be recognized by an economist as economics-if, for instance, it aims to not be a social science. But I'm OK with that. So, there's an article, it discusses "biophysical economics" as a current discipline in the academy (if not within the economics discipline), that's having conferences. This article doesn't show enough weight to warrant diving deeply into biophysical economics, but I think it does warrant a link. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the NYT article is a reliable source, but I'm skeptical about the use of this one article from the 'Energy & Environment' section to argue for (as Skip has done) the inclusion of so much detail about what is essentially a fringe theory into the article about economics. It would be more persuasive if it was from the 'Business & Economics' section. Now, if there is a reliable source discussing the study of economics in general (e.g. a documentary series on economics, a book on the history of economic thought, or a general undergrad textbook on economics', conference proceedings from any of the general economics conferences, eg. AEA annual meetings), and it includes as part of the discussion some discussion of bio-physical economics, that would be a solid argument about the inclusion of a field of study into the general article about economics. That said, I am 'ok' with the inclusion of one link, but I think anything more is undue. LK (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe school? Do you consider Thorstein Veblen to be fringe?? He was a thermoeconomist as a member of the Technical Alliance. Do you consider M. King Hubbert to be a fringe character? He wrote extensively on the subject. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/deep-green/deep-green-jan-2009 Ecological economics awareness<--Section on biophysical economics - Frederick Soddy's ecological economics<--Frederick Soddy - net energy, the Oil Drum. Discussions about energy http://www.theoildrum.com/ Biophysical economics workgroup [http://web.mac.com/biophysicalecon/iWeb/Site/Welcome.html

and, EROEI. or, Economy and thermodynamics. Economy and thermodynamics. Just some information of which there is no shortage of this aspect of economics. skip sievert (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This type of non-sequitor is typical of Skip's arguments, which is why they have very little credibility among Wikiproject members. Skip's argument conflates several different concepts together, and then uses any justification for any one of the concepts to argue as justification for his particular interpretation of the concept. I doubt that even one citation from Thorstein Veblen can be produced, where he says that he believes in or supports thermoeconomics. Unless such a quotation is produced (and I highly doubt that they can be), the ridiculousness of these arguments are clear. Frankly, I believe that the above argument was made by Skip even though he was fully aware that at no time did Veblen ever state support for thermoeconomics. LK (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I have just done a google scholar search, and find that the advent of 'thermoeconomics' as defined in the wikipedia article, seems to have come after Georgescu-Roegen's work, therefore, he could not have been a supporter of 'thermoeconomics', as that field did not then exist. If this field is so important to Economics as to merit inclusion on this page, surely it should have been mentioned somewhere in one of the innumerable number of books, articles, documentaries, etc. made about the science of Economics. LK (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I independently reached the same conclusion and edited thermoeconomics to say that, while Georgescu-Roegen's work was along the same lines, he never used the term. Skip reverted this as unsourced, but of course didn't provide any source for the claim that Georgescu-Roegen did use it - now he's claiming Veblen. Among the many fringe theories that might be listed, I don't think thermoeconomics is notable enough to mentioned here. But even if it deserved inclusion in a list, that would be the absolute maximum. JQ (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Independently reached the same conclusion? Problem. Someone named things wrong originally. Fact... Thermoeconomics, Biophysical economics, and bioeconomics are pretty much the same thing. The redirect here biophysical economics accounts this, so that part is working. Read this for clarity as you both seem uninformed, about these issues and/or their history and importance to mainstream and alternative economics issues. skip sievert (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)