Talk:Economics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Lede improvement

As mentioned above its not ideal to define something in terms of itself. This the current first paragraph of the lede:

Economics is the social science that studies economic activity to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an economy.

It uses economic and economy to define economics. However, I think this can easily be avoided by a simple rewording along the following lines:

Economics is a social science that seeks to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the allocation, distribution and production of resources, goods and services in society.

edit second point withdrawn

Jonpatterns (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your lead improvement is fine as long as economics is only about production (including derived phenomena: distribution, consumption, etc.) and allocation of "scarce" resources in society; but, as I have said, there may be a situation in which there is just one individual doing the economic activity (Robinson Crusoe case). In that situation all economic activity collapses into production, consumption and choice; and it is governed by the everywhere presence of scarcity. All other stuff: distribution, exchange, social relations of production, etc only happens when the economic activity is done in a social setting.

Besides is better leaving the study of the social relations of production to sociologists rather than to economists.

This is why I have proposed to define economics as the study of how people and society deal with scarcity.

We and the Bushmen of the Kalahari deal with scarcity differently. I gather they are more successful than we are. We increase production albeit unevenly distributed; they lower their wants and desires in happy balance with their enviroment. Firulaith (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I can not of think many economic theories that deal with a 'situation in which there is just one individual doing the economic activity'. Economics considers how people interact in a society, hence economists are sociologists. Even in your example you stated 'people and society deal with scarcity', this is sociology.Jonpatterns (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, since the dawn of economics as a science, from Adam Smith up today, the starting point has been the study of a single man, confronting scarcity, in complete isolation from society. Only from there, economists have been able to discover universal truths applicable to all kinds societies anywhere, anytime.

Economics is not a chapter of the sociology book. As psychology, politics, ethics, and other social sciences, economics has carved out its own field of study, apart from sociology, and has developed its own tools and methods of analysis. Firulaith (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not what I find when I read Adam Smith, much less what I find when I read modern books on economics. It is hard to even imagine how economics would have anything to say about Robinson Crusoe before he met Friday.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Firulaith: maybe we are talking cross purposes? Many economic theories consider the behaviour of a single individual confronted by different choices and situations. In my view this type of theory is partly about the situation the individual finds him/herself in, ie the society the individual is in. Perhaps these are the type of theory that you refer to as individuals being in 'complete isolation'? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion needs to cite high-quality mainstream references. There are many published views, and there are a variety of formulations of each. We need to represent, as best we can determine it, the formulation that is dominant in the literature. Obviously the theory of the consumer can begin with a story about an isolated individual, but on the other hand that story is not presented in isolation without the author eventually extending it to the agent's interactions in a barter and monetary economy. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right SPECIFICO, the tale of an isolated individual is just an analytical tool used to provide useful insights into the theory of production, consumption, savings, investments, prices (in this case labor time), preferences, and choice (allocation of resources), without the meddling of society. There is no more laissez faire tthan this, and nothing closer to a cetiris paribus condition. Eventually. as you said, other individuals get introduced into the equation.

You are also right about providing mainstream references. I will see if if I can provide some Firulaith (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading dozens of definitions of economics I came to the conclusion that, although accurately, the definition of economics as “the study of how people and societies deal with scarcity” does not convey enough meaning to non-economists. Therefore I am proposing the following one:

“Economics is the social science that studies production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services, and the private and public choices concerning the allocation of scarce means and resources.”

After a month o so I am going to change the lead if nobody objects. Firulaith (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed lede is reasonable and better than the current one. It would be good to reference the definitions you have read.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the most helpful approach would be to see how half a dozen best-selling undergraduate introductory textbooks approach the definition. See whether there's currently a consensus mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As requested I am enclosing references about the definition of economics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firulaith (talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Here is my contribution for review of Wikipedians. A brief discussion of each concept exposed in the definition is provided to complete the thought.

Economics is the social science that studies production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services, and the private and public choices concerning the allocation of scarce means and resources.

Production is the transformation of nature-given materials into a form useful in satisfying human needs and wants. It takes place in response to the absent in nature, of goods and services, with the required specifications; but, production itself is constrained by the limited means and resources needed for their realization, i.e., labor, capital and land. It follows that means and resources should not be wasted due to their limited availability. Instead, care is needed for their efficient allocation and maximizing production.

Production is distributed, exchanged, and consumed in a social environment. In market economies with private ownership of the means of production, distribution is the money paid to the owners of labor, capital and land in the form of wages, profits and rent, respectively. Capital may also extract rent when it is lent. For example, interest is rent paid for borrowed money-capital.

When few individuals have huge amounts of capital and land, while many others, at the bottom of the social scale, have none, social unrest may arise. For some economists (Marxists), private ownership of the means of production, gives owners the power to extract surplus-value from labor, in the form of profits. This means that labor ends up getting less of what it deserves. For some others (followers of Henry George), economic rent is the actual villain. Still others (Neoclassicals), contends that neither capital nor land can extract surplus value as long as externalities and monopolies are cared for, and market structure approaches perfect competition.

Ideology aside, there are inequalities and discrimination, to a greater or lesser extent, in all societies. Some of them can be attributable to economic systems that reward success and penalize failure, dividing society in haves and have nots. The haves are favored over the have nots by unfair asymmetries and uneven playing fields that develop naturally in such systems. Regulation and constant oversight to avoid abuses, and countervailing measures to the affected parties are some of the actions implemented to address those problems. Some societies have been more successful than others in dealing with inequality and discrimination.

