Jump to content

Talk:History of economic thought/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Macro bias

I think there's a good bit of a bias towards Macroeconomics, at least in the lead. Surely the development of game theory and its application (mostly in IO, but in pretty much all economic subfields) and econometrics should be talked about. I'm not sure how to cleanly incorporate it so help would be welcome.radek (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much of a historian, but I think the history of economic thought has a macro bias itself, so it might be appropriate for this article. On the other hand, I agree with you that there really should be a section on game theory given its importance in the last 30 years. I'd also be curious what people think about including experimental economics. It's my field, so my perspective may be skewed--I'm sure it mentions a mention, but I don't have a good feeling for how much of a mention. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah I agree that HoET generally has a macro bias and that the article reflecting this is fine. But there's a pretty much a complete absence of micro stuff. Game theory and its apps have been around for awhile so it should be in there somewhere. Experimental econ is still somewhat new so I don't know how "history" it is. Maybe there should a section of "Recent developments" to replace the "Global times" section where Exp Econ and other stuff could go. Reasons for this would be that, first, only a small part of new econ since 80's was concerned with globalization. Second, we could include stuff on New Growth Theory, New Trade Theory and such, which would subsume the globalization stuff. Third, it would permit us to cover more than just Sen, Stiglitz, and Krugman.radek (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For the lead section, I propose adding something like this, please improve or rewrite it:
During the second half of the twentieth century, along with the development of the macroeconomic thought, new economic theories emerged to analyze very different themes. These new currents, though inspired by traditional economics, are linked to other disciplines and have specific scopes. The most important theories of this movement are the economic analysis of law, the economic theory of public choice, the new theory of the firm and contracts, the theory of transaction costs and the information economy, among others. At the end of the century, schools specializing in economic subjects in particular appeared in the margins of the dominant thought. Notable examples of these currents are the modern theory of microeconomics, econometrics, and the games theory.
As for the recent development of the economic thought, I think that the last sections should be rewritten. For the last decades the scope economic thought has been so broad, there have been so many economists and economic schools, the various schools and disciplines have been so specialized that we must not contented ourselves with citing the theories of three economists. I am ready to contribute to the revamping of the section. I can write about Kaldor and post-keynesian economy, Buchanan and the school of Public choice, the NCE, NKE and suppply school (Lucas, Barro, Romer, Laffer). There are also a lot of specific but notable theories we may mention: I suggest keeping a section about protectionism and free-trade debates and adding one about business cycles and economic growth theories (Solow, etc). Pah777 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll rephrase what I think you're saying about the last sections: In recent times, there hasn't been a dominant theme to economic thought, such that the era can be characterized simply. So, public choice, globalization topics, game theory... The era might need to be characterized only by time rather than concepts. If that's what you're saying, I'm with you.
As I say, I'm not much of a historian in these matters, but I disagree with your rankings of importance. I suspect that's our different backgrounds showing up in our perceptions. I'm never sure where to place econometrics, but if it's part of the history, it's a hugely important part. Game theory has become extremely important, with almost every topic in economics being re-imagined from a game theory perspective, and it's also been a major part of information economics.
All of this is just my gut: If there was a theme of the late-20th century it seems to have consisted of information economics and the feeling that macro was futile (a feeling which is now fading). From my perspective, neither NKE or supply-side econ has been as important as the micro trend of information economics/industrial organization/microstructure.
However, I really am getting out of my depth here. I better just shut up now until/unless I come up with things more solid than my gut. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Dangit, failing to follow my advice, here's more gut: Again, because it's not my area, I've neglected finance, which can be tied in with information economics but has been significant in its own right. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For sure the various theories you talk about must be mentionned (so many Nobel were awarded for game theory, research on asymetrical information and financial studies). However, they are not mainstream economics, only branches of economics, we should not insist too much on them. When we speak about "economics", we generally mean "macroeconomics". Microeconomics, finance and information eco are also mathematics (John Nash, etc). In addition, it is difficult to judge what is important or not because it is too recent. Lets just write a section for these theories. Pah777 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

The edits you can see are the following:

  • added video links for all the most recent economists, and updated photos
  • deleted Schumpeter paragraph, because it had no sources or references
  • put Hayek with Coase and Friedman, because in terms of when their theory became popular, it's chronologically after Samuelson and Arrow; during the 1980s
  • shortened a paragraph on JM Keynes, which was unreferenced, and it now says the same
  • gave Galbraith his own header
  • starting to write the bottom section, but interrupted

Wikidea 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that adding Youtube interviews in the captions is not a good idea. Links normally to be avoided states that “a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.“
  • If you think that Schumpeter section needs citations, ask for them. Lots of paragraphs in the article doesn’t have citations, like sections on Keynesian economics and The General Theory.
  • Hayek doesn't belong in Chicago/monetarism section. He was not a member of the Chicago school and the main difference between him and the Chicago school/monetarists was in his views on monetary policy. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But chronologically it makes more sense to include Hayek with Friedman, as I said. It's history, and besides Schumpeter's thought is pretty far away from Hayek in thought. Just because they were both originally Austrian and wrote in similar styles does not make them similar. We can integrate Schumpeter into the section on American thought. I asked people concerned about both Schumpeter and the Youtube links, and they were fine. Perhaps you'd like to add the caveat about Hayek not being part of the Chicago School? - oh wait, it's already there. Wikidea 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully this works, Schumpeter now appearing as a contrasting figure with the Chicago section. I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't satisfied, however, but I live in hope. Wikidea 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Schumpeter and Hayek were not just Austrians, they were the most prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century. I don't see any chronological problem because the age difference between Schumpeter and Hayek is roughly the same as the age difference between Hayek and Friedman or Hayek and Coase. -- Vision Thing -- 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an issue of chronology. Hayek should be with the Chicago school. You've breach the 3RR. Wikidea 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Are the two of you.. V.T. and W.I. having an ideological difference or is it purely a formatting issue about what should go where and how to put people in a time or category? It looks like Wikiidea is trying to edit neutrally about information. Do one of you feel that the other is not editing neutrally or editing with a certain..., or type of pov that is over weighted or not accurate? Just curious looking at the page and all the reverts. skip sievert (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the main issue is whether or not to have a section on Austrian School economists. Perhaps we should refer to a few textbooks on the "History of Economic Thought"? LK (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some resources on the History of Economic Thought

Following through on the suggestion I made above, I've been looking at various textbooks and syllabuses. Here are some resources that are available on the web.

If you browse through these resources, I think it's clear that a whole section devoted to the Austrian school would be WP:UNDUE. Hayek is usually mentioned, as is Menger, however, there is almost never a chapter devoted to the Austrian school. I think Hayek and Menger merit paragraphs. The Chicago school is not the right place to put Hayek, as his best work predates the Keynesian revolution. I think they should both be in the section on neo-Classical economics.
LK (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice, and we can paste those resources into external links. Would you say we should put Hayek after the mathematical analysis section then? I'm just thinking about how we link the two - or how we write it so that one section reads logically into the next. Can you give an example of how to write that? I know Hayek follows on in the liberal tradition (in the proper sense of the word liberal) an his spontaneous order doctrine essentially defends the self correcting conception of markets, along with equilibrium. The difference, perhaps, is that he is notable for eschewing mathematical reasoning. Also I'm thinking, The Road to Serfdom (1942), and then later his major works like Law, Legislation and Liberty (1972) really took hold in political discourse through the 1980s, ie after Bretton Woods breaks down and Thatcher and Reagan are elected. Also, he seems to be more reactive to Keynes, and lived much longer than Keynes. What do you think though - how should we situate him, so it reads logically? Wikidea 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
LK, first and third source have only four main sections so a fact that they don't have a chapter devoted to the Austrian school is irrelevant unless we are going to follow their example. I don't know for Blaug's History (it is not available online), but his more recent Economic Theory in Retrospect has a chapter on the Austrian theory of capital and interest. Fourth source has sections on Menger and Schumpeter and a subsection on the Austrian School. New School's website has a section on the Austrian School and a section on Schumpeter. On the other hand, I have noticed that none of the resources you have listed has a section on Global times, and that means that having such section in this article is not in line with Wikipedia policy. -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You confuse a page on schools of economic thought with a page on the history of economic thought. Wikidea 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea, you make a good point about Road to Serfdom, which is in some ways a response to Keynes. It is difficult to situate Hayek, as he writes both before and after Keynes. Perhaps right after the rest of the neo-classicals, and right before Keynes? And include a note about his work in relation to Keynesian economics?

On the Austrian school, how about as a subsection of the section on neo-classical economists? Include Menger, capital theory, and Hayek in that section? LK (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to have a special subsection on the Austrian School. However, I see Schumpeter (sub)section as a must. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Schumpeter should be mentioned. IMO, he was as important in his heyday as Milton Friedman was in his. However, can we demote the Austrian school to a subheading? LK (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, yes. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This is what I did, and you reverted it four times. Wikidea 00:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some excellent sources listed above suggestive of bounding . I'll add them to 2ndary Refs + 1 more to the HOET article at end. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube and Marxism

Other two changes I have reverted are external links in the captions and the name change of the Marxism section to Capitalism. First change is not in line with guideline on external links which states that "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article". I don't see why we should violate that standard for random selection of interviews. Second change doesn't make sense to me. -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is no reason that the youtube links are wrong. They are not random. They are the economists on tape. And please read the first sentence of the section. And please stop reverting changes. If there was a 4RR you would have broken it. Wikidea 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Youtube is occasionally used to link information on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is the only presentation of material for some aspect... and depending on, it can be an excellent way to get obscure,.. or, information not recorded elsewhere, onto some article, when it is not formatted to a pov or has other baggage so I would say use them. skip sievert (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If you or Wikidea can show me just one featured article that uses Youtube links in the captions, I will agree with you. -- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The good reason to include Youtube links is so that readers can see what Hayek, Arrow, Friedman, etc actually look and sound like. It's not clear what your objection is, other than there's a rule. But the rule is not absolute. It says, as I highlighted "normally". Here's one with links: Coronation of the British monarch. Wikidea 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
That article doesn't use Youtube links in the captions. It has one Youtube link in the external links section. I understand your argument, but if the readers want to know more about certain authors they should go to their individual articles. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neoclassical

I changed "New Classical" to "Neoclassical". The term "New Classical" is applied to ideas based on rational expectations and real business cycle theories, most prominent in the 1980s. We should have a section on this, leading on from Friedman and monetarism.JQ (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a section called "Contemporary Thought"? Including both New Classicals and New Keynesians, (and also game theory, Behavioral economics, etc.)? LK (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the article, it struck me that the page concentrates too much on people and not enough on ideas. I know it's easier to source biographical details, but I think we should try to concentrate more on the development of economic thinking, rather than the economists involved. LK (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but like you noted, that is a harder approach. Do you have some ideas how to start? -- Vision Thing -- 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe... but, ideas come from people and the article is more interesting and creative when it brings attention to the people who had the ideas also. Finding out a little about them... even snippets of their life experiences tells a story also of their influences from life and circumstances, like where they came from, who influenced them, groups that they were involved with, their teachers, and area they were from in the world, when they changed their minds on something and what information caused them to rethink something, etc. I like the dual approach of a bit of bio on the notable people along with their notable work. I like the way the article weaves these aspects together. This seems like a creative presentation because of that currently. skip sievert (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think LK makes some good points. The page is too much of a biographical narrative. This kind of makes sense for early economic thought where large sets of ideas can be isolated to certain individuals (e.g., Smith and Marx). This page should be more of narrative about the changing landscape of economic ideas over history instead of a list of biographical paragraphs. This is somewhat hard to do because economics now has distinct subspecialties with little overlap, so a single narrative would get convoluted. The present page is already long, but it doesn't cover a lot of the more recent movements in economic thought including New Keynesianism, the New Classicals, and other rising groups like the behaviorists. Certain other significant groups, like the post-Keynesians, are also ommitted. We need to come with a way to break out this information into subarticles by specialty (A history of History of international economic thought, History of Macroeconomic thought, History of Microeconomic thought), and have these articles summarized at a high level in this article. I'm open to other suggestions, but I don't like the status quo. We have an already long article that doesn't cover everything it should. Something needs to change.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
That all sounds like a good idea to me (but a lot of work): why not start by creating those articles? Wikidea 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rather than that, how about a cut near the bottom. Move everything after Keynesian Revolution to a new article called "Contemporary Economic Thought". With a very short summary at the bottom and a link to the new article? This new article can cover all the myriad of developments that have occurred over the last 50 years. LK (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start on contemporary thought. I'm open to ideas on how to organise the article, but I agree with LK that a list of the big names is not the best approach to contemporary thought. OTOH, there's a lot of useful material here, and it would be a shame to lose it, or try to merge it all back into the individual bios. How about breaking out the biographical stuff into an article called something like "Leading economists since 1950". JQ (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that, roughly, a concept-based approach is better than a famous-economist-based approach. In addition to Ratex, RBC and NKE what are the other "big" concepts since the early 70's in Macro? I'd throw in Ricardian Equivalence, Time Inconsistency, Endogenous Growth and New International Macro, just off the top of my head. The Equity Premium Puzzle should probably make an appearance. The Micro section needs to be substantially expanded as well of course.radek (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
With this article getting quite large, I also agree with writing split-off articles on History of Modern Macro, etc., and using this page for just a summary. In fact this article could use a lot of that - which I think was suggested before but in between all the edit wars I've lost track of whatever happened to that idea.radek (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be OK with doing a History of modern economic thought article, but I think Macro history to warrant it's own article. We might eventually have to split a "Modern economic thought" article, but it might be awhile before we have to deal with that.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a bridge to be crossed when it's reached. So what should the scope of "modern economic thought" be? Post-marginalism? For macro; Keynes to present, or Lucas to present. For micro; Arrow-Debreu to present or ... game theory to present (?)?radek (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
For Macro, I'd start with Keynes. Everything since then has been a reaction to Keynes in one way or another. Not sure about micro.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- So basically

  • Early Keynesianism (Keynesian cross, Hick's IS/LM, Fiscal policy + historical context)
  • Monetarism (MV=PY, Monetary Policy, Expectations augmented PC, AD/SRAS/LRAS, monetary rule - some Tobin maybe + historical context)
  • New Classicals (Lucas critique, Rational expectations, Lucas' "Surprise supply curve", RBC, time inconsistency, microfoundations)
  • New Keynesians (microfoundations, menu costs, staggered price setting, efficiency wages, monetary rules and IS again)
  • Other; Endogenous Growth (Romer, Barro regressions, Aghion and Howitt) and New Inter Macro (6 puzzles of Inter Macro, from Obstfeld and Rogoff might be a good starting point).

Not sure where Equity Premium Puzzle should go in but it definitely hang over a lot of this stuff as a dark cloud. So called 'great moderation' should be mentioned if only for historical reasons. John Q might want to throw in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis which probably also belongs somewhere in this time period. I think the above would be a good scaffold to begin the development of new article. Thoughts?radek (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I think that looks like a great list. I'd also throw in something on the Post-Keynesian. I'd also exclude finance and most international economics topics since these generally aren't considered macro and often have a close relationship with micro. That's my two cents. Others may know better.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that much about Post-Keynesianism, except some of the stuff related to the Cambridge Capital Controversy (like I don't know what they do or what the major contributions are). I think New International Macro certainly falls under macro, and before it the Mundell-Fleming model. I agree with finance for the most part but the Equity Premium Puzzle has some pretty big implications for macroeconomics so it needs to be worked in somewhere, though that may be difficult. I'm going to stub the article and I hope others join in expanding it.radek (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've stubbed it here History of Modern Macroeconomic Thought. It's very very rough as I am just trying to get it going. Please contribute and expand.radek (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A related question is, as the split-off article(s) take off, what are we going to take out of this one, in order to shorten it? I fully agree with the tag that Gary King added.radek (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Six reverts???

Can someone help me here: Vision Thing has just reverted a whole series of changes on this page for the sixth time. Wikidea 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. It looked to me like you and L.K. were ... are, on the right track with the article... and sticking with guidelines. Looking as an overview it seems uncalled for to just revert as was done. Skipsievert 08:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
VT, Wikidea, you guys have to stop reverting each other. It'll only lead to this page getting locked, and reprimands all around. Can we hash this out here? Wikidea, what about VT's edit disturbs you most? What about his edit can you accept? Can you do a further edit where you restore all the parts acceptable to you? And then paste here the additions you object to? Then we can discuss on this page what you find objectionable, and maybe come to a compromise about it. LK (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't editted anything. He's simply been reverting the edits I've made. As I say, six times if you look at the history. Please don't lump me together with him. Wikidea 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences

Ok, I stand corrected. But lets go through the dispute, and see which topics are acceptable, and which are causing the disagreement. Following are the major disputed sections. VT, Wikidea, which of the following do you object to, and which of the following do you object to the deletion of? --LK (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

1. is in the page ancient economic thought 2. and 3. are unreferenced monologues; 4. is already in another section on the page 5. is the same in part as what I put in 4 - but as you can see I took the trouble to update. 6. an 7. are what you can still find (but expressed more succinctly) in the page currently 8. 9. were put into the page on Keynesian economics. As for my own additions, Aquinas was deleted for some reason along the way, and the stuff about Fukuyama was just trying to get around to that last section, when I was interrupted. Vision Thing is just sitting there reverting, and probably just for the sake of it. Suggesting that there is a disagreement is far too flattering to him, because he hasn't thought about any of the above stuff (except 6. and 7.). Wikidea 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He may have or he may not have, but that is not so much the issue. Mostly just the information. It could be an issue in a request for comment if some kind of disagreement has somehow gotten out of hand... but probably with other people looking at the page, and just neutral presentation neutral weight... I am guessing everyone will contribute and cooperate. skip sievert (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • A1, B1, B2) This section on the early economic thought is almost completely centered on the Western economic though, while ancient economic thought has a relatively large sections on ancient Indian, Chinese and Islamic economic thought. By his edits Wikidea only made discrepancy worse.
  • A2, A3, B2) I also think it is better to focus more on development of ideas and less on people.
  • A4, A5, A9, B3, B4) There are no major issues here; this content just gets shuffled around.
  • A6, A7) Wikidea removed Austrian School and Schumpeter sections without any explanation. I already stated my opinion on these changes and I still stick by it.
  • A8) I don't see any good reason for removal of only direct reference to spending multiplier on the whole page.
  • B5) This is a bunch of POV OR. -- Vision Thing -- 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
B5) What do you mean when you say... This is a bunch of POV OR. Is this an ideological concern you have..?.. that the article is trying to project o.r. as 'truth'? I like the idea of focusing on people, as interwoven with the ideas presented... as they are the ones that had the ideas and the ideas are the product of these peoples experience and influence. It seems like Austrian School has been talked about by L.K. and WikiIdea... and both thought you were undue weighting it. How big is that... as a concern here? skip sievert (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with VT on B5. The section is more economic history than economic thought. It is very fluffy, and only cites Fukuyama, who is a poliscientist, not an economist.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't economic history tied into economic thought? What is fluffy specifically, and how would you change or improve that? Would not a Political scientist be important as a person that may or may not be notable in connection with economics?. Could you make a proposal for that area then, that would reconcile these two editors, which have been reverting each other? Just questions.. and you do not have to answer any of them. Just trying to get a dialogue going. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Economic history can provide context for economic thought, but it doesn't here. The section mainly dances around the fall of the communist east, but the article doesn't say anything about communist economics after Marx, so the topic is kind of out of the blue. It is fluffy because makes questionable, general statement without reference or evidence (such as thousands wanting to leave Eastern Europe, or was it millions, or did they want to stay and liberalize?). A political scientist could be relevant, but I don't think Fukuyama is. His work hasn't influenced economics and is losing importance anyway. Moreover, we have to pick and choose what to leave in and leave out. There are many things that should be in the article before Fukuyama. For the lead to the global times section, I would mainly discuss the growth in international trade maybe something on development. Most of the economic theory in the section has more to do with trade than political form. Also, China isn't even mentioned in the current version and it obviously plays a huge role in both trade and development.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go with VT about A1 and B1, this article should have a balanced summary of what is on the ancient economic thought page. I don't necessarily like either version now, but the new version does seem to skew the balance even further. LK (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Because, Lawrence, there are already clear links for a variety of different authors. There is no reason why everything here has to be a summary of the ancient economic thought page. Why should that be the case? Is that page really brilliant? I don't think so. It's more a mishmash of things pasted up at random, over time. And ancient economic thought wasn't terribly important. Because ancient "economic" thought did not exist. Lots of people read the classics, which is why Aristotle was influential. This is a matter of WP:Weight. Wikidea 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I went through the listed sections and here's my two cents.
  • I favor keeping A1 (counter western bias)
  • Dropping A2 and keeping B2. B2 talks about some of the same topics as A2, but actually gives a cite and source for ideas. Some biographical info could be paired from B2 and some content from A2 could be merged in.
  • A3 is an unrefed monologue and should be cut unless it can be cited and trimmed.
  • Sounds like VT is willing to compromise on A4, A5, A9, B3, B4
  • I think A6 is a pretty good section on the Austrian school and should stay
  • A7, there should be a Schrumpter section, but it can be cut down
  • Spending multiplier can be folded into Keynes
  • I've discussed getting rid of B5 or modifying it above.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I might refer people to the top of the page where somebody went out of their way to say how useful they found it. Don't tell me it's a bunch of "POV OR". This isn't just an economic history page either. You just haven't read through carefully enough. It provides context for the ideas of the economic authors; a very short background - that's all - with a few links. The reason that Chinese economists, etc, are not mentioned is simply that you don't find them on any of the history of economic thought books which serve as introductions. We simply cannot include everything - and not including Chanakya, or whoever doesn't automatically mean "western bias". Lastly, maybe this is just a typo, but it's Schumpeter, not Schrumpter, and a reference is there for him. I don't understand why, if you cannot spell his name, you think he must be so important. I don't understand on what basis you have come to this viewpoint. Wikidea 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you identify what comment said B5 was "useful." I'm not sure which one you're talking about. I never said anything about Chinese economists; I said China (and east Asia generally) should be included in a "Global times" lead. The current GT lead mainly talks about the collapse of the Communist Bloc, and leaves out the majority of countries involved in globalization (aside from the mention of the financial crisis, which isn't really connected with the rest of the narrative). You may think the section provides context for the theories, but that's why it's OR. Moreover, Sen's and Krugman's most noteworthy works were published in the 1970s and early 1980s. A connection between their ideas and B5 is unclear and OR. You could argue that their ideas laid the ground work for globalization or were tied together with some nebulous globalization zeitgeist, but its hard for this section to avoid falling into OR without a substantial change. I think there's agreement that the article needs to be trimmed, and I see this is as a good candidate to be cut or cut down. It;s not that the ideas are wrong or poorly written, but they are speculative and uncited, and that is compounded by the fact that they are recent. On Schumpeter, I don't think an article's content should be determined by my spelling abilities.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I just mean the article generally! Sorry, I was trying to respond to everything above. As a matter of chronology, it's more important I think to group ideas for when they became popular/dominant: so you're right that Krugman and Sen were writing, well, since they finished their PhDs. That last section (before this new unreferenced New Keynsian stuff, which doesn't tell anyone much!) was certainly unfinished. But I think it's important that an internationalist perspective has certainly become dominant since the Soviet Union collapsed. Ug. I'm a bit bored with all this. I think everyone's got good intentions, except one. Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiIdea quote.. And ancient economic thought wasn't terribly important. Because ancient "economic" thought did not exist. end quote... Huh?
I mean economics was not a separate discipline till the 18th century; it was just a part of philosophy. Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are very wrong about that. Aristotle is way second hand as to economics... which were mostly worked out a couple thousand years prior to him. Ok... settle down. Not everyone can spell or think spelling is important in talk pages as to being perfect. I like the over all picture or big picture approach that WikiIdea is using though.
L.K. says... this article should have a balanced summary of what is on the ancient economic thought page. Yes, the link to that page is there and that area and History are intertwined. That is the area where most all of of our economic thinking comes from. Maybe a connector to information like this...
This paper seeks to establish that interest‑bearing debts were introduced to the Mediterranean lands from the Near East, most likely by Phoenician merchants in the 8th century BC along with their better known innovations such as alphabetic writing. Contrary to what was believed until quite recently, such debts — and for that matter, commercial and agrarian debts even without interest charges — are by no means a spontaneous and universal innovation. No indications of commercial or agrarian debts have been found in Early Bronze Age Egypt, the Indus valley, or even in Ebla, much less in Mycenaean Greece. They are first documented in a particular part of the world — Sumer — in the third millennium, and can be traced diffusing from southern Mesopotamia upward along the Euphrates and westward into the Levant as part of the Sumerian commercial expansion. Originally documented as being owed to temple and palace collectors, interest‑bearing debts became increasingly privatized as they became westernized.
Or something like this above written differently of course, that actually gets at the heart of the economic systems past... http://phoenicia.org/interest.html ... ideas about the who, what and what for of its early incarnation. From what I can figure out, as the Sumerian system moved from east to west, it developed a different approach as to debt in general, and that would seem like a good point to make in that early or ancient part of the article. The Greek and Italian city states seemed to play a key role in that transition to the type of economy we use today. Comments? skip sievert (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikidea, no one is disputing the effort and good work you've done. You've created an excellent page essentially by yourself. But you must know that we all have our biases, which is why we need o collaborate on pages. I quite agree with Bkwillwm's assessment of the changes, and with Skip's suggestion for the introduction to ancient economics. I think that's the way to move forward. The reason I insist on consistentcy between articles is because I belive it's important not to allow Wikipedia to be balkanized into little fiefdoms, where people with particular interests express their particular biases on 'their' pages. We should mark ancient economic thought as a sub page to this page, and work on consistantcy between the two pages. LK (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
You're not Lawrence (and nobody else is), but Vision Thing has been consistently. That's why I posted this section, and this is what started off the latest spurt of talk page activity. Ancient economic thought already is a subpage, isn't it? Or do you mean as, for instance contract law is to law? If so, yep definitely. If I could think of a clean way I would've liked to divide it all up into say five main pages. But that's really hard. It works for classical economics, marxian economics and ancient economic thought; it probably works for keynesian economics too. But the rest is a bit difficult, because things overlap and aren't so clean. Of course, history isn't clean! Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting to reorient the article

Adam Smith's first title page.

This image is still in the article. The top one is removed in favor now of the Economics sidebar... which is chocked full of information.

It looks like WikiIdea and the various others that have commented the last couple of days... Bkwillwm, L.K. V.T. etc... are interested in re presenting the material differently.

For starters I took off the old Wealth of Nations picture and the side bar that was up about 'science' and put on the Economics sidebar instead, which seems more apt. The image of Wealth of Nations book, was already in the article lower down anyway... so it was duplicated at the top and down the way... so that is gone now on the top and the image to the left here is still in the article in the Smith section.

I am particularly interested in the ancient history of this, and the Greek early euro history, and maybe some aspects toward the end of Energy economics... and that is what I will probably work on. I changed the lead around a little because of a number of unsourced statement like sentences. I am going to try for economy mostly with everything as to length. It still seems like the lead is probably too long and other parts are also too long. Probably the best way to change things here is to Wikipedia:Be bold and get feed back for changes and make new changes then.

Lets hope that old feuds, if there were any will now go away... and the article will morph again into something interesting and creative as to ideas and presentation.

I also took off the too long tag since it looks like a concerted rewrite is happening presently... and we all know it is too long... and the economics sidebar looks better up there for now more alone. If anyone thinks the tag really should be on ... put it back on... but I think the idea is to concentrate on re presenting the material with an eye for word economy which means, lets make the article shorter. skip sievert (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy in economics

This is an area of interest to me... and the history of economic thought is tied up with it particularly since the 1920's on.

I am thinking of adding this at the end of the lead to cover that idea also which in some form is integral.

Start ...From the early 20th century on to the present biophysical economics connected to energy economics have played a role in human economic systems as these are modeled as thermodynamic systems. This concept attempts to develop theoretical economic analogs of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Burley, Peter (1994). Economics and Thermodynamics – New Perspectives on Economic Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-9446-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) In addition, the thermodynamic quantity, i.e. measure of the useful work energy of a system, is one measure of value. In thermodynamics, thermal systems exchange heat, work, and or mass with their surroundings; in this direction, relations between the energy associated with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services can be determined. http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision making, Science and Technology. End - skip sievert (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems like its extremely undue weight. I don't think modeling economies as energy systems has made it into the mainstream. I don't think I've ever seen a textbook cover this type of modeling. Moreover, this focuses on a single application of thermodynamics in economics, giving a lot of weight to a minor work (Burley and Foster is 4 millionth in Amazon sales rank). This topic definitely shouldn't be a paragraph in the lead.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry... you may not like the information... and you yourself may not be aware of the importance of Energy economics in the 20th and 21st. century Bkwillwm... but it has to be covered in the lead because it is the undercurrent from the 30's onward and is of extreme importance and connected with the history of economics. Energy conversion has changed the basis of economics... scarcity value systems leave us at Adam Smith... and that is an antique... and leaving it at J. Stiglitz having thought up some new ideas is rather lame... or just not getting at what the article is supposed to be at for an overview. So ... I will try for a third time below.
Rapidly advancing technologies now provide the means to achieve a transition of economies and concepts of economics, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology. Kay, J. (2002). [http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology." In Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B. (Eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, pp. 72-107. London: Spon Press. Retrieved on: 2009-04-01. name = Quest> Bakshi, B. and Fiksel, J. (June, 2003) [http://www.resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/pdf/6-03perspective.pdf "The Quest for Sustainability: Challenges for Process Systems Engineering." American Institute Of Chemical Engineers Journal 49(6): 1355. Retrieved on 2009-04-04.
How about the above then? You can not have a Economic history article without talking about what is actually going on in the real world or not so much the political world which many so called economists are apologists for... things like industrial ecology and Systems ecology. These are the new technological basis of economics and economic thinking... and they revolve around energy and energy conversion and [1] and [2]. I have redone this section twice now and will do it a third time with different information each time but getting at the same idea. Rather than revert this can you tell me what you think it should look like or re-edit some part of it?
To say that energy economics is over weighted ... may be a mistake in general and could cripple the article as to information presentation... not being interesting or creative... or pertinent... or observing what is actually going on with economics currently and sustainability... and earths closed system... etc. etc. - skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to go with Bkwillwm here, mention in the lead is undue weight. Also, remember, the lead summurises the article. Until and unless there is a major section on Energy economics in the article, it should not be in the lead. LK (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You can not have an article like this without mentioning energy economics or it would be a sham as to information providing and not encyclopedic... Period. I rewrote it again and it is much smaller in the lead... and there has to be a section that will deal with this in the article and will be. Remember we are in a rewrite here L.K. and if you have a problem put a tag on the article saying it is in a rewrite. Common sense would say that the article is under construction right now... but you can tag it to say so... so please do not use an argument like that... about a formatting issue right now, when an article is being rewritten. - I hope that because we may have some people here that are not familiar with some of these ideas that they are not going to pov the article a certain way with only a certain aspect of things. That is not creative nor does it cover the actual information.
Rewrite ... again.
Rapidly advancing technologies provide the means to achieve a transition of economies in the 21st century using Environmental economics and Ecological economics. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics Nadeau, Robert (Lead Author); Cutler J. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2008. "Environmental and ecological economics." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth December 12, 2007; Last revised August 26, 2008; Retrieved May 18, 2009]. Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now integral to economic conception. Kay, J. (2002). Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology." In Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B. (Eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, pp. 72-107. London: Spon Press. Retrieved on: 2009-04-01. name = Quest> Bakshi, B. and Fiksel, J. (June, 2003) "The Quest for Sustainability: Challenges for Process Systems Engineering." American Institute Of Chemical Engineers Journal 49(6): 1355. Retrieved on 2009-04-04. End.
It actually is just a couple of sentences in the lead.
Rapidly advancing technologies provide the means to achieve a transition of economies in the 21st century using Environmental economics and Ecological economics.[3] Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now integral to economic conception.[4][5]
The reason we are redoing the article is to present the information differently... more creatively and closer to a larger overview and obviously there is going to be a section in the article on these issues or mention of them... and obviously to me anyway... they are important. skip sievert (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with the text you added to the lead above (except "integral to economic conception" may be a bit strong), and adding something environmental/energy economics to the text would be OK too. This section should reflect the major ideas in these areas. Off the top of my head, I'd say Hubbert Peak, permit trading, environmental Kuznets curve, and sustainable development would be candidates for inclusion. I guess you could fold in thermoeconomics in this section too, but its a heterodox theory so we have to be careful about how much attention it gets and how we tie it to the rest of the article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I can change the phrase a little. I changed it to Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now employed to an economic conception of Sustainable development. Does that read better?
Thanks Bkwillwm. I did try to minimize it this time around. Your suggestions above are good as to an area with that type of info. in the article body. Feel free to construct something and we can jigger it around some for presentation. Now I am thinking also that the article does over rely on people maybe and could be better with more basic theory/history as in epoch time periods and happenings... but still connected with people. We can not ignore all the intense aspects of energy, environment, sustainable development... ideas ... and the... what seems like break down of the current system... as to employment loss because of mechanical energy making many so called jobs go away... and go away permanently. Contrary to popular thought it does not look like so called green jobs are going to be for real. Technology eliminates jobs... so we are in a transition... and the article... toward some bottom section should reflect that... and now the lead does intimate it a little, which is probably enough.
I looked around for a rewrite tag... and can not find one... Maybe just one that can say ... this article is in the process of a major rewrite... please consult the talk page or something like that. If someone finds a template like that could they stick it on the article page? I know there is one around like that someplace. Then we do not have to be super picky about how we are doing things in a certain order or not. It seems like if everyone starts wading into this we could get it done pretty quick. skip sievert (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're looking for the template:underconstruction tag? If not, feel free to remove. LK (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... that tag seems good.
It looks like L.K. has a very good big picture concept of mainstream economics, also Bkwillwm seems to be wanting to get at big picture overview. W.I. understands the traditional categories and the approaches of mainstream. - V.T. apparently resonates with traditional conservative Austrian things... I think. Hopefully others will arrive here and overview everything also.
Should we keep the idea of all the pictures of people connected..?. on the article or use some diagrams or tables also, or examples of types of economies that countries used...to highlight ideas? Should a lot of the people not be in separate article areas ... could they be grouped together more into time periods? Could some of the pictures come off and areas be combined? Just ideas. I hope people will now dig in and re format the look and feel now. The lead stuff is by no means over, as to being redone... and can be further whittled down... and more ref/citations used, and more interesting twists and turns put in as to overview, even if shortened. Length in general right now in the article is not good... and compressing material would be good as to being more succinct. skip sievert (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New basic outline ideas and order for the article

Suggestions and ideas. New changes.

Does it not make sense to combine the area now of several people that were physiocrats into one area and call that area Physiocrats? Maybe lessen the info at the same time while still mentioning the main players of that group instead of each individually. Probably do not need all the associated pictures in the grouping either of the individuals. Maybe the most well known one. skip sievert (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hated to add more information as to length to this thing.. but am assuming it is going to shorten itself as it goes along. I did add this section to conform to the new lead and also to make it clear about energy economics being a very notable aspect now of economics in general.

Environmental and ecological economics.... Heading

'The work of economists Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly was important in the development of ecological economics. In the Entropy law and the Economic Process (1971), Roegan attempted to demonstrate that the mathematical analysis of production in neoclassical economics is badly flawed because it fails to incorporate the laws of thermodynamics. In his view, an economy must be viewed in thermodynamic terms as a unidirectional flow in which inputs of low entropy matter and energy are used to produce two kinds of outputs, goods and services and high entropy waste and degraded matter. Since neoclassical economic theory assigns value only to the first output and completely ignores the costs associated with the second, Georgescu-Roegen attempted to refashion this theory to include these costs. Biophysical economics attempts to factor in thermodynamic aspects of energy and environment.' http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Cleveland, Cutler (Lead Author); Robert Costanza (Topic Editor). 2008. "Biophysical economics." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth September 14, 2006; Last revised November 18, 2008; Retrieved-May 20-2009

This is now at the tail end of the article.

I also did some other formatting things in the See also section to compress the format... and linked some article things... a couple of things in the Game theory section. Also the Das Kapital section I think was over kill as to Marx... so removed that area... which got rid of a fair amount of article space... it had an article link anyway in another area... so I don't think it will be missed. skip sievert (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

All parties please comment on the talk page about your changes as to the why's and wherefore's etc. Thomas M.'s please leave the few sentences about Environmental and ecological economics as they relate to energy economics in the lead. You removed them without a reason or explanation. They are sourced and important... and at least Bkwillwm and myself have agreed that a lead mention and article mention is appropriate for that kind of information. -

Vision Thing has added some history information which he has cited... but I wonder how his mention of Free trade in that historic context is really related to modern free trade? Not sure if a connection or distinction can be made or should have been made there. taxation and rajakariya (a feudal system in which work was owed to the king by commoners) contributed in large part to the projects. of the person he is talking about Parakramabahu I not sure about what V.T. has added it might be o.r.- Free trade is not really connected to that feudalistic time period as a concept.

Thomas moved the sidebar also down farther... Is there a reason not to have it on the top? Thomas Meeks has edited the article a couple of times now... could you comment about your edits and reasoning on the talk page also T. M.? Right off hand I can say that there is a reason why environmental and ecological... and energy economics is featured in the side bar... so lets not slight that information in this article about economic history in the lead, other wise the article will not reflect the reality of current economic history or the section toward the bottom. skip sievert (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith

I am thinking that the huge Smith section is over kill. Smith stuff can all be gotten at in the beginning Smith information and from elsewhere in the article via article links. The long essay like Smith information is interesting but seems like way to much information for an overview article like this. Removing this information will shorten this article considerably and shortening the article is one of the things we are trying to do.

This is information that probably could be deleted from the article. It is more information than is needed in an overview. People actually interested in more Smith info can just follow links from the remaining Smith connectors which are plentiful.

Start

Context

William Pitt, the Tory Prime Minister in the late 1780s based his tax proposals on Smith's ideas and advocated free trade as a devout disciple of The Wealth of Nations.[25] Smith was appointed a commissioner of customs and within twenty years Smith had a following of new generation writers who were intent on building the science of political economy.[26] Edmund Burke.

Smith expressed an affinity himself to the opinions of Edmund Burke, known widely as a political philosopher, a Member of Parliament.

"Burke is the only man I ever knew who thinks on economic subjects exactly as I do without any previous communication having passed between us".[27]

Burke was an established political economist himself, with his book Thoughts and Details on Scarcity. He was widely critical of liberal politics, and condemned the French Revolution which began in 1789. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) he wrote that the "age of chivalry is dead, that of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever." Smith's contemporary influences included Francois Quesnay and Jacques Turgot who he met on a stay in Paris, and David Hume, his Scottish compatriot. The times produced a common need among thinkers to explain social upheavals of the Industrial revolution taking place, and in the seeming chaos without the feudal and monarchical structures of Europe, show there was order still.

The invisible hand "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 self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Adam Smith's famous statement on self interest

Smith argued for a "system of natural liberty" where individual effort was the producer of social good. Smith believed even the selfish within society were kept under restraint and worked for the good of all when acting in a competitive market. Prices are often unrepresentative of the true value of goods and services. Following John Locke Smith thought true value of things derived from the amount of labour invested in them.

"Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."

When the butchers, the brewers and the bakers acted under the restraint of an open market economy, their pursuit of self interest, thought Smith, paradoxically drives the process to correct real life prices to their just values. His classic statement on competition goes as follows.

"When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay... cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want... Some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will begin among them, and the market price will rise... When the quantity brought to market exceeds the effectual demand, it cannot be all sold to those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither... The market price will sink..."

Smith believed that a market produced what he dubbed the "progress of opulence". This involved a chain of concepts, that the division of labour is the driver of economic efficiency, yet it is limited to the widening process of markets. Both labour division and market widening requires more intensive accumulation of capital by the entrepreneurs and leaders of business and industry. The whole system is underpinned by maintaining the security of property rights.

Limitations

Adam Smith's first title page.

Smith's vision of a free market economy, based on secure property, capital accumulation, widening markets and a division of labour contrasted with the mercantilist tendency to attempt to "regulate all evil human actions." Smith believed there were precisely three legitimate functions of government. The first function was...

"...erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain... Every system which endeavours... to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it... retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society toward real wealth and greatness."

In addition to the necessity of public leadership in certain sectors Smith argued, secondly, that cartels were bad because of their potential to limit production and quality of goods and services. Thirdly, Smith criticised government support of any kind of monopoly which always charges the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers" However, in both cases, Smith believed it was governments' encouragement of monopolies that needed to end, rather than the need for active intervention to prevent them. The existence of monopoly and the potential for cartels, which would later form the core of competition law policy, could distort the benefits of free markets to the advantage of businesses at the expense of consumer sovereignty. End

End of information removed from presentation. Comments?... skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes area

It also looks like this area of the article contains too much information for an overview presentation for the same reasons as the Adam Smith area contained too much specific information and detailed cross connectors of information. There is a large area that could be removed without affecting the quality of the article... as that information can be gotten at from other wiki article connectors in a more specific presentation of John Maynard Keynes. It has been acknowledged that the article was way too long. Removing parts of the Keynes info. will help to tighten the presentation while still giving a good over view of Keynes with remaining Keynes information. skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some content should be cut but I would make a different choice. I think it would be better to leave out content related to the WWI and the aftermath, and add back most of the content about The General Theory and Bretton Woods. I have similar objections to your changes in the Adam Smith section. The Wealth of Nations and concept of the invisible hand are pivotal for the history of the economic thought, and they should be more elaborated. -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes... ok, added a sentence with article link and statement about the invisible hand. Put a connector to General theory and its impact back in and stated its significance... Bretton woods already is covered in an article link that has remained from before. Elaboration is for the other articles devoted to those subjects I think... other wise the same problem of bloat arises. Also as suggested by V.T. I left out content related to the WW1 and the aftermath. It was interesting history and perspective but too much info for this overview article. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In general ideas

I think the article is looking pretty good right now. It seems to be covering most of the big ideas... and touches on the heterodox. Any comments for whittling it down farther?.. or not? What is the general impression now of people that have contributed to the re presentation? Criticism or suggestions? skip sievert (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me as unbalanced still. Weights seems a little off. We should refer to History of economic thought text books for proper weights.
Too little weight: Early non-western (Chinese, Indian and Islamic) economic thought, Adam Smith, Keynes.
Too much weight: Early western thought (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus), Mercantilists, Marx, Austrian school, Friedman.
LK (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Good idea on Chinese Indian and Islamic economic thought though there are some links to those things in the article now. Maybe a section on those related economic ideas for an area? Text book links would be nice. Aristotle stuff is still over-weighted I agree, but that is very interesting material. I am not an authority nor interested in Austrian stuff... but it was obviously a contention before. It does appear to be notable information. This guy is obviously a very good writer Murray N. Rothbard, he is part of that group and his name is in that section with a link to his ideas. Anarcho Capitalism is apparently popular among some... though that seems as an antique of an idea as Marxism to me. Marx section could be smaller yet, but that is interesting what is there though. Friedman I went ahead and shortened. skip sievert (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Screwing it up

I can't believe you're buggering it all up like this. It is simply astonishing that you'd reduce Smith to a single paragraph! This really shows that the edits are very, very, very dumb. I doubt very much anyone has a clear idea of what the end result of the page should look like, or have any particular method for selecting what to put in and what not to put in. This is just a random series of edits by, frankly, people who are vastly less qualified than me. And that goes for you too Lawrence. I'm staggered by your bias, and lack of knowledge about history of economic thought. You're not providing any justification at all for your opinions. I expect you haven't read any of the leading books on this subject, but you're relying on random websites. It's pretty disastrous. Wikidea 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to add a prediction: that nobody will actually go through with making this page readable, or useful. It will end up as a half done job, that looks a mess and is a mess, like now. There will be more random editing, and then whoever's doing it will get bored. It'll be left as a botch job. A few people will sit back and criticise, and leave someone else to do the work. Wikidea 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Cheer up man. The page is actually better now than before, and a bunch of people have been cooperating pretty well on it, and as you know it was at least 1/3 too long before. The actual history starts where it should have now... in Mesopotamia. The Greeks, where you started the article before, were Johnny come lately's. This is a very basic fact that the article had no concept of before. That in and of itself is a big improvement. The lead now is really good and the history section overview. Also now there is at least some mention of modern energy concepts relating to Environmental and Ecological economics.
As far as Smith... many consider Smith as not the most creative person in the world and some think he may have been at least partially sleeping through understanding the significance of the Industrial revolution. That section was pointlessly long before, and now it still contains his hand theory, and book mention and time period etc. - The actual Adam Smith article itself is pretty good... and there is an article connector to it, as with the other things... and this is meant to be an over view, not a mini Smith study... and not a paean to any one of these people in particular. Far from screwing it up... the article is much improved. skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Although many may consider Smith's work derivative, many more consider him the first to rationalize and define the field of economics. Surely he deserves more space than Marx. I'ld bulk it up, but work is killing me. Wikidea? LK (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikidea, please watch your tone. -- Vision Thing -- 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't talk to me. Wikidea 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
While Wikidea's tone may sound pessimistic and frustrated, this does not subtract from the truth in her/his words. Also, the image that was removed from the top needs to be replaced with something, perhaps a picture of someone who was prominent in the early history of economic thought? Just an idea.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually Paine, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for truth and the editing should probably not be about personalities giving it or not. The old image was fine of a coin thought to have been one of the first standardized ones. T.M. took it off with the comment that it was not a part of economic thought... but money is obviously a part of economic thought and was an invention of economic thought... so I put it back in.
Also is it possible that people could restrain themselves as to Adam Smith fan club? This is an overview article and should not focus on anyone as super important. While many consider him an economic demigod an equal number probably think he does not deserve that status, and that he is a derivative character who was unoriginal and pedantic. He may not even be that great of an example of 18th. century economic ideas as he did not seem to understand the coming machine age. I think the 'button' making example sadly reflects that, and removed it as too much information. We have many links now in the article to Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations and Smith things, probably more than enough. skip sievert (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article ought to focus upon the subject of its title. Smith has his own article. And Skip, we could go back and forth all week on what Wikipedia is and isn't, the difference between an encyclopedia's quest for properly cited facts and it's editors' desires for it to reflect truth as much as humanly possible. We both've been there, done that, got the tee-shirt and the baseball cap. <g>  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC template

I added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template to the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it".  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coin or Wealth of Nations?

I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. Also, money is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that has been repeatedly invented throughout history in various cultures and countries over and over again. It has taken various forms (grain, beads, shells, shovels, coins), so we cannot say that it's development represents a change in economic thinking. LK (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I liked WoN, too. There is also good reason given above to include the coins. Let's do both!  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if there is a good reason, please state it here and in a way that responds to LK's point. "History of economic thought" is econ. jargon, there described as dealing with:
thinkers and theories in the field of political economy and economics [over time].
HOET is distinct from "Economic history", there described as:
the study of how economic phenomena evolved in the past.
Early coins are phenomena that could be studied in econ. history. They are unrelated to HOET in any direct way. Wouldn't you agree? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. end quote L.K.... no it does not. It is only one brand of economic thought and again why do people love Smith so much? Because they have been told over and over that Smith represents economic thought??? and they now believe it?
Agree with Pain here an will re add the coin. L.K. is just plain wrong as is T.M. as to understanding the significance of the first standardized coin and its effects... on trade and the steam rolled effects in the Mediterranean at that time Also, money is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that has been repeatedly invented throughout history in various cultures and countries over and over again. It has taken various forms (grain, beads, shells, shovels, coins), so we cannot say that it's development represents a change in economic thinking. LK... end. - Naturally occurring huh? Big difference between that and the first documented electrium gold and silver coins that were made up by a government and standardized for purity. That only happened once in history... and changed the way economics was thought of completely.
Wealth of Nations is boring. It is mostly redundant junk that is recycled and for some reason the sweet darling of economists and sadly the only thing that everyone can almost agree on here... except me, who think it is mostly a trashy and historically odd do0 d0o bird of a document and the object of tragically misinformed obeisance of many.
As to L.K.'s statement about Naturally occurring money... that is similar to making Smith the economic demi god in the article and tantamount to this:
Disclosing the “revelatory basis” of neoclassical economic theory is not terribly difficult. The French moral philosophers who first posited the existence of the natural laws of economics presumed that these laws, like the laws of Newtonian physics, were created by the Judeo-Christian God. The creators of classical economists appealed to this conception of natural law to legitimate the real or actual existence of the invisible hand, and they did so within the context of a mechanistic Newtonian worldview that did not need or require the presence of the willful and mindful agency of God. They concluded, therefore, that both the laws of Newtonian physics and the natural laws of economics originated in the mind of a Deistic God who withdrew from the universe following the first moment of creation. In other words its pretty silly to focus on Smith in the article.
Who wrote the caption under the Wealth of Nations picture.. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations marks the birth of economics as a separate science.?? This is exactly the type of clap trap thinking I am talking about. Calling Smith 'junk... science, is comical... to say the least. Changed that to this 'Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, was first published on March 9, 1776, during the Age of Enlightenment - skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Coins are not mentioned anywhere in the article so we really should not put their image in the lead. I wrote Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations marks the birth of economics as a separate science because that is what Mark Blaug has said in his Economic theory in retrospect. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Blaug is best known as a historian of economic thought (and great one), and by the way author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Economics.
The 2nd para. of skip sievert's comment above in no way meets the point of my Edit above that part of economic history, which the invention of coinage certainly belongs in, does not make it part of HOET, anymore than lightning that strikes a tree makes the lighting part of the tree. The JEL classification codes of the Journal of Economic Literature places HOET under JEL: C, an entirely different category from economic history (JEL: N). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Science of economics? Not so much. Alfred Eichner in Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science offers the following commentary on the discipline of economics as a social system:
The refusal to abandon the myth of the market as a self-regulating system is not the result of a conspiracy on the part of the “establishment” in economics. It is not even a choice that any individual economist is necessarily aware of making. Rather it is the way economics operates as a social system—including the way new members of the establishment are selected—retaining its place within the larger society by perpetuating a set of ideas which have been found useful by that society, however dysfunctional the same set of ideas may be from a scientific understanding of how the economic system works. In other words, economics is unwilling to adhere to the epistemological principles which distinguish scientific from other types of intellectual activity because this might jeopardize the position of economists within the larger society as the defender of the dominant faith. This situation in which economists find themselves is therefore not unlike that of many natural scientists who, when faced with mounting evidence in support of first, the Copernican theory of the universe and then, later, the Darwinian theory of evolution, had to decide whether undermining the revelatory basis of Judeo-Christian ethics was not too great a price to pay for being able to reveal the truth.
Lets not confuse what Smith was doing with science. It was not. That would pretty much cripple the article with gibberish or nonsense. Might have to put a pseudo science template on the article then. Economics is a far cry from science [3] ... it is not even a very good social control system these days... but that is another topic.
As to coins lighting and logic?... The first coins significantly altered the dynamic of government and trade. So called Democracy was a direct result of Athenian trade and slavery in silver mines, made possible by the new coinage and their boating skills for wide-scale trade. Trade and war became simpler as to coins. Armies could be paid in set formats of money, and mercenary armies became popular. Greek generals worked for Persian Kings because of money with hired Greek armies.
The coin looks kind of cool any way. It did have a dramatic impact on economic thinking and thinkers. We could have a picture of a temple or ziggurat in the lead also, do we really need pictures of people and books only? Originally much of the ancient concept of a debt structure and contract law regarding economics is documented as being owed to temple and palaces collectors, most all of it in fact. That means originally it was tied into their religion also as part of the abstract concept of social control they made to control their society. Point is debt tokens or money are a critical aspect of economic thought. Obviously economic history is part of economic thought and visa versa. anymore than lightning that strikes a tree makes the lighting part of the tree. The JEL classification codes of the Journal of Economic Literature places HOET under JEL: C, an entirely different category from economic history (JEL: N). end T.M.- Sounds pretty stuffy as to approach. A little creativity in presentation please. I have no idea what your lightening example means... Is this connected to the invisible hand as in the mark of god or something?.. or economics as part of natural law...? or something? Whatever, that does not make sense to me anyway.
A ziggurat or temple is where economic thought started in the modern sense of economic thought we use today pretty much. It all had to do with money also... the first metric of money that was in a metric of other commodities... and then a standardized coin developed later. Landmark things in economic thought and practice. Lightening is not connected to this. skip sievert (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'ld rather not get into this, but feel it's necessary to clarify some misstatements made. First, there is no reason to believe that the technology of standrdized monies arose only in one place, in fact there is much evidence that money arose independently in various places around the world (please refer any introductory macro textbook to confirm). Second, all monies use standardized units, coins are not unique in this. LK (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the last 3 para. of the preceding Skip Sievert (SS)Edit:

My top Edit I believe establishes beyond any reasonable initial misunderstanding that "History of economic thought" (HOET) and "Economic history" (EH) are distinct fields of study. Of course in the same work, an author could talk about HOET & EH. To say that they are distinct does not mean that they can't both be discussed. Those writers who are studied in HOET (such as Adam Smith) obviously used as inputs not only what others wrote but activities in the economy they learned about, like the use of money, which occurred in historical time. That does not make the invention of coins HOET in any obvious way. Rather the coin image is I think:

* distracting (b/c EH is not HOET and does not illustrate anything in the Lead)

* misleading (b/c it suggests that the invention of coins is HOET). Those are reasons why I oppose the coin image.

Of course the image and caption might fit well elsewhere, such as on the history of coins or money, where, come to find, it does appear.

Under the right circumstances, an image for a more proximate EH event might be appropriate, such as an unemployment line during Great Depression next to a discussion about Keynes (except that I think that 2 images in a section is one too many).

P.S. There is one more good reason for the Wealth of Nations image in the lead: anyone who chooses to study the full title ("An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations") will find an interesting early close-to definition of economics (except that I'd use "Study," instead of "Inquiry"). (Mark Blaug I think has made the same point.)

P.P.S. One other point. I believe that SS wishes to identify with heterodox approaches in trash-talking Adam Smith. I doubt that many heterodox economists would wish to be associated with such language, even if some, I believe small, proportion of them would agree with SS in substance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As Paine said earlier.. I agree that this article ought to focus upon the subject of its title. Smith has his own article. end quote... Lets not turn the article into a Smith-fest, seeing how he is already mentioned over and over throughout different passages, probably too much already. As to the coin standard state stamped money was invented in a time and place (Lydia), contrary to what L.K. is saying (it only happened once), and contrary to what T.M. is saying, affected dramatically all aspects of economic thought forever, as trade aspects and war aspects reflected themselves in the time period Money.
The Smith book is there... and the coin. This resolves the issue I think. Also a little history of money and Athens is in the article now. Obviously commerce and thinking about commerce is a part of economic thought... and the Greeks wrote about it incessantly, and with standardized coins everything changed. As mentioned earlier economic thought, as first written, originated in temples by kings and priests in Mesopotamia, which should probably be returned to the article. How is it that it was taken off by T.M.? - that is documented and well known, as to the origin of economic thinking, as we know it. So if anything if the pictures now are changed they could reflects that, say a picture of a Sumer King or Priest and a Ziggurat. Smith did not originate anything. All those ideas came from a different area of the world.
As to L.K.'s earlier statement I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. end quote. - Only if your talking about the 18th. century. There is little to no connection to the present day economic system or present world. skip sievert (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Skip, you're making too big a deal out of those supposedly 'first coins' of Lydia. The concept and use of money had long since existed. Shells were used as money in many cultures (Africa, China, Americas) since antiquity. Standardized amounts of gold were used for trade in Egypt and mid-East before the coins of Lydia. Also, coins were used in Ancient China since the early Chou dynasty (about 1200bc, patterned after cowrie shells, have a look here). Those Lydian coins did not revolutionize trade, and AFAIK, no source states that.
IMO, Economic Thought can best be characterized with some writings. The Wealth of Nations is perhaps the book most associated with economic thought, unless we want a copy of Das Kapital or Keynes' General Theory in the lead. Actually, how about a montage of WoN, Kapital, and General Theory?
LK (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Skip, you're making too big a deal out of those supposedly 'first coins' of Lydia. end quote L.K. - They are not supposed L.K. - The rise of ancient coins: As innovative ideas often do, the idea of coinage spread very quickly and easily outlasted the Lydians themselves, despite amassing a feared cavalry. Soon the idea of issuing smaller coinage of a uniform weight bearing a stamped seal on it became popular throughout the trading world (trade equals ideas about economic thought). The Greeks, Romans and Arabs very quickly adopted the use of these ancient coins in order to improve their methods of trade. As the idea of coins aged certain things began to change. The coins became much smaller and manageable than the traditional ancient coins of the Lydians and the stamps became more and more ornate and personal to each nation.
Gold standard: The Lydians were not only responsible for the introduction of ancient coins into the marketplace but they were responsible for the standardizing of gold to such an extent that all coins produced could be trusted as being of equal value. They invented a refining process that probably lasted for many days but produced gold of a surprisingly high standard. Previously this hadn't been necessary because gold had only been used for creating jewelry and showing off wealth. This gold standard was used for nearly two thousand years after they had discovered it. [4] No shortage of information as to the effect of coins on economic thought and where the first standardized coins appeared and their effects. Note also [5] Webster, Second Edition: "A piece of metal (or, rarely, of some other material) certified by a mark or marks upon it to be of a definite exchange value and issued by governmental authority to be used as money." Key here are "mark or marks" and "certified ... by government authority." skip sievert (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, making too big a deal about coins. Coins are not the same as money. No reliable source states that says that coins (not money) revolutionized trade. LK (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


Concerning Skip Sievert's 22:36, 4 June 2009 Edit,

1T. I have bolded my preceding Edit in instances where Mr. S. does not quote but does misstate or ignores arguments that undercut his coin-image-as-economic-history-which-impacted-economic-thought-therefore-it's-economic-thought argument.
2T. Quoting another editor who supports the WofN image in this section (top) from another section misleadingly suggests that he opposes the WofN image.
3T. The subject of the article HOET is nicely represented not by a picture of a person but of the title of a historically important book that influentially extended economic thoughtin a pivot moment in HOET. On this see my bolded P.S. immediately above. If the wealth in Wealth of Nations is plausibly understood as 'weal', 'welfare', or 'well-being' á la Amartya Sen, etc.) almost everyone across ideological stripes might agree that WofN holds up. Robert Heilbroner & Mark Blaug illustrate such agreement on the lasting importance of WofN as to HOET in their Brittanica articles on Adam Smith and Economics respectively.
4T. There is no need to respond to digressive points unrelated to this section heading, particularly those that were addressed in my article Edit summary.
5T. The proposed replacement of a coin with a ziggurat image would go from the misleading to the zany, at least for anyone who believes that an image in the Lead shoud reflect HOET closely, not economic history. Neither is warranted nor speaks well for the article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Not so much. Smith was an 18th century economist with 18th. century ideas... and the idea of glorifying him seems pointless. He is already over represented in the article. As to Ziggurats... it is well known that the first economic thought came from Sumer and it came from temples, kings, and priests. That is a fact. I have documented the effect of coinage in the article... again this is well known and part of economic history. I never opposed the Wealth of Nations image, completely... but I do think that Smith is over exaggerated already as to importance in the article. I did not propose to replace the coin with the Ziggurat image... just saying that it was more important than Smith and the coin put together. Currently I am guessing that Smith in general is a joke compared to Energy economics related things. Smith does not hold up... that is obvious... the labor theory of value is a bust. Labor is not needed at least now a days. Mechanical energy replaced it... and mechanization. But again that is obvious. How is it that some think Smith a demi-god in relation to others? This article is an overview of the big picture of economic thought. Not Smith homily. Take a hard look at rapidly advancing technologies that now provide the means to achieve a transition of economies, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology, and yes these are a part of the big picture of economic thought and what is happening right now and over the last 20 years... so lets not get bogged down with Smith, who from all appearances may have napped through the early part of the Industrial revolution for starters.skip sievert (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
7T. Per my (3T) above, the point is not what anyone here thinks about A. Smith but whether he is accurately and proportionally represented and whether the lead is enhanced by the points at issue. I believe that I have addressed everything in the rest of the above comment or that it is a topic irrelevant to this section. Have a good night. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you'll check it, you'll find that consensus is achieved when there is general agreement. I do not agree with removing the coins image. There is no reason both images, the coins and the WoN, are not appropriate in the lead.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My Edit summary for rming the coin image was:
(Rm coin image at top: Reasoned continuing consensus is against that image (emphasis added)

Despite my request at the top, Mr. Ellsworth has not provided any good reason for his preference. Maybe now is the time ot express it. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to, Mr. Meeks(?) And thank you for your civil discourse on the matter of my replacing the coins. It would probably be disappointing for you if I merely say that I agree with Mr. Sievert(?) in most of his points regarding the coins. So let me say that, while I do happen to agree with said points, I also think that the coins image adds a "life", an "energy" to the lead that is important to maintain for readers of this article. As I hope you will agree, the style of an article holds a certain level of importance along with its content. And while Skipsievert has profoundly convinced me that the coins ought to remain on the page in terms of content, I am also convinced that they ought to remain in the article's lead in terms of style.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  16:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Request curbing of multiple minor successive edits in same section

Multiple minor successive minor Edits (MMSE) over a few minutes in a single section may happen occasionlly. We see something that we missed earlier, the earlier Edit introduces a mistake, etc. But when it is habitual by the the same individual on the same article, I believe that it sets back article progress by making it more difficult to sift through or even see the Edit summaries of others, the better to evaluate or correct them. It also suggests that the editor thinks that these are important enough to warrant separate Edits. They really aren't. I think that most other readers would agree on that. I believe that the practice is also likely to poison the Talk page if others conclude that someone is simply trying to get attention, rather than improving the article the way most other Editors are trying to do.

The "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons were designed to avoid just such MSME patterns. Making full use of the Edit summary space to describe multiple types of changes seems far preferable to MSME. It alos shows an economy of editing that respects others interested in following Edit changes. That's good manners. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that most other readers would agree on that. I believe that the practice is also likely to poison the Talk page if others conclude that someone is simply trying to get attention, rather than improving the article the way most other Editors are trying to do. Assume good faith Wikipedia:Civility I suppose. skip sievert (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia:Civility is the less gentle but also appropriate policy link.
IMO, your "Assume good faith" response above is not reponsive to the substantive point made. Good faith is not the issue. The effect of such an editing practice on others is. If everyone edited like that, there would probably be a policy against it. And everyone would approve of it, because they did not want others to behave the same way! Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the continued heavy volume of Edits with insuffcient Edit summaries, many of them minor. it may be useful to mention the link on how to compare any two Edits at Help:Page history#Using a history page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is one that is well written and a good overview that others rewriting or noodling the Neo-Classical section may find some good information in as to using for ref/citation material... I think [6] ... this one also for related [7].. just suggestions. skip sievert (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=611386581
  2. ^ Aquinas (1274) Summa Theologiae, 2-2, q. 77, art. 1
  3. ^ Mochrie (2005) p.5
  4. ^ Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_economic_thought/Archive_2&oldid=1136797953"