Talk:Walras's law

very good article

I disagree, this is a very good article. Concise, admittedly, but it preassumes no previous background.

I am classifying this article as a start. There are many economic terms like excess demand which should be separate articles and I think a general equilibrium definition for excess demand should be used, which this article doesn't use. I am not sure if that was clear to whoever defined excess demand.Hawk8103 (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a great article. In the definitions - a model of clear writing - the word "clears" appears out of no where to me, this word seems superfluous; if you want to use it, add it to the section explaining what equilibrium is (another great piece of writing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Algebra of Walras' Law

I'm going to undo the "Alebra of Walras' Law" section added in these two edits. That material is too textbooky for an encyclopedia. It would be appropriate for a microeconomic theory textbook, but for this article (a) getting into such specific mathematical steps is inappropriate and (b) giving the two-commodity, two-person case a lot of weight is inappropriate. Using the two-commodity, two-person case for some exposition and pictures can be worthwhile, but diving this deep in gives the false impression that the theory is constructed around such a limited case.CRETOG8(t/c) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

hi...cretog8....This is regarding the deletion of the section of Algebra of Walras' Law.....I understand your concerns...however...there are lots of other pages which have the mathematical derivations of the economic laws and theories.....But still I will try to edit it and make it look appropriate......and ya

kindly DO NOT DELETE the article....it is my college thing and I will be marked on it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg the secret (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think it belongs, and my impression is that whatever steps might be taken to make it fit would change it beyond recognition. I'm more experienced here, but I don't want to (and since it's Wikipedia cannot) pull rank, but I expect I'll object to its inclusion even with changes. Since I'm more experienced here, I'll make some suggestions of what you can do:

• If you disagree with me and really think that your addition improves the article, you can try to find other editors who agree with you. One place to look for such editors would be the WikiProject Economics talk page. Asking for other opinions there would be appropriate and not canvassing, which would be a problem if (for instance) you asked your classmates to come defend your edits.
• Another thing you can do if it's just you and me disagreeing is to ask for a third opinion.
• Here's what I actually suggest you do: I think the material you're adding is inappropriate for an encyclopedia but possibly appropriate for a textbook. There are Economics wikibooks which need development and attention. So, rather than forcing your attention on an article which is (I think) inappropriate for the article in order to get a grade, you should put the attention where it's needed and bring that to your instructor's attention. See if you can get credit for the wikibook contribution instead of the Wikipedia contribution.
• An alternative is to think harder about what's really needed for this, or another article.

Good luck with whatever path you choose. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

theory right

can you please give some real world or empirical data showing if the theory has any substantial value or validity ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)