Exchange is trade. People go around and buy things with their incomes. When exchange is done in free markets, prices are formed, representing the exchange-value of goods, services and scarce resources and means. Prices, in turn, serve as powerful information tools for all kinds of economic decisions

Production equates income; but not all income is consumed; some is saved for future consumption. When not all income is spent, some production remains unsold (an overproduction condition), unwanted inventories pile up, and recessionary pressures develop. On the other hand, if total expenditures exceed production, persistently, inventories are drawn down, and inflationary pressures build up. For production to run smoothly and be completely spent, investment expenditures must balance savings, lest pressures develop in one direction or another. Unfortunately, market mechanisms that equate investment and saving are fragile and complex, and subject to highs and lows, depending on psychological factors and economic shocks. Keynesians advocate aggressive monetary and fiscal policies or whatever it takes to correct imbalances and contain and reverse both recessive and inflationary pressures, but always within the context of market.

The widespread use of definitions emphasizing scarcity and choice shows that economists believe that these two concepts focus on a central and basic part of the economic science. The emphasis on scarcity and choice represents a relatively recent insight into what economics is all about; not present in older definitions of economics.

Absent scarcity, everything would be as abundant, as the air we breathe, there would be no reason to economize or avoid waste. Real incomes would be so high that everybody would be able to afford anything he or she wishes to the point of satiation; and, then, people can kiss economics good bye. Production would not be considered an economic activity anymore; it would be production alone.

Scarcity forces people and governments to make hard choices and economize. Scarcity, which manifests itself in the form of budgetary constraints, implies that some sets of goods and services are outside the border area bounded by these restrictions and, therefore, beyond the scope of economic units, including governments that have, at their disposal, trillions in income and credit. Firulaith (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicely explained. I support your new lede first paragraph. What do you think to the rest of the lede, it seems long, but may that is necessary? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

While I also support your new lead paragraph, I see some problems in your longer explanation, which is OR. However, it is more productive to concentrate on actual changes in the article.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of those references are internet sites which are not RS for an important statement and certainly not for the lede, which should reflect the article content in a succinct and balanced way. I still think that the current single sentence is a fine statement of the topic. There could be wiki-links to key terms if you wish, but the lede is not the place to go into detail on a subject which is complex and needs clearly elucidated explanation. I agree with Mr. Norwood that the proposed addition is OR and does not belong in the lede. As to whether it belongs elsewhere in the article, that will depend on whether specific statements relate to a well-sourced coherent narrative in the article. I thank you for the time and effort you invested in this suggestion, but the language you propose above is not going to be clear to the layman and would raise more questions than it resolves for users who already have some familiarity in the subject.

Can any editor state why the one sentence lede paragraph is not OK? SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

One sentence lead is OK. Since there is agreement, I procede to make the change Firulaith (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think @SPECIFICO: was agreeing. To be clear these of the two choices:

1. Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
2. Economics is the social science that studies production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services, and the private and public choices concerning the allocation of scarce means and resources.

The second choice introduces two additional concepts public/private and scarcity. Perhaps this is too much? I think these could be introduced later in the lede if they are commonly used in the definition of economics from reliable sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Al concepts are closely link, since the allocation of scarce means and resources lead to production. I cannot see production coming out of the blue. It comes through a intentional human effort dealing with needs and wants and the means for their attainment; and, precisely, human effort is required because means are scarce, otherwise nobody would care how they are arranged. The definition also implies that economics does not stop at the study of production. It also studies how people and government allocate and manage their budgets which in turn, determine production, distribution, and consumption. Firulaith (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonpatterns: It does not seem to be too much, since clearly scarcity is one major element in economics. My earlier objection was to statements to the effect that economics was defined as the study of scarcity. Firulaith: "I cannot see production coming out of the blue." European banks now pay people cash to accept interest free loans. That is an attempt to force production "out of the blue". I think the economy of plenty is is the major economic problem of the 21st century. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't have any objections to the new lead.Jonpatterns (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede has been the same for three years. The words inserted in the lede last week are perfectly fine to put into the Neoclassical_economics subsection, or perhaps in some other section. Not the lede, because this is a page about economics, meaning economics in general and in a broad sense, not what one school of thought thinks economics is. You might as well change the lede of the religion article to say the religion page is about the resurrection of Jesus, or the lede in the philosophy page to say that philosophy is about poststructuralism and Deleuzian ideas.

Speaking of the neoclassical school, the neoclassical section goes into some discussion of the definition of economics. Jevons, Menger, Walras, Bawerk etc. came up with their school of thought, Robbins was a follower of theirs and created the definition above for what he was studying. That's fine for him, and his modern followers, but not every economist limits their studies to what Robbins focused on. For example, the former economist who is much in the European headlines this year - Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis.

As an aside - I said this before, but as we're moving to an age where a studio releases a movie, or an artist releases a song, or a programmer releases some software, and it is instantly distributed worldwide over the Internet - the product once made copied over one billion times, at virtually no cost. So it is becoming increasingly ludicrous to talk about economics being based on scarcity. Not with corporations talking about how artists need to be paid and can't work for free. Conservative corporations are who are making the argument against the subjective theory of value nowadays, and how value is based on the labor to make the product, not the scarcity of it. Minimax Regret (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015

Please alter the following sentence: "Economic analyses may also be applied to such diverse subjects as crime,[5] education,[6] the family, law, politics, religion,[7] social institutions, war,[8] and science;[9] " by adding one more example: "environment" with a link to the wikipedia page "Green Economics" 62.30.221.252 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea: Done, thanks. I cited the UNEP as a reference. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

106.218.249.6 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110818045155/http://hydrogen.its.ucdavis.edu/eec/education/EEC-classes/eeclimate/class-readings/akerlof-the%20market%20for%20lemons.pdf to http://hydrogen.its.ucdavis.edu/eec/education/EEC-classes/eeclimate/class-readings/akerlof-the%20market%20for%20lemons.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150424133336/http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Macroeconomist_as_Scientist.pