Talk:Economics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Samuelson's book as first line???

I do not think the line:

This article is about the social science. For textbook by Samuelson and Nordhaus, see Economics (textbook).

is necessary or sensible. I have put in a link to it on a disambiguation page instead. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

economics and finance

how is economics related to finance ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.137.244 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly to how physics is related to engineering. Wikiant (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS ECONOMICS?

My economics teacher in highschool on the first day asked us to define economics - and we all said something to the effect of the flow of money. He gave us this definition which we had to write a whole bunch in class: The stundy of how societies allocate scarce resources amongst unlimited demand. This is much more inclusive because it includes electricty, gasoline, food, clothing, staffing, shelter, clean water, and in natural disasters it could even include space for hospitalization, and maybe even more. Far too often in most of the world just the basic needs fall under this defination.

I need a simple explanation about economics,but it seems hard to find any data

at beginner stage,right from the beginning,such as the question,what is economics

or what is the economy15wuh1 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The definition may be helpful to a layperson, but is technically incorrect. Demand is the relationship between price and quantity demanded. It makes no sense to say that demand is "infinite" (or "finite" for that matter). A better term is "desires," as in "the study of how societies allocate scarce resources amongst unlimited desires." Wikiant (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Economics is about choice. More precisely, how the agents in an economy choose between the alternatives available to them. Economics doesn't just apply to the allocation of food or the ideal pricing of power. It applies to anything involving a decision, even if it's something as trivial as what shoes to wear to work today. It doesn't matter if resources are finite or infinite, cheap or expensive, those are just parameters. What's really important is how agents decide between available alternatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.49.248 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Creationism: The Beginning

M&Ms says: The first sentence of the Economics article begins with the following sentence:

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

I do not believe that economics can be said to be the study of the distribution of goods and servces. I do believe it is the study of either the distribution of resources or the distribution of wealth. More importantly (and this is also more exact) it is the study of the "How" and "What" of distribution.

This was debated sometime ago and I may be trodding over some aching toes but the opening sentence does not describe the study of economics. I never, in 5 years of study of the subject, studied the distribution of goods/services (not in the way it is being used here and not in any way that could be used to describe the entire subject matter). The quote from Robbins' paper (and well done to the person who referenced it because I did not know who said it until I read this article) is the definition of the science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.175.66 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a matter of two different meanings of "distribution". Economics clearly studies the "distribution" of goods and services in the sense of distribution as "the way something gets from point A to point B", deciding both the method of transport and the way the decision is made about which thing gets from which A to which B. It might be arguable that it doesn't study the "distribution" of goods and services in the sense that "distribution" means "the profile of how something is distributed among different people/positions in a snapshot of time". CRETOG8(t/c) 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The word 'distribution' is there because the market system, in a sense, decides who gets which goods, and how much income each group of people receives. For instance, consumer theory studies which groups are more likely to buy which goods, industrial organization and labour economics economics studies the distribution of income in a society between workers and capitalists, and welfare economics studies the distribution of benefits from a government intervention. LK (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Real (a.k.a. "Austrian") Economics

In Wikipedia's article on economics it addresses Austrian economics under "Other schools and approaches". This is absolutely wrong. I will not expand in great detail at the moment on what economics is, but basically it is the study of Human Action. Fields currently thought to be under the study of "Austrian" Economics such as the free market, praxeology and catallactics are crucial aspects of this field. Ludwig von Mises, currently known as an "Austrian" economist, is more accurately the father of true economic theory. Modern economic theory is an attempt by statisticians to apply mathematical models to economic theory. Inevitably this fails. This has been demonstrated consistently by the recurring bubbles in Western economies that have arguably led to the destruction of the Western financial system. This event is still playing out in 2010, and will continue to play out for the next decade.

What needs to change here is the definition of economics. Economics needs to be redefined as a science of human action. Economics is the science of human action as laid down by Von Mises in his treatise on economics entitled Human Action. This book itself could be outlined by Wikipedia and the result would be what is in actuality the field of economics as it stands.

All of the other so-called "Economics" schools are not schools of economics. Marxist economics is socialism, it belongs in sociology, but could warrant a position in the economics page because it contradicts economic thought. Marxism did not derive from classical economics. Marxism was a name applied to totalitarianism and interventionalism by Karl Marx and his followers, who did a wonderful job of propagandizing the ideas behind Marxism and making them mainstream.

Similarly, Keynesian economics is not economics. It is also a study of government interventionalism. This is a study of how governments can intervene to create positive effects on markets. Unfortunately, there is no way governments can intervene to create long-term positive effects on markets. This is the core idea of the study of economics and the essence of the study of free markets.

Milton Friedman may be considered a member of the Chicago school because he did a lot of work in the Chicago area, but Milton Friedman et al also supported what is called "Austrian" economics. Labeling it the Chicago school and creating a different field of economics for it is comparing apples to apples, and constructing an understanding of the field of economics that smokes students of economics from what economics really is.

In the coming days I will try to do more work on this subject and address the issues of this webpage on economics.

(Haerdt (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Please do read the guidelines WP:RS and WP:Fringe. Thanks LK (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Haerdt, I've put links in your post (didn't change any text), in case you haven't seen the existing articles referring to those things. I think a relevant policy is less WP:Fringe and more WP:SOAP. I'm sure this article is imperfect, but the current understanding of what economics is is closer to what this article says than to what you write above. Regardless of the merits of your arguments, the encyclopedia has to represent the common use of the expression, rather than arguing that that definition is wrong. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points, Haerdt. Firstly, I'd argue Wikipedia's primary audience is that of the mainstream, and that economics is a generally-mainstream topic; bearing this in mind, I'd also argue that what is essentially an overview page should remain as broad in scope and accommodating as possible; particularly in this post-recession era, a time of renewed and vigorous interest in the economic sciences.

Perhaps you are correct in your assertions - perhaps not; right here and now, it does not matter. What does is that Wikipedia presents an as-accurate-as-possible, generally-accepted view of a given topic. Your views - with respect - are not "generally-accepted", and as such, could be construed as fringe, as CRETOG8 points out, but also as biased towards the Austrian School of Economics, which, if you were force, would contravene WP:NPOV. For that reason, I am afraid that your proposals are probably best put on hold. RyanTheHeretic (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Change disambiguation to use template

{{editsemiprotected}}

This page has a disambiguation line that doesn't seem to use the same disambiguation template as many other pages. Could an established user change the first line to use the About hatnote template instead of the existing sentence?

Shenl88 (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter much, but I've changed it anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 01:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It doesn't matter much to a human reader but it is quite useful for some parsers to have it follow a standard :) Shenl88 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

i find the stuff to be wrong(just saying) :) ♥ but good try ⅞

Future topics of research

Users may include topics for future research or thought in this section. At some point each of these topics may grow into their own pages... Also, it would be useful to have a rating functionality here that could be associated with each topic in order to rate the value or importance of the future research or thought in this subject. Furthermore, please add this "Future topics of research" to other wiki-pages/subjects where it may be useful.

Didn't Get Past the First Sentence

All I had to read was this much of the article before I found the first linguistic mistake: Economics is the social science that studies. Economics does not study but is a specific study itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshlepaknpsa (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

71.231.120.197 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do respect the above effort to improve the article. But let me try to make the case for the other side. Briefly put, economics is both a specific study itself and studies (in particular, analyzes and describes) something. By the principle of charity invoked in philosophy, no error is necessarily imputed here. If we know what something is by what it does (to paraphrase Peirce), a specific study studies something. The worst that the phrase above can be criticized for is redundancy. But a wordier, less specific alternative (such as the current one in the article as a response to the above: [Econ is the social science that] "is concerned with" [for "studies"]) is worse than a concise, but correct and harmless, redundancy. Here is how Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia begins its econ entry: "Social science that analyzes and describes"... It's the same idea. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

M&Ms says: ..."It's the same idea[?]...No Mr. Meeks it is not. The 'Econ entry' you quote is correct: economics is a social science that analyzes and describes...etc. One studies the description & output of analysis. Also your argument is silly. But it is useful in explaining why you understand this - you fnughher! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.133.9 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though. Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 in January 2008 and 3 more edits in October 2007. Tobby72 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked into this. While Jagged 85's edits remain in this page and I wasn't able to get the sources, I think these statements are probably OK given that I found other sources which basically confirmed what he had written about Ibn Khaldun. Thank you for the note, by the way, and I have opened a new discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Cleaning_up_the_problem. II | (t - c) 06:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

my look at the sources (at google books) shows typical Jaggedism.This sentence in paticular;

After discovering Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, however, Schumpeter later viewed Ibn Khaldun as being the closest forerunner of modern economics

Schumpeter's views are not recorded in the source cited (Zurayq, Qusṭanṭīn; Atiyeh, George Nicholas; Oweiss, Ibrahim M. (1988). Arab civilization: challenges and responses : studies in honor of Constantine K. Zurayk. SUNY Press. ISBN 9780887066986. Retrieved 21 June 2010.) Khaldun is mentioned twice in Schumpeter, Joseph Alois; Schumpeter, Elizabeth Boody (1994). History of economic analysis. Routledge. ISBN 9780415108881. Retrieved 21 June 2010. Both times in conection to historical sociology. In a neutral way we can only say there is economic thinking in the Schumpeter gap. Although Owiss nominates Khaldun as the "father of economics" he admits Khaldum's ideas were not transmitted.J8079s (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't think I'd be able to get a good preview on the book; I just searched Google Scholar and found various supporting citations, including al-Hamdi's Ibn Khaldun: The Father of the Division of Labor, who says Schumpeter 'declares Ibn Khaldun "was far more original than Adam Smith"'. So I didn't think it was too off the mark. Unfortunately al-Hamdi doesn't cite his statement and it appears that the statement should be attributed to Oweiss's "Father of Economics" article. II | (t - c) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The last alleged Schumpeter quotation above is uncited in the al-Hamdi source. According to J8079s, nothing in Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis supports the such an imputation (despite his having worked on the History till his death) nor in the I. M. Oweiss, Arab Civilization cite in Economics. II states above something close to it in Oweiss's "Father of Economics" article (an Islamic charity site, not a scholarly journal). It too lacks a cited source. So, the Schumpeter attribution does not seem satisfy WP:VER policy: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify - I meant to say that based on my research al-Hamdi's "far more original" statement, attributed to Schumpeter, was not a statement of Schumpeter's but actually of Oweiss, whose analysis of Ibn Khaldun is of a limited relevance in this article. Good work on removing the statement. II | (t - c) 19:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move History section down in a week

The History section of the article was moved to follow the Lead in Feb. 2009 w this Edit summary: "moving history up as the first section to start off the article." The move was without dissent or discussion. Let me update an argument against its placement there from Talk:Economics/Archive 3#Reorganized a few sections, 18:17, 25 June 2008.

Practically speaking why should anyone be interested in the history of the subject before determining if its current content is of interest? The viewer traffic on the Microeconomics and Macroeconomics articles is twice or more that of History of economic thought, despite excellent qualities of the latter. Why impede access of the eager readers to what they may find of more interest? With their appetites whetted, "History" becomes the dessert.

Yes, the superb Britannica Econ article follows the same pattern as all the other articles in the associated mega-article “The Social Sciences” in placing the “Historical development” section of the subject immediately after the lead section. And why not, with Mark Blaug, pre-eminent historian of the subject, writing the article? But it may not be an inefficient way of communicating useful knowledge on the subject. For example, in exposition of the Economics#Neoclassical economics section, it is unnecessary to recap material already covered in Economics#Supply and demand. Rather, the latter serves as a point of departure for keeping later treatment concise and avoiding redundancy.

The respected Henry J. Aaron [1] is the author of the “Economics” article in the best-selling World Book Encyclopedia noted for its readability. (WB has been marketed as a “family encyclopedia” for those aged 15+.) In that article, the history section is next to last. Why? Perhaps to develop the subject first -– as a hook for later delving into its history. Arguably, learning about the concepts, methods, and fields of the subject makes the history of the subject come alive as the reader follows earlier writers grappling with successive problems cast up by their theory, methods, and observations. The later placement is not to downplay history but to take it seriously by giving it a modern context.

Let me propose moving "History" to follow "Econ in practice" and precede "Criticisms" in a week if there is no consensus against it. Placement after "Econ in practice" has the advantage of being a kind of explanation of how Econ (discussed before) got to that point. Placement before "Criticisms" makes the development of the subject a kind of historical dialog. -Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

History section of article moved per above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Observance of Talk page guidelines on this page

There is to my knowledge at least one period in the not-very-recent history of this Talk page when the actions of one editor were in significant violation of multiple Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I believe that their cumulative effects adversely affected, not merely the quality of the Talk page but of associated article Edits. If it happened earlier, it can happen again. Still, the Talk guidelines & policies do provide remedy, as do others including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Enforcement. The latter includes the following: "If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors [bolding added] can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct...." The mention of unpleasant possibilities here is intended to forestall their realization. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nerve!

M&Ms asks:What is going on with this article?

I guess things change. A few years ago the marxists were pushing their own agenda, ignoring the "science" of economics, until they were referred to the 'Capitalism' page. Now we are beset with blindsided technocrats.

Well, there are all lot of issues that I can see but I'll have to start somewhere: the section on Market Failure! The author in question quotes Stiglitz (Chapter 4, 2000). What is the name of the book and what are the page numbers? Does the author know that not everybody uses Stiglitz as an introductory text? I'll give you one reason my economics lecturer related to me and that is that Stiglitz is considered a biased introduction to the subject. While stiglitz's books are often quite comprehensive, he will all too often tack on his own slant on the topic. This can lead novice readers to believe that Stiglitz's bias forms part of the definition of that subject. He too pushes an agenda. I would advise the author to read more standard (and unfortunately a bit more mundane) texts before using Stiglitz.

For the general reader, I can understand frustration at encountering a phantom fn. ref. surrounded by 100+ full fn. Yes, one could do a ctrl-F ("Find") search for a match (a possibility I only recently discovered on Wiki), but it isn't reasonable to expect that. OK, the separated ref. has been united.

On other points, I think that a Google Scholar search of "market failure" and the terms in question would attest to them, but that doesn't mean that the "Market failure" section is fine as is. IMO the article would benefit by migrating some different parts of "Market failure" to existing or new subsections that put the alleged "market failure" in broader context, for example monopoly under the "Firms" section, perhaps retitled "Firms and industrial organization." Of course IO as is not just about a particular kind of "market failure" as such, & that's worth explaining. What remains under the current "Market failure" section might be retitled "Public economics" with corresponding appropriate content. To be done right, such migration shouldn't be done in a slapdash way. To that end I'd like to solicit comment, preparatory to presenting a more detailed provisional proposal for subsections to move in that direction. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for re-labelled or added sections

Per the above expresed intent to shift some material from the section now labelled "Market failure" (to give more context and balance than "Market failure" section by itself would provide). Here are some details as to proposed modified or added sections:

Section
number
1.5 Firms and industrial organization (from current "Firm" section, expanded as to IO with more on welfare econ of IO and policy alternatives)

1.6 Uncertainty and game theory (per the "Lemon problem" & related material much of this using material elsewhere in the article — same title as a Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus Economics (textbook) 's chapter 11.)

1.7 Environmental resources and agriculture (per externalities for the former and relation of natural resources-ag econ for the latter; ag econ has its own section in Britannica Econ article & was in WP Econ edit)

2.0 Public economics (discussion of Public goods and Public finance to replace "Market failure" section title & allow a more general discussion of PE, which may be a reasonable segue between Micro & Macro sections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas-I'm sorry I haven't been more active of late. I like the sound of your proposal. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

out of control

I hate to be overly critical, but this article is absolutely out of control. I tried to read this article as though I knew nothing about economics and I was left with the feeling that I would know NOTHING more. There is so much information here and most of it well written but it is all left dead, and im under the impression seeing the history of this article that it is the result of lots of unhappy compromise. I am honestly wondering if anyone is bold enough to take on this page and rewrite it so that people with no economics background would read it and leave with something other than being directed to other links.

Shabidoo | Talk 15:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

managerial decision making

significance of economics in managerial decision making —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.88.210 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit: Link to Stephen T. Ziliak

There is now a page for Stephen Ziliak. His name appears under the critiques section.BWoodrum (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change of footnotes to 1 column from 2 columns

Here is what the Econ article looks like with 1 column and 2 columns for footnotes. I propose 1 column. Advantages of 1 column (I think) are that it:

1. allows the reader to see appreciably more successive footnotes per screen (a bigger "map" of upcoming footnotes)
2. is less "busy" visually as to irrelevant footnotes in the other column
3. is much more common in print, and so requires less getting used to.

I'd like to propose 1 week for comment, pro or con, with a revert to 2 columns if there is a consensus for 2 columns. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Complete Overhaul. Complete reworking. Completely desparately needed.

With all due respect, and I agree completely with you about the references. Yes, two colums sound great. However, this article is a total disaster, is completely unreadable and as I have said before, anyone who wants to learn anything about Economics will leave feeling that they know nothing than what a few ideas of economics is and various schools of thought. In its current state its a forum for trained economics to read about a few case examples and links to more specific pages. Amongst the worst victims of really disordered writing, ad hoc edits and what not are the micro and marco economics sections.

This article really really truly truly truly needs some bold person(s) to do a total overhaul. BE BOLD, delete, add, reorder, rewrite. BE BOLD!!! I am not capable enough to write it (i come from a background on globalization) but there truly must be someone who will do it. This article is read thousands of times a day and it is a poor, poor, poor one at best. Such a completely basic topic, so wildly read and needed can do better and serve the thousands of people a day who read it far better.

Shabidoo | Talk 16:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The writer takes an extreme attitude with which I almost fully agree. My remarks below (18-08-2011) are with reference to the first diagram for which a good description to cover the nature of the subject would be most fitting.Macrocompassion (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC). I have introduces some more changes and improvements in the section on Macroeconomics. Several terms need definition as new topics.Macrocompassion (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AidanRice, 23 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Just a note - Where the Labor Theory of Value is discussed it says something like: the labor theory of value holds that the value of a thing is determined by how much labor went into it. Marx's labor theory of value, however, holds that the value of a thing, x, is determined by how much socially necessary labor time would have to go into the production of the thing. This is important because it shows how prices are normalized. If I make a new car, identical to the ones produced on an assembly line, but it takes me a year to make my car (and only 3 months on the line), my car is not therefore worth more because more labor went into it. My car is worth the same amount as the one made on the line because the one made on the line incorporates the socially necessary labor time.

AidanRice (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I kinda see what you mean, but please could you make a specific request - ie "please change THIS to THAT"? And please use another {{editsemiprotected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done impending economic collapse 2011-2012 s.bowlan Most Americans still appear to be operating under the delusion that the "recession" will soon pass and that things will get back to "normal" very soon. Unfortunately, that is not anywhere close to the truth. What we are now witnessing are the early stages of the complete and total breakdown of the U.S. economic system. The U.S. government, state governments, local governments, businesses and American consumers have collectively piled up debt that is equivalent to approximately 360 percent of GDP. At no point during the Great Depression (or at any other time during our history) did we ever come close to such a figure. We have piled up the biggest mountain of debt that the world has ever seen, and now that gigantic debt bubble is beginning to pop. As this house of cards comes crashing down, the economic pain is going to become almost unimaginable. Already, things are really, really, really bad out there. Unemployment is at shockingly high levels. Foreclosures and personal bankruptcies continue to set new all-time records. Businesses are being shut down at a staggering rate, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. government continues to pile up debt at blinding speed. There is no use sugar-coating it. The U.S. economy is collapsing. The following are 40 bizarre statistics that reveal the truth about the collapse of the U.S. economy....this info was collected from dec 09-jan-2011 1 - 30 of all u.s.households have at least one member that is looking for a full-time job. 2 - 65 percent of the U.S. labor force has experienced either unemployment, a pay decrease, a reduction in hours or an involuntary move to part-time work since the recession began. 3 - There are 27 million Americans are unemployed and a lot of them are are not receiving an unemployment insurance check because their extensions expired,they are called the 99s. 4 - In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks and in most states it is imposable to get a job because they are not available. 5 - According to one federal unpublished analysis, the United States has lost 27 million jobs since 2008. 6 - China's trade surplus (much of it with the United States) climbed 140 percent in June compared to a year earlier. we imported 436 billion in 2010 from china but exported just 36 billion to china. 7 - This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. 8 - According to a poll taken in 2009, 90 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck. That was up significantly from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. 9 - According to a recent poll conducted by Bloomberg, 90% of Americans say that it still feels like the economy is in a recession. 10 - Banks repossessed 269,962 U.S. homes during the second quarter of 2010, which was a new all-time record. 11 - Banks repossessed an average of 4,000 South Florida properties a month in the first half of 2010, up 83 percent from the first half of 2009. 12 - According to RealtyTrac, a total of 1.65 million U.S. properties received foreclosure filings during the first half of 2010. since 08 over 2 million homes forclosed on. 13 - The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that demand for loans to purchase U.S. homes has sunk to a 13-year low. 14 - Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. 15 - 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008. 16 - Back in 1950 each retiree's Social Security benefit was paid for by 16 workers. Today, each retiree's Social Security benefit is paid for by approximately 3.3 workers. By 2025 it is projected that there will be approximately two workers for each retiree. 17 - for non-retirees still working that sad fact is Social Security won't be able to pay them benefits when they stop working. 18 - 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. 19 - 36 percent of Americans don't contribute anything to retirement savings. 20 - According to one recent survey, 65% of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. 21 - The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index declined sharply to 52.9 in June. Most economists had expected that the figure for June would be somewhere around 62. 22 - Retail sales in the U.S. fell in June for a second month in a row. 23 - Vacancies and lease rates at U.S. shopping centers continued to get worse during the second quarter of 2010. 24 - Consumer credit in the United States has contracted during 15 of the past 16 months. 25 - During the first quarter of 2010, the total number of loans that are at least three months past due in the United States increased for the 16th consecutive quarter. 26 - Things are now so bad in California that in the region around the state capital, Sacramento, there is now one closed business for every six that are still open. 27 - The state of Illinois now ranks eighth in the world in possible bond-holder default. The state of California is ninth. 28 - More than 25 percent of Americans now have a credit score below 599, which means that they are a very bad credit risk. 29 - On Friday, U.S. regulators closed down three banks in Florida, two in South Carolina and one in Michigan, bringing to 96 the number of U.S. banks to be shut down so far in 2010. 30 - The FDIC's deposit insurance fund now has negative 20.7 billion dollars in it, which represents a slight improvement from the end of 2009. 31 - The U.S. federal budget deficit has topped $1 trillion with three months still to go in the current budget year. 32 - According to a U.S. Treasury Department report to Congress, the U.S. national debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015. 33 - The M3 money supply plunged at a 9.6 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2010. 34 - Americans between the ages of 44 and 75, 61% said that running out money was their biggest fear. The remaining 39% thought death was scarier. 35 - One study found that as of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. 36 - The bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. 37 - The number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line rose by about 40% between 2000 and 2006, and by 2008 over 60 million U.S. workers were earning less than $10 per hour. 38 - According to one recent study, approximately 90 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years. 39 - For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011. 40 - A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey has found that just 23% of American voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. what caused all this. there are two bills to blaim. NAFTA free trade with mexico and canada that was signed into law on dec 17 1992 by bush. the other bill is the china free trade bill signed into law by clinton on oct 10 2000 now in jan 2011 we have over 27 million out of work and a real unemployment number of 17-20 percent. in 09 23 states were in the red 2010 there were 32 2011 we have 46 states now asking the government to draw up a new bill called chapter 9 bankruptcy. expected by mid 2011 at least 50 of 51 states will be in this situation. when millions loose their job, millions in tax revenue are lost to each state. million of tax dollars mean states take money from other areas to cover the debt. like any business when you pay out more then you take it you fail. that is the news you are not being told on your news channels. what to expect in 2011 severe cuts made to social security,welfare,medicare,Medicaid,food stamps,and every other low income service being provided to the middle class. it is expected that from mid 2011-2012 the 46 states will be doing a massive layoff. expected 45,000 layoffs by mid 2011 across 46 states. this is a low number. the high side could be in the 10's of thousands. the reason being is the government does not have the money now to offer a state by state bailout and for the feds to simply print the money would devalue the u.s.dollar to the point of collapse.

Why Our Economy is Collapsing The United States is in open competition with the same countries from which we buy our goods and finance our government. These countries supply our consumption while simultaneously competing fiercely against our companies in international markets. Nations like India, Japan, and China, along with trade blocs like the European Union, rail against the U.S. when we use “protectionism” because they do not want to have their unfettered access to our market tampered with. Other countries, like China and Japan, protect their companies by putting limits and restrictions on the amount of American-made goods flowing into the markets. The United States puts up no such regulations, and is thus flooded with foreign-made goods. now under the obama adminustration even u.s.federal defence contracts are open to over seas competition were just a few years ago only u.s.manufactures could compete for u.s.defence contracts. NAFTA, and the china “free trade” agreements, favor the foreign producers. We are told by the WTO and the EU that we cannot and should not protect our own economy. Through “free trade” the U.S. must open itself to all foreign interests. Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico and canada were eliminated. bill clinton signs the china free trade bill oct 10 2000 The granting of PNTR-CFTB by the United States would clear the way for China's entry into the World Trade Organization and enable free trade with American businesses and industries. Goods from China could be granted the same lower tariff rates in U.S. markets as currently extended to other nations. Our government has eroded its own regulations regarding capital infusions, mergers and acquisitions, and foreign-takeovers. To make matters worse, most successful American companies are for sale on an open stock market. As a result the United States has lost thousands of companies to foreign takeovers in the past 30 years, and stands to lose even more as the economic crisis deepens. The same cannot be said of other countries, where takeovers are closely regulated and major industrial champions rarely – if ever – get purchased by an interest overseas. Most Americans do not realize the gravity of the situation because so much of the media attention is directed in favor of the “free trade” system that has bankrupted us. Scholars, politicians, professionals, and others from all walks of life have been indoctrinated into the idea that “free trade” is the best and only way to do business. Our political leaders believe in this whimsical idea, and those that do not preach the fallacies of “free trade” are bought and paid for by major corporate interests and foreign lobbies. Our factories are shuttered and our industries are unproductive. This country imports consumer goods that could and should otherwise be made at home. It exports its wealth, strength, and prestige in exchange. With no internal capabilities remaining we are now insourcing foreign corporations to manufacture in the U.S. for their own profit and benefit. States fight over who will land the next contract. There are thousands of foreign-owned, American-registered companies in the United States. Many of the automobile factories which presently supply our car market are foreign-owned. Our state, local, and federal governments continue to offer tax breaks and subsidies to these foreign companies in exchange for a few American jobs even after this practice drove our own automakers to the point of dissolution. In the near future we may find our living standards diminished and our prospects for growth and economic independence dampened. Without any homegrown industries to drive a comeback we will be forced to be content with our diminishing status. While formerly living in the lap of luxury we allowed the greatest economy on earth to fall apart by living on imports and foreign financed debt. The “me first” mentality which drove this country has pushed us into a crisis from which we will not return unless we immediately fix our problems. politicians passed these bills by receiving massive kick-backs in the form of votes and favors by large corporations in both the united states and fourign countries. there is no single side to blame,both demecrate and republican could fix the problem if they wanted to. the collapse of the u.s.ecomnomy is inevitable unless trade restrictions are put back in place. in the united states the economic engine that drove the economy was manufacturing,now that that has been taking out of the equasion the economy can not survive. need any more proof that this system is not working,how about 27 million jobs lost since the china trade bill was put into law. as of Jan 1- 2011 46 states are so badly in debt that the u.s.government is trying to design a new chapter 9 bankruptcy for each of the u.s.states,this chapter 9 will allow states to back out of pension contracts they have made with state and union workers. the cause for these 46 states is the massive unemployment and business failures. states are now paying out more money then they are taking in in tax money. mid 2011 states will be forced to make massive cuts to state Pension welfare,Medicaid,medicare,food stamps and every other low income service they provide. the governments next move in mid 2011 will be to cut social security. those who will be retiring soon may not get any thing and those on it now may get less. every thing in this report was compiled from 2009-2011 if you think parts or the entire story is wrong then you are in Denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowlan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I just say once again, while we are arguing over fine tuned edits, this whole article is really difficult for non economic oriented people to read.

This is the first paragraph after the introduction:

Microeconomics, like macroeconomics, is a fundamental method for analyzing the economy as a system. It treats households and firms interacting through individual markets as irreducible elements of the economy, given scarcity and government regulation.

Now, imagine I do not know much about economics. The first sentence tells me nothing. Just that micro economics and marco economics (assuming that they are different) both analyze the economy. House holds and firms interacting through ... huh? What? Individual markets? Irreducible elements of the why? Given what? And its the first paragraph of the article. I am not saying that we have to dumb things down, or that Economics is a bad article, its not, but this is a general article about economics read thousands of times a day. Imagine, I am studying a field NOT about economics but I need a basic understanding of it. I read this first paragraph and I am more confused than before I looked this article up. This isnt economopedia. Good article, lots of very keepable stuff, links, ideas, images etc... But not so accesible for all.

I said this months ago and I was virtually ignored. I said it again, ignored, and people are arguing over even more technical things. BE BOLD! GO FOR IT! Try to see this article from the point of view of a general reader. Even the basic science articles are understandable. The physics articles, written by nutty phisicists still manage to introduce it well. Why can't we?!?!?!?! BE BOLD! Big big challenge. Shabidoo | Talk 08:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarke source for lede?

"The expanding domain of economics in the social sciences has been described as economic imperialism.[8]"

The sentence above is no doubt true, but is it important enough to be in the lede? Are there other things in the lede that are of less than primary importance? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many problems with the lede, particularly in the use of weak source (Clarke) as the primary reference. Clarke is, as usual in this project's articles, a political-economy approach favoring discussion of economic ideologies providing a straw-man overview of "orthodox economics". My correction of the "physics envy" strawman was reverted recently.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

dismal science

"The dismal science" is a derogatory alternative name for economics devised by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century. It is often stated that Carlyle gave economics the nickname "the dismal science" as a response to the late 18th century writings of The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, who grimly predicted that starvation would result, as projected population growth exceeded the rate of increase in the food supply. - this is a common misconception (and I guess we could report it as a common misconception). Carlyle did not coin the term in response to Malthus, but rather as a response to classical economists' criticisms of slavery. That is, classical economists argued for an end to slavery, Carlyle defended it. A quick search on the web can yield a plethora of sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Section Reversion

I updated and improved the sections and images for the free-market schools, but I was promptly reverted. Is this Keynesian POV or just mere droll?--  Novus  Orator  09:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several schools of economics mentioned in the article, and some talked about at length, justified because they have "influenced" economics, but we can say that about all schools. Im in favour of simplifying this entire article but cutting 3/4 of the material out including long paragraphs about individual schools, but cutting out one school because its not "central to the article" (whatever that means), complaining that it was reverted and then phrasing a question rhetorically with two equally negative options (Keynesian POV or just mere droll) is maybe not the best way to explain what you are doing nor justify it. In my little opinion. You might be right but imagine if I cut out the Chicago school and said (pff, socialists have discredited it and its no longer important to real economics, is it mere out dated kaka or is it simply Friedman POV? I would be reverted in .001 seconds and rightly so. Shabidoo | Talk 16:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

mathematical economics

I agree with Kiefer and Lawrence that this text [2] is undue here. However, there is a better reason to remove it - the Colander source [3] doesn't actually state what that text purports it says. The only occurrence of the phrase "mathematical economics" in that article is:

Thus, there is a natural symbiosis of heterodox economics with advanced applied mathematical economics and statistics - which is basically Colander telling aspiring heterodox economists to learn the maths.

The word "mathematical" occurs once or twice more in the source but not in a way which could support the previous text of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll break this into bullets. I should disclose that I wrote the section in question:

• The article previously stated: "Contemporary mainstream economics, as a formal mathematical modeling field, could also be called mathematical economics." Colander's source says: "Mainstream economics is a formal modeling field; it is not going to change" and "Mainstream economics ... [is] limiting the conversation to those ideas that fit into a formal mathematical model, and which allow econometric consideration". I think Colander's article certainly supports the statement in "Economics" article. If you disagree, could you explain? Keep in mind that style is important, and if something doesn't have quotation marks, then you're not likely to find a direct quote. Also, not everything has to be cited - only things that editors (even just 1) seriously disagrees with. Do you seriously disagree with the conclusion that contemporary mainstream economics mathematical economics? If so, why?
• While much of the changes I disagree with have nothing to do with removing a mention of "heterodox" but rather involve the removal of key wikilinks prominently placed, I also don't agree with completely ignoring heterodox economics in the section - and I certainly can't see how a mention of heterodox economics alone has to be mentioned in some section other than practice. It seems clear to me that if we say that modern economics relies heavily on mathematics in practice - which I think we should - we also have to explain a history and context which was not heavily mathematical - a context which includes Smith, Schumpeter, Hayek, Keynes - take your pick. I can get the sources if necessary but for our purposes I suspect we all know enough about the history to engage in a conversation here in the talkpage.
• Generally, I completely disagree with this change and see no consensus (or good reason) for it, and so I will revert if no decent explanation is provided within the next couple days, pending further discussion.II | (t - c) 05:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This may be merely a jargon problem, but a great deal of economics is not mathematical economics, simply because the field has defined mathematical economics to be more limited that that. Rather than saying it is "mathematical economics", phrasing it to make clear that mathematics is extremely important should be good enough (and I believe more accurate). CRETOG8(t/c) 19:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see what you mean and I'll rephrase it when I revert. However: the mathematical economics article defines "mathematical economics" as "the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics. It allows formulation and derivation of key relationships in a theory with clarity, generality, rigor, and simplicity. By convention, the methods refer to those beyond simple geometry..." - this is not a very limited definition at all, and describes basically all mainstream research aside from history. This definition is commonly used; for example, Ivy League schools have classes on "mathematical economics" which are basically just regular economics with more math. There are more limited uses of the phrase where it is restricted to theoretical work setting up models rather than, say, empirical econometrics research. There's also a JEL category for "mathematical methods", which I don't think is synonymous with mathematical economics. However, since our "mathematical economics" does not even discuss this distinction, I don't think preserving it has been viewed as that important. II | (t - c) 18:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert, or not revert...please leave whatever text is in that section, well written and understandable for any reader. This would be doing everyone a great service. Shabidoo | Talk 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of a "critics" paragraph & moving "Criticism"-(sub)section material elsewhere

May I opine that the section in question looks much better from the pruning & editing since I last looked hard at it 3 years ago. That makes it a lot easier to manage in the way suggested below.

The WP:STRUCTURE section of WP:NPOV recommends melding material describing points of view on the article subject not into its own section but rather the appropriate place(s) in the article. IMO following that guideline as to Economics#Criticism would improve the article. Here are some suggestions along that line. (If there's no consensus against it, there are a lot of able editors who might be willing to undertake such.)

1. 1st 3 paragraphs to appropriate Economics#History subsections, trimming after they get there as appropriate.
2. 4th paragraph on politics (if it is fit to move) to Economics#Practice or subsections thereof, trimming after they get there as appropriate.
3. Short 5th-8th paragraphs to Economics#Practice or subsections if they can be fitted in.

The subsection that follows at Economics#Criticism of assumptions:

1. 1st 2 paragraphs to Economics#Theory.
2. Short 3rd paragraph to Economics#Practice or Economics#Profession.

Per the previous section, I suggest the following only very provisionally: a well-written paragraph or very short section on non-mainstream views might be OK in Economics#Theory or in its own section (possibly some of it from 4th paragraph, Economics#Criticism). Mark Blaug's magisterial Encyclopædia Britannica "Economics" article devoted almost a half page in his History section to the "The critics" (pre-WW2 mostly, institutionalists, including Galbraith, & imperfect competition). That's not quite the same thing, but it's related. This subject to the high standards for inclusion that now appear to be in effect.

Suggestions, amendments, or reactions pro or con are welcome. If there's no consensus against it, there are a lot of able editors who might be willing to undertake such. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Positions are best expressed in the positive rather than the negative. Instead of "criticism of mathematical economics", say, it would be better to write about "pragmatic economics" or "libertarian economics" or whatever the people who argue against mathematical economics call their ideas. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The QE Principle's new conceptual economic model should be reviewed and included in future discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.8.169 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki FR

It seems that the interwiki for french changed from fr:Économie to fr:Science économique. Although this has some logic, the content of Economics and pt:Economia is similar to the content of fr:Économie and very different from then content of fr:Science économique. Also the practical effect is general confusion while navigating between wikis. Does anyone oppose to changing the interwiki back to fr:Économie? --Dreispt (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

M&Ms Says

I have no opinion on this.

83.70.133.9 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Economies of scale

In section on specialization:

"Firms combine labour and capital, and can achieve far greater economies of scale (when producing two or more things is cheaper than one thing) than individual market trading."

Surely it is not that producing two or more things is cheaper than producing one thing, but that producing N things is cheaper than N x the cost of producing one thing. I propose:

"Firms combine labour and capital, and can achieve far greater economies of scale (when producing a number of things is cheaper than the number of things multiplied by the cost of producing only one) than individual market trading."

92.225.47.67 (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

M&Ms Says

Before this goes any further - production does not equal trading. Economies of scale occur when unit cost decreases as quantity produced increases. I belive the wires are getting crossed here. It sounds like you are trying to highlight the advantages a firm has (where the production processes are combined) over an entity that only performs one of the production process roles. The firm benefits from reducing transaction costs whereas the 'individual' entity will incur costs inherent in trading (e.g. bargaining costs, lower economies of scale etc.) 83.70.133.9 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerning a Sentence Found Under 'Critisims of Assumptions' Section

M&Ms Says

This is the first sentence of the aforementioned section on the Economics page:

Economics has been subject to criticism that it relies on unrealistic, unverifiable, or highly simplified assumptions, in some cases because these assumptions simplify the proofs of desired conclusions.

The sentence is turgid; bordering on waffle. It wouldn't hurt to have less concise wording in this case, me thinks. Is this sentence a direct quote? The punctuation is also suspect.

Fou Tildes (83.70.133.9 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC))

Diagrams for Macroeconomics Functional Systems

The first disgram shown in the subject of economics (and recently replaced with a 6 sector one) is actually a poorly presented macroeconomics functional diagram. The reasons for this are as follows:

1. Unfortunately it is wrongly titled as 'income flow'. It is the money that is flowing not the 'income' (which is surely an 'outcome' from somewhere else in the system).

2. The flows should be named. Since they represent goods (services, valuable documenmts etc.) flowing in the opposite direction to the money, these flows are all double ones. The use of algebraic notation is useful but each term must be properly defined. Thus each double flow should be given two names!

3.The diagram is incomplete and should cover the whole of the social system of a country. This means that certain agencies or entities that play a specific role in the functioning of the system have been omitted. In fact the 6 agents or entities of significance to our (Western) social system are: Government, Land-lord, Producer, House-Holder(both earner and consumer),Capitalist, and finally Banking Institution. Only 4 of these entities are included in the diagram. The Landlord and Capitalist are sometimes taken as one entity, however the roles that each plays is sufficiently different for them to be separated.

4. The diagram does not have to include the Rest of the World (which makes it unnecessarily complicated, since 4 more flows are required, some of which cross existing ones).

5. The location (marketplace) where business takes place is irrelevent and confuses the reader. These circled names are superfluous.

Only one such diagram is needed but it should be fully comprehensive of the system and not just there for showing the circulation of money. This is because this diagram implies that it is complete and covers the whole social system. It has been taken for use elsewhere (in Wikipedia and outside too) where it is assumed to represent not only the "incomes circulation". The implication of presenting such a diagram is that it has a more general application, and because this is likely to be the case the diagram should be properly titled and more complete, comprehensive and accurate.Macrocompassion (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in Natural Monopoly Description

Market Failure: Natural Monopoly: "where more of a product is made, the greater the unit costs are" to "where more of a product is made, the lower the unit costs are". Csamurai92 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Eek. Got it, thanks. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo in the first sentence if someone wants to fix it up? ("and", not "abd") - The page is protected and I personally can't be bothered to make a Wiki account at this point in time. 123.211.236.174 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed LK (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.73.175.38, 26 August 2011

Small error: Mid-article, it describes that Tversky and Kahnemann have "won Nobel Prizes" for their theories of behavioral economics. Tversky however never did, having died in 1996. However, as Tversky's long-time collaborator, it is commonly claimed he would had won with Kahnemann in 2002, which is may be why the original author of this line became confused.

74.73.175.38 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Forevermore: Or How I loved to Learn about Bombs

...and other such unclear sribbles:

M&Ms asks: if this sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the overview makes sense;

Common distinctions are drawn between various dimensions of economics.

I think the first two words create an oxymoron. This paragraph doesn't have to be included at the start, The reader can learn about the different perspectives and competing fields whenthey read on.

Alternatively, the writer of this sentence may be saying that for each dimension of economics (please define)there are common distictions, or perspectives used to counterpoint the 'dimensions'. I don't think this statement is entirely true if that's what the author is saying.

Remember guys, there's no harm in keeping it simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.41.7.207 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Economic's/Type's of demand.

TYPES OF DEMAND. 1)UNITARY ELASTIC-quantity demanded change's byt the exactly same percentage as price does. 2)ZERO ELASTIC(PERFECTLY INELASTIC)-quantity demand does not change as price change's. 3)INELASTIC DEMAND-quantity demand change's by a smaller percentage than price does. 4)ELASTIC DEMAND-quantity demand change's by a higher percentage than price does. 5)INFINITE DEMAND(PERFECTLY ELASTIC)-purchase are prepared to buy all they can obtain at some price and none at small change in price.

Economic's/Type's of demand.

TYPES OF DEMAND. 1)UNITARY ELASTIC-quantity demanded change's byt the exactly same percentage as price does. 2)ZERO ELASTIC(PERFECTLY INELASTIC)-quantity demand does not change as price change's. 3)INELASTIC DEMAND-quantity demand change's by a smaller percentage than price does. 4)ELASTIC DEMAND-quantity demand change's by a higher percentage than price does. 5)INFINITE DEMAND(PERFECTLY ELASTIC)-purchase are prepared to buy all they can obtain at some price and none at small change in price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahabat Khan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

M&Ms wonders: is this a reply to the comments made in the section above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.155.16.96 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

== Schools of Thought in Macroeconomics

The detailed treatment of this (and certain other subjects too within "Economics") makes the whole article far too long and each school deserves a separate subject study within the Wikipedia format. Then all that is needed in "Economics" is a reference to it. If any explanation describing a particular school is really necessary, it must be very brief.

When mentioning theories for the "business cycles" again reference to the various schools and their theories about this phenomenon would save the reader a lot of unnecessary searching and time.

One unmentioned school which is unique in treating this subject properly and better than the rest is the Georgist school (see Henry George), where the cycles are attributed to land-value speculation and its non-use, driving up the cost of production on the land in use and reducing the resulting demand for goods, rise in unemployment, etc.Macrocompassion (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is totally out of control

Instead of being improved, this article has gotten out of control. While a few sections have been improved (especially the introduction which was well edited, three cheers for the intro), and while most edits have been made to improve the article as a whole, it remains fragmented and very difficult to understand.

Read this article from the POV of someone who knows little about economics. Seriously. Does anyone think that they will learn much? This article is viewed thousands of times a day and there is no doubt that students come here first to try to understand the basic concepts of economics. What do they learn?

While arguments about this article range from where to put the foot notes, how the communist writers have taken it over, which school of economics should be included, what is referenced or not, little effort has been put into making this article accessible to the average reader. It doesn't have to be dumbed down, nor does the articles content need be compromised in the persuit of writing for a broader audience. I am not capable of editing this article. I am begging some users to take on the huge challenge of reconstructing this article to make it readable and accessible (even if section by section). Please. Pretty please. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing in the article about the criticism and concerns regarding the conflict of interest between academic economists and their monetary ties to the financial sector? Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Real economy" redirect (edit request)

Why does to search term "real economy" redirect to the general economics page? I've looked through the article and it doesn't talk about the idea of the "real economy" at all. Financial Times defines it as:

"The part of the economy that is concerned with actually producing goods and services, as opposed to the part of the economy that is concerned with buying and selling on the financial markets" http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=real-economy

This is a specific idea within economics. If there isn't a wikipedia article for it, fine. But it shouldn't just send people to the general economics page. 86.135.13.71 (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- if "real economy is not addressed on the page, the redirect should be removed. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Economy instead. We should probably have an article on Real economy, if anyone wants to write it? LK (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Add econ definitions or section on the subject?

To put it simply, this article fails to give an accurate definition of economics. The social science has greatly expanded the topics that it is capable of covering "recently," by adjusting the definition of economics. The modern definition of economics is that economics is a social science that analyses human choice when faced with scarcity. This is the definition being taught to today's students, and it is time for Wikipedia to reflect this modernization. One economist who has had significant influence on the modernization of the definition and the social science is Gary Becker - an American economist who was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1992, and received the United States' Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007. Economics is not simply "the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" (Wikipedia: Economics, 16 Nov 11).

The modernization of the definition of economics and how the current definition is inaccurate is exemplified by recent Nobel Prize Laureates. (The following information is quoted from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/)

2005 - R.J. Aumann and T.C. Schelling - "for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis"
2000 - J.J. Heckman - "for his development of theory and methods for analyzing selective samples"
2000 - D.L. McFadden - "for his development of theory and methods for analyzing discrete choice"
1996 - J.A. Mirrlees and W. Vickrey - "for their fundamental contributions to the economic theory of incentives under asymmetric information"
1994 - J.C. Harsanyi, J.F. Nash Jr. and R. Selten - "for their pioneering analysis of equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games"
1992 - G.S. Becker - "for having extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour"

As I do not have the power to edit the article itself, and my initial research has not produced any definitions from scholarly journals, I hope someone can assist me in making this change.

Seankeoghan (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
An Honours Economics Student

Seankeoghan...do you have a source which demonstrates how professors define economics these days? While I understand where you are coming from, listing some nobel prize winners doesn't mean the article should be changed. Some Nobel prize winners have crashed and burned recently. Is there any way you can demonstrate that your proposed change represents more than a POV or simply one school of thought amongst many? If you can...then go for it and make the changes, though some sources should be quoted to back up what you are saying. --Shabidoo | Talk 07:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

After completing some research, I have come up with the following sources to back up my argument.

"… The expansion of economics in recent years has also taken the form of broadening the definition of the scope of the subject. This is demonstrated through the emergence of specialized fields with their own educational courses, textbooks, and academic journals. The classical economists treated areas like international trade and public finance as integrated parts of the core of economics, while today these tend to be defined as areas of specialization."

"Alfred Marshall said that economics was the study of men “in the ordinary business of life,” and Lionel Robbins defined it as the study of the allocation of scarce resources among alternative uses."

"Von Mises writes that economics, the study of human choice under conditions of scarcity, can be treated as a specialization of praxeology, the study of all human action."

"Economics is fundamentally about understanding the life choices that individuals make, and how those choices impact the economy. It studies the logic of human choice under conditions of scarcity, and examines the social institutions that determine how scarce resources are used."

"Economics is a social science in that it studies social problems of choice from the scientific viewpoint, which means that it is built on a systematic explanation of problems of choice where resources to satisfy unlimited human wants are scarce."

"[Economics] is often described as the study of how we use our limited resources to satisfy our unlimited material wants."

It is easily possible to find more sources to back up the argument that the current definition of economics, according to Wikipedia, is outdated by doing a quick google search.

As I am currently unable to edit the article on Economics due to my new membership, I would appreciate if someone else could update the definition.

Specificially, what I wish to have is the current definition (Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services) changed to "Economics is a social science in that it studies social problems of choice from the scientific viewpoint, which means that it is built on a systematic explanation of problems of choice where resources to satisfy unlimited human wants are scarce." With Reference : Royal Military College of Canada (25450) defining economics. Retrieved 22 Nov 11. http://www.rmc.ca/aca/ac-pe/ug-apc/pe/index-eng.asp.

Seankeoghan (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
An Honours Economics Student

Comment: I think the existing definition is perhaps better as it is broader and less contentious than the proposed one. The proposed one is I think one many mainstream neoclassical economists would go with but then the question might be how would we deal with alternatives. Those who have studied Methodology of Economics might well have a lot to say on this issue and perhaps one route we could go down is have an article on definitions of economics! I think I remember this article (Backhouse, R.E. and Medema, S., 2009. Retrospectives: on the definition of economics. Journal of economic perspectives, 23 (1), 221–233.) as offering a nice discussion of the subject. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)) PS: Backhouse p221-222 argues the following:

"Economists are far from unanimous about the definition of their subject. Here are some definitions of economics from contemporary principles of economics textbooks:

• Economics is the study of economies, at both the level of individuals and of society as a whole (Krugman and Wells, 2004, p. 2).

• Economics is the study of how human beings coordinate their wants and desires, given the decision-making mechanisms, social customs, and political realities of the society (Colander, 2006a, p. 4).

• Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources (Mankiw, 2001, p. 4).

• Economics is the social science that studies the choices that individuals, businesses, governments, and entire societies make as they cope with scarcity (Bade and Parkin, 2002, p. 5).

• Economics is the study of human behavior, with a particular focus on human decision making (Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, and MacPherson 2006, p. 5)."

And then goes on to discuss this lack of agreement on definition of economics. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

I think the previous discussant has made a great contribution by starting and fleshing out the Definitions of economics article, prompted by the preceding exchange above. That article I think should stay there for future expansion, but it has been suggested at Talk:Definitions of economics#Not standalone article? that Definitions of economics might be suitable for the Econ article. I agree and proposed that at the Talk:Definitions ... page. I'm making the same proposal here. It could come right after the Econ lead section to complement elements on each of the 3 lead paragraphs there. Yes, there is history of economics involved, but the point is to complement the lead, to indicate how economists (not just dictionaries) define econ, and to prepare readers for subjects treated later in the Micro and Macro sections, not just in the History section.

The above edits suggest an embarrassment of riches as to different definitions from textbooks and elsewhere. So which definitions to choose from? Well, the most influential ones as revealed by discussions in the most likely places to look: encyclopedia- or The New Palgrave Dictionary-like, or other survey articles on the subject that indicate what the value added is of the respective definitions, and whether (and if so, how) the differences are consequential. The narrative of the section should also make it clear why listing different textbook definitions is unnecessary so as to avoid undue length.

Comments are welcome on the proposal here or at Talk:Definitions of economics (as to content). A provisional heading is "Modern definitions of the subject" (to distinguish from say the Greek definition) and to prepare for the fact that there is more than one definition and that they have occurred in "modern times", not just in current textbooks. "... of the subject" references that the definitions of the subject apply to 'political economy' as well as 'economics'. If there is no consensus against such an add, I'd like to suggest that the add occur a week from now. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Specialisation" and "gains from trade" in Macro or International sections?

Is it totally appropriate to have specialisation and gains from trade in the Macroeconomics section and not the International Economics Section? The Textbook I'm using shows it in the Int section. Am wondering whether that would be appropriate. After all, there is no point in specialisation if there is no trade.TotNoob102 (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TN. I think you may have meant to say in the 1st line above: "Microeconomics section" (where specialisation and gains from trade are discussed), not Macro. Quite true about those subjects being treated in International Econ, but like most of Econ, that's for reasons of expedience & convenience, not principle, & a variation on the 2nd law of economics (after TANSTAAFL):

There's no such thing as a principled economist.#

Still, I think there's a principled case for including them very early. They are so fundamental to all general econ that Paul Samuelson & William Nordhaus's Economics (textbook) has those in ch. 2, "Trade, Specialization, and Division of Labor" section of Part One, "Basic Concepts", before even the Part Two, "Micro" (referenced in Economics at fn. 19). I don't say that they could not be placed later, only that things go well with earlier placement, given the other closely-related & fundamental subjects treated there and what follows that section before Macro and International. I do, however, think more cross-referencing, including Wiki links, is appropriate later in both "Macro" & "International" sections.

# OK, a joke, but not entirely funny, as I think most economists might concede. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A fair arguement. I do realise my slight error in the Micro/Macro issue. And I agree that it is an important issue and that being dealt with sooner is desirable. I have just read it in the International Economics section of my texbook (Alan Glanville's Economics froma a Global Perspective). But, I will leave judgement to those who are most likely better informed on how these pages are designed well. And, on a personal note, I don't feel them to be as important as the other topics discussed in the Micro economics pages i.e. Supply and Demand, Markets etc. But that is only a personal view. (Am also slightly upset that there is no page for Alan Glanville :( TotNoob102 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Adam Smith

"In his famous invisible-hand analogy, Smith argued for the seemingly paradoxical notion that competitive markets tended to advance broader social interests, although driven by narrower self-interest." If this is taken from the Wealth of Nations or The Theory of Moral Sentiments, then it's completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is wrong, you should correct it, with references, preferable quotes. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I think it would be better just to erase it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not wrong. It seems to me the quote is a pretty accurate rendition of the argument in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Bk. IV, Chapter 2 (@4, 9) online

Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, not that of society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society..... He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.....and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part his intention.

Walrasiad (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

1.I would like to note the TITLE of the chapter:"Of RESTRAINTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES of such Goods as can be Produced at Home " 2.Correct quotation:"But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. BY PREFERRING THE SUPPORT OF DOMESTIC TO THAT OF FOREIGN INDUSTRY, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, LED BY AN INVISIBLE HAND to promote an end which was NO PART OF HIS INTENTION. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among MERCHANTS, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. "

3.How that could be distorted in"He described the MARKET MECHANISM as an "invisible hand" that leads ALL INDIVIDUALS, in pursuit of their own self-interests, to produce the GREATEST benefit for society as a whole" is something that is deeply disturbing to me.

I dont think you need a PhD in Economics to see how fallacious this kind of quotation is.I seriously think that at least Wikipedia should give a good example by quoting things from the right sources. lbertolotti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.50.180 (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what your objection is. The insight of the invisible hand is the old Mandevillian paradox of "private vices, public benefits", i.e. that private, self-seeking behavior inadvertently promotes the general welfare of the public. It is a paradox that had been discussed and puzzled over by the Scottish school of philosophy, of which Smith was a leading discussant, and is a correct representation of Adam Smith's usage of the term here. The trade example Smith uses is a simple illustration of that paradox, a result that emerges from his theory of trade. That there will be public gains from trade is a central result of his the Wealth of Nations, and this chapter in particular. Now, it is one thing to say that gains from trade can be realized, and another to say that they will be realized. Smith's purpose in this section is precisely to emphasize that they will be realized, that specialization and trade will be actually conducted in the "right direction" that will realize these mutual gains. If you have two countries, with different domestic prices, then profit-seeking individuals not only can, but will set up businesses and trade, in a manner that a good is exported from the lower cost country to the higher cost one, thus resulting in more goods overall, cheaper prices in the importing country and cheaper prices (for the other traded good) in the exporting country, with the overall result of greater public welfare for the countries as a whole (i.e. net gains from trade for both countries are positive, a result readily deducible diagramatically BTW with simple consumer surplus/produer surplus of modern trade theory).

Adam Smith's point is merely that the individuals who engaged in the specialization & import/export have performed a "public service" (i.e. realizing the mutual gains from trade, which benefitted the publics of both countries), even though their interest was purely their own personal gain, not the public gain. This is a general result of market exchange - foreign trade happens to be one example, but the whole theme of the Wealth of Nations is precisely that the market mechanism is general, that all exchange is analogous and based on the same principles, whether between individuals or between countries ("What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.", etc.)

So I'm not sure what exactly you are objecting to. If it is the terms "greatest" and "all", that can surely be adjusted. But "private interest leading to public benefits" is central, it is how Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" has been understood and taught for the past couple of centuries. Walrasiad (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT whats written in Adam Smith:"If you have two countries, with different domestic prices, then profit-seeking individuals not only can, but will set up businesses and trade, in a manner that a good is exported from the lower cost country to the higher cost one, thus resulting in more goods overall, cheaper prices in the importing country and cheaper prices (for the other traded good) in the exporting country, with the overall result of greater public welfare for the countries as a whole" This connects with what he was saying before:"Thus, upon equal or nearly equal profits, every wholesale merchant naturally PREFERS THE HOME-TRADE TO THE FOREIGN TRADE of consumption, and the foreign trade of consumption to the carrying trade. In the home-trade his capital is never so long out of his sight as it frequently is in the foreign trade of consumption. He can know better the character and situation of the persons whom he trusts, and if he should happen to be deceived, he knows better the laws of the country from which he must seek redress. In the carrying trade, the capital of the merchant is, as it were, divided between two foreign countries, and no part of it is ever necessarily brought home, or placed under his own immediate view and command.The capital which an Amsterdam merchant employs in carrying corn from Konigsberg to Lisbon, and fruit and wine from Lisbon to Konigsberg, must generally be the one half of it at Konigsberg and the other half at Lisbon. No part of it need ever come to Amsterdam. The natural residence of such a merchant should either be at Konigsberg or Lisbon, and it can only be some very particular circumstances which can make him prefer the residence of Amsterdam. The uneasiness, however, which he feels at being separated so far from his capital generally determines him to bring part both of the Konigsberg goods which he destines for the market of Lisbon, and of the Lisbon goods which he destines for that of Konigsberg, to Amsterdam: and though this necessarily subjects him to a double charge of loading and unloading, as well as to the payment of some duties and customs, yet for the sake of having some part of his capital always under his own view and command, he willingly submits to this extraordinary charge; and it is in this manner that every country which has any considerable share of the carrying trade becomes always the emporium, or general market, for the goods of all the different countries whose trade it carries on....But a CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN HOME TRADE, it has already been shown,necessarily puts into motion a greater quantity of domestic industry, and GIVES REVENUE AND EMPLOYMENT TO A GREATER NUMBER OF THE THE INHABITANTS OF THE COUNTRY, than an equal capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption: and one employed in the foreign trade of consumption has the same advantage over an equal capital employed in the carrying trade. Upon equal, or only nearly equal profits, therefore, every individual naturally inclines to employ his capital in the manner in which it is likely to afford the GREATEST SUPPORT OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY, and to give revenue and employment to the greatest number of people of his own country. " The correct interpretation is:"If you have two countries, profit-seeking individuals BY PREFERRING THE SUPPORT OF DOMESTIC TO THAT OF FOREIGN INDUSTRY serve the interest of their country, even thought that is not their intention (as led by and invisible hand)" Hopes this makes things clear once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You are being distracted by a paragraph that is not of much interest. Adam Smith did not consider the domestic employment argument of Mercantilism valid (although he was always eager to prove that professed end was contradicted by their own policies, the very point of Book IV.). The point of interest is the paragraph that follows the one you cite "But it is only for the sake of profit that any man employs a capital in the support of industry; and he will always, therefore, endeavour to employ it in the support of that industry of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, or to exchange for the greatest quantity either of money or of other goods", and then goes on to argue (para. 9) that it is frequently in foreign trade that greater value can be obtained, ergo the specialization of industry in the domestic economy to a particular end, and that if trade is prevented, the "The industry of the country, therefore, is thus turned away from a more to a less advantageous employment, and the exchangeable value of its annual produce, instead of being increased, according to the intention of the lawgiver, must necessarily be diminished by every such regulation." I hope that is clear to you. It seems to be clear to everyone else.

To reiterate, the "invisible hand" theory is not conditional on any particular configuration of domestic or foreign industry; it is a general statement. "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part his intention." If that "greater value" is achieved by foreign trade (as illustrated in his examples), then so be it.

Of course, I can only speak of the way I understand these passages, and how the concept of the "invisible hand" has been intepreted and understood by commentators over the past two centuries. If your reading is suggests to you the concept is not general, but exclusively refers to domestic employment to the exclusion of foreign commerce, then it is quite at odds with the chapter, and certainly a novel interpretation and one I would enjoy reading in more detail, should you write a paper on it. But it is certainly an unconventional interpretation and seems like original research. Walrasiad (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1.The invisible hand is not a theory 2.How can this be original “research”, if I’m reading from Smith himself. Citing other people use of the invisible hand is what sounds like research to me. 3. “FIRST(I), every individual endeavours to employ his capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in the support of domestic industry; provided always that he can thereby obtain the ordinary, or not a great deal less than the ordinary profits of stock.” “SECONDLY(II), every individual who employs his capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest possible value.” It follows that: “As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry(I), he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value(II), he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” HOWEVER “It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.” 4.” To give the monopoly of the home-market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation. If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful.”Why? Because: “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our OWN INDUSTRY employed in a way in which we have some ADVANTAGE.” Now this is Ricardo Comparative Advantage right? 5.If a country uses its capital to produce something in which they have an advantage and trades it with a commodity that is cheaper than itself can make, the people will gain. If a merchant employs his capital at home “it has already been shown, necessarily puts into motion a greater quantity of domestic industry, and gives revenue and employment to a greater number of the inhabitants of the country, than an equal capital employed in the foreign trade of consumption: and one employed in the foreign trade of consumption has the same advantage over an equal capital employed in the carrying trade.” HOWEVER if he employs his capital abroad he may gain more than at home, but the people will lose because as said at the begging ” The general industry of the society never can exceed what the capital of the society can employ. As the number of workmen that can be kept in employment by any particular person must bear a certain proportion to his capital, so the number of those that can be continually employed by all the members of a great society must bear a certain proportion to the whole capital of that society, and never can exceed that proportion. No regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain.” There’s a big difference between TRADE and INVESTING ABROAD. 6.Now this make sense to me. I don’t know about you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

sigh* You are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on one isolated paragraph to the exclusion of the others surrounding it, the argument of the chapter, the argument of the book and the usage of the term in the literature. The paragraph you are obsessively focused on is a mere reiteration of an old theme: namely, tha Mercantilists are wrong-headed in presuming that wealth arises from the carrying trade, rather than production. If there is any purpose to the "Wealth of Nations" it is, as its title indicates, to discover where the "Wealth of Nations" lies - and Smith identifies it as lying in the production of goods and services, and not where Mercantilists imagine it lies, in the carrying trade. To use an example, if exchange ratios are such that wine costs 7 reams of cloth in Portugal and 10 reams in England, there is an arbitrage opportunity of exploiting that price difference by carrying cloth to Portugal and wine back to England. Whomever undertakes that route will reap a pure arbitrage profit of 3 reams. (Only temporarily, of course; the very carrying action will drive up price of wine in Portugal and depress that in England, and narrow the gap, until the arbitrage opportunity is eliminated and the law of one price emerges, etc.) English Mercantilists obsessed with that arbitrage profit, and thought that that is how the Dutch made their money, and why they became so rich; and concluded that the only way for England to become rich was to "beat the Dutch" at their own game, and seize control of their trade routes and steal away the carrying trade (ergo the Anglo-Dutch wars, the Navigation Acts, the Staple Acts, etc. and all such Mercantilist nonsense). This paragraph addresses that Mercantilist prejudice (which is railed on throughout the treatise). For Smith, the big gains of trade accrue not in the arbitrage profit, but in greater productivity that trade enables. Remember, Book I? The wealth of nations depends not on accumulated money, but on productivity, which in turn depends on division of labor (Bk.1, c.1), division of labor requires specialization and trade (Bk.1, c.2), extent of specialization depends on the size of the market (Bk.1, c.3), money is merely a tool of exchange, that facilitates specialization, not an end in itself (Bk.1, c.4), etc. The national gains from foreign trade are precisely that, not the arbitrage profit. Trade means more specialization in production, thus more productivity and thus the "real" wealth of the nation as a whole. The arbitrage profit of carrying alone is fleeting, contributes practically nothing to the wealth of nations (it is just pocketed by the carrier), whereas the profit of improved productivity is lasting and a true improvement to the wealth of nations, benefiting the nation as a whole.

That's all that particular paragraph is about. That the true gain from trade lies in production, not in the carrying. It is addressing those who, befogged by Mercantilism, imagine the gain from trade is the arbitrage profit of the carrying.

That is not what the "invisible hand" concept is referring to. "Invisible hand" is a moral philosophy concept. It refers to unintended public consequences of private actions, a concept that comes up repeatedly throughout the treatise, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." etc. It is not from the "patriotic spirit" of an English cloth producer that he sets up cloth-weaving workshops in Lancashire, but because it is profitable to him. It happens to help employment in Lancashire (a minor point, for Smith never saw that as important, but since some Mercantilists used the domestic employment argument to defend their "favorable balance of trade" doctrine, it is worth sweeping that hobby-horse away.) For Smith, the important point is productivity. That specialization in cloth, means more production and more division of labor in Lancashire, ergo greater national wealth. And the Lancashire clothmaker sets up the workshop, and contributes to national wealth, not because he seeks to help the unempoyed of Lancashire, nor to improve the wealth of England, but because he seeks to make profit.

That is the sense in which the "invisible hand" concept is used here. It is the sense in which it has been interpreted and used by economists for the past two centuries. A moral philosophy concept, "private greed, public benefit". It is easy to come up with reams of RS's to prove that point. A cursory search of the term "invisible hand" in googlebooks or jstor should prove that interpretation and usage quickly enough (e.g. [4], [5], [6], etc. This particular paragraph, referring to setting up production, is a mere example of the invisible hand at work, an application of the philosophical concept, the phrasing is specifically in terms of private vice/public benefit conception, and generally, "in this, as in many other cases", etc., not narrowly to this instance. Your interpretation is confused and likely to be the cause of confusion of others. Walrasiad (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

1.I never said Smith was arguing in favor of Mercantilism or carrying trade, if anything against it. 2.If you really think my reading contradicts the rest of the book please provide passages which adress the issues raised here: “As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”3."And the Lancashire clothmaker sets up the workshop, and contributes to national wealth, not because he seeks to help the unempoyed of Lancashire, nor to improve the wealth of England, but because he seeks to make profit." Yes that is what I was saying, if you want to provide this as an example for the invisible hand there's no problem. 4.The point he made before was in adressing the alternatives to home trade:foreign trade and carrying trade under nearly equal profits. 5.If you want to call someone to moderate this fell free, all I had to say is written here and I'm already repeating myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why are you focusing so much attention on the the paragraph on the carrying trade? That has to do with addressing Mercantilist prejudices. This is the essence of the invisible hand: "by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in so many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part his intention". No more needs to be said. "Private Vice, Public Benefit", "Greed is Good", whatever slogan has been attached to it. That is how it has been understood for two centuries, and that is how it is used, and that is what was there before you decided to muddy the waters with your own peculiar reading and focus attention on an ignorable sentence that is merely an little example of the general principle. Its like saying Newton's law of gravity is not a general principle of physics, but a narrow guideline for apple orchard farming or a field safety guideline about the dangers of sitting under trees. I have no interest in calling for moderation. I have an interest in urging you to write up your views in the form of an article and submitting it to HOPE or JHET. Beause so far, you're lacking RS's, making this WP:OR. Might as well claim the laurels. Walrasiad (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Lbertolotti's points are OR. There is a fairly broad literature on interpreting Smith's invisible hand arguments. If you have access to New Palgrave, there is an entire article on Smith's invisible hand. You should have access to the abstract at least where the author states, in part, "he certainly did not mean that competition or the market mechanism promoted efficiency." The main point I get from the article is that many later economic views are projected back on to Smith. It's fairly clear that Smith never stated that the IH makes things run efficiently. We shouldn't propagate the misunderstanding of the term. Also, there seems to be a good argument that Smith's three separate uses of the term IH shouldn't be muddled together. Each use seems to have it's own meaning.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, look at this article from the JPE. From the abstract, "The invisible hand is not a power that makes the good of one the good of all, and it is not any of a number of other things it is said to be. It is simply the inducement a merchant has to keep his capital at home, thereby increasing the domestic capital stock and enhancing military power, both of which are in the public interest and neither of which he intendended."--Bkwillwm (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, it took longer than anticipated to attempt responding to the various points above on Adam Smith's invisible-hand argument, resulting in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economics&diff=480034810&oldid=480026925. I agree with the remarks of Walrasiad§ above that it would have been comparatively simple to repair the alleged errors of commission on that material, which turned out, judged by the subsequent Edits, to be unrelated to the top-quoted article edit except apparently as to its "errors" of omission from lack of quotations. My edit was aided by the explicitness of arguments presented above on all sides.

I did pursue Bkwillwm's refs & refs therein and believe that the safest course was to try summarazing Smith's invisible-hand argument by sticking to Smith's own words (per Lbertolotti above), rather than interpreting what Smith "really" meant, not only as to the famous passage but to the supporting arguments that lead up to it in the paragraphs that precede it (referred by the now-bolded therefore above of the Smith quote, 5th edit down, para. (2) (after W's 23:59, 7 February 2012 edit), which make recapping them in the famous passage itself unnecessary. A concern about the invisible-hand argument, nowhere explicit above, might be that it leaves out the institutional, legal, and political requirements that qualify it and the larger themes of economic development and growth that later economists took the invisible-hand argument to implicate. So, economics (textbook)s, such as Samuelson and Nordhaus, typically underscore both the limits of the invisible-hand argument and the arguments for government, as Smith himself did (indeed, "laissez faire" does not appear in the Wealth of Nations). It was to meet those qualifications and larger themes that the paragraph after the famous quote was added. Lbertolotti's add of the Wealth of Nations link http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html, with a associated search capabilities, was helpful in stimulating further links to give specificity of WN topics beyond the famous passage quoted.

§ Who one might guess is not merely a, but the, Walrasiad, & whose perspicuity one hopes might be deployed on other history of economic thought topics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Errors in the second paragraph of the "Markets" subsection of the Micro discussion

At the very least, this part needs revision:

"Micro economics also examines various market structures such as perfect competition (where the market involves a minimum quantity of players and a sufficient quantity of product traded);imperfect competition which includes- monopoly (one dominant or sole supplier in a market) and the affect these kinds of markets have on economic efficiency ; duopoly, in which there are two sellers of a product and oligopoly having a large number of buyers and sellers. Monopolistic competition is the most common and realistic from of market structure where there a large number of small producers competing to sell products which are close but not identical substitutes of each other. Here each producer enjoys a monopoly but also face competition."

This is not formulated well, grammatically or communicatively. Perfect competition involves a "minimum" quantity of players and a "sufficient" quantity of product traded? Why is there a minimum imposed? Sufficient for what? What is this supposed to mean? Is the "large number of buyers and sellers" that characterizes oligopoly below or above the "minimum quantity of players" necessary for perfect competition? The distinctions aren't drawn with sufficient clarity.

Here's my shot at a revision:

"Microeconomics also examines various market structures. Perfect competition describes a market structure such that no participants are large enough to have the market power to set the price of a homogeneous product. Another way of putting this is to say a perfectly competitive market exists when every participant is a "price taker," and no participant influences the price of the product it buys or sells. Imperfect competition refers to market structures where the conditions of perfect competition do not obtain. Forms of imperfect competition include, but are not limited to: monopoly (in which there is only one seller of a good), duopoly (in which there are only two sellers of a good), oligopoly (in which there are few sellers of a good), monopolistic competition (in which there are many sellers producing highly differentiated goods), monopsony (in which there is only one buyer of a good), and oligopsony (in which there are few buyers of a good). Unlike perfect competition, imperfect competition invariably means market power is unequally distributed. Firms under imperfect competition have the potential to be "price makers," which means they are able to, on account of holding a disproportionately high share of market power, influence the prices of their products."

This borrows definitions from the Wiki articles on perfect competition and imperfect competition, so in addition to fixing the mess, it works toward coherency across articles.

Dftylr (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've reviewed these topics, but it looks pretty good. You should try to use sources when you can however. Also avoid writing things like "do not obtain". We're not writing math proofs here. Use language that the general reader finds comfortable, e.g., "where the conditions of perfect condition do not exist", or something. II | (t - c) 07:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Dftylr's revision is a big improvement over the existing text, so I've implemented it with some minor tweaks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dftylr: I would encourage you to try out editing yourself rather than just requesting an edit. Asking what we think about it is great, but if people say it looks good, go ahead and do it yourself. Wikipedia is big on WP:BOLDness. II | (t - c) 21:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Aggregates

M&Ms says:

This statement is found in the 'Market' section of the Economics page:

"Microeconomics theory considers the aggregates (the sum of) of quantity demanded by buyers and quantity supplied by sellers, studying each possible price per unit (i.e. supply and demand)."

I believe Macroeconomics deals with aggregates, not microeconomics. If you follow the link to the Aggregates page it proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.155.16.96 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think econ principles texts avoid usage of aggregate as an adjective in the expression "aggregate demand" to avoid confusion with the macro usage "aggregate demand" (or "aggregate supply"). But as a noun, that's a different story. The M-W Dictionary def. of 2 'aggregate' as a noun, def. 2 certainly allows quote cited above in the Economics#Markets section. There "(the sum of)" may help some readers learn the econ jargon of "aggregate" without going to the dictionary. You could also refer to aggregating across individual demands to come up with market demand (say the demand for corn). That's my defense anyhow. Someone else might have a different opinion. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

M&Ms reiterates: (well not quite) - Your point is waffle. The adjective and the noun are the same damn thing. They are not dealt with in Micro economics period! What's your education? Mines a Masters in Business Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.157.7.209 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent change of lead-section definition of 'economics'

A User:Firulaith recently made some changes to the first paragraph of the lemma. This is a very big step backward compared to the text that was here before. Here is someone at work who only knows the mainstream definition of economics, and wants to push that. I think this edit(s) should be reverted. - Dick Bos (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I did revert an earlier effort with what I thought was a persuasive reason given in the Edit summary[7]. I believe that a similar general consideration of the applies again. I am, however, grateful that the same user at least waited for me to complete a series of Edits I had made immediately after that. I think that the long-standing simple generic, definition, the result of intense earlier discussion, should be retained. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up. Another editor did subsequently address the problem alleged above. -- Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy about 'Law of Supply'

Excerpt from the article: "The "Law of Supply" states that, in general, a rise in price leads to an expansion in supply and a fall in price leads to a contraction in supply."

I am reading a book about microeconomics right now that states the opposite: "Although the Law of Demand requires that the demand curve slope downward, there is no 'Law of Supply' that requires the market supply curve to have a particular slope. The market supply curve can be upward sloping, vertical, horizontal, or downward sloping." [Perloff, J. 'Microeconomics', 5th edition].

If this issue is still controversial in the field, then the controversy should be added to the article. If it isn't, are there credible sources for one or the other?Afghani84 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

M&Ms says: Perloff is well known. The statement you quoted can be backed by another source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawofsupply.asp#axzz1pkPJB3jC

I would say that Perloffs argument makes sense in the real world but just looking at the diagram shows this law is valid (of course equilibrium undermines the producers capacity to increase volume produced and increase the price indefinitely.

I think the write should provide a a source for his quote. I couldn't see on in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.157.7.209 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2012

Please add video called "What is Economics?" to the page in the External Links Area under the title "General Information." Permission has been granted from the Dept. of Economics at Duke University (creators) to post this educational video. It provides a basic introduction to what the field is about.

Here is the code:

• "What is Economics?" video

Mjmoser007 (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The article already covers what economics is. The external links are for further research or things outside our scope. — Bility (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please add an alternative definition of economics. I was taught in highschool that the definition of economics was the study of how societies allocate scarce resources amongst unlimited demand. This includes so much more than just money - it includes clean food, clean water, shelter, access to affordable healthcare, clean air, and a generally clean environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftyvist (talk • contribs) 01:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article opens with the statement "Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." The key words production, distribution, and consumption pointing toward the targeted key nouns of goods and services, cover all of those things you mentioned. The opening definition takes the system of a more centralized command economy, I infer that you are speaking of at least, into account as well. Blanketing it, right along with more passive economic themes. The current opening definition, I believe is better in that way.

Both statements are "right" in a way, however I feel personally that the current statement is more neutral, descriptive, and less confusing than the proposed new statement. Or at least, it works so no need to fix it. Plenty of room on this talk page relating to other matters toward this article, why drag in the first sentence, too? Reading the talk page, in my judgement it's possibly the one thing that might be fully worth holding on to. 75.201.69.235 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

M&Ms says: I agree with craftyvisit. This is actually something I have mentioned before and wish to show support for again.

The definition of economics borrows from Robbins (1933)"...what rules govern the allocation of scarces resources amongst individuals with unlimited desires..." This is what evey student in economics is taught. You say you believe your wording to be better? Who made you the authority? One person seems to be a high concentration of power. Also (in previous talk page enteries) I've taken up other issues with your wording. Example; how does telling someone that economics is a science that analyses production, [etc], relate to the textbook definition? And yes there are ample examples of text books who use the scare resources vs. unlimited wants scenario. How does it. Who are you to be so arrogant and say that you know better! Your qualifications please. We are waiting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.157.7.209 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitions. I would like to improve the existing 'Definitions' section of the page on Economics; however, this is my first attempt at contributing, and I don't want to foul up anyone else's ongoing efforts. I would like to introduce briefly the following points: (i) The contributions of authors from JS Mill right through to Hausman and Skidelsky that are responsible for the foundationist strategy that is still important in the building and evaluation of basic economic theory. As you all obviously know, in this, economists seek unchallengeable foundational truths, on which they construct theory using logic and maths, so that the whole should be pretty solid - but not all philosophers of science are enthusiastic about it. (ii) The contribution of various authors (including Robbins) to the excision of uncertainty (sensu stricto) from economics. (This would need to flag-up the issue of the 'Dutch Book' argument against treating uncertainty differently from risk.) This material would also cover the issue of fuzzy data (qualitative/ vague) in economics (with links to other Wikipedia entries on Fuzziness). ... The reasons for proposing to cover these 2 points is that they would enable some of the more recent material on the economics of complex systems (e.g., recent books/ papers by Potts, and by Smith) to be covered; and that the Economics entry is incomplete without them. The former is something readers might reasonably look for information on, in the light of the current turbulence in economic affairs (which lies largely outside the scope of mainstream economics). It would also make sense to include Austrian economics as another way of defining economics in this revised session; it would fit in fairy comfortably, because it is connected to the foundationism issue. ... Any comments on this proposal? Etchacan (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

/////

enuf bull...time to work...

Questions for research in the economics.

1. Taxation - distribution across firm, individual and market.

2. Allocation - reveals consumption patterns of the social unit

3. Institutionalism - NORMATIVE....i'm strongly for it.....

individual contribution to the institutions objective is the only measure of productivity.

here again, objective of the institution is tricky, should not reflect any particular individual. e.g. professori gunnar eskeland likes romans. so there is this institution... http://www.cicero.uio.no/home/index_e.aspx but it means this,.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero just to mention, cicero not a bad guy...do not lynch eskeland..cicero's quite a tough guy....nevertheless...no tricks...

4. MARKET vs REGULATION - all economists always obsessed with this ...why..i dont know..very trivial question.

its like a see saw..if market is poor, regulation will happen, if regulation is poor, market will happen...no rocket science here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.202.248 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not the place for original research. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Open Economics

There is a guy on this forum who thinks he has the answer to all the problems, both in the UK and around the World. I imagine most of you reading this will be reasonable experienced and opinionated on the subject. Care to join in the debate.

http://thediscussion.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.60.10 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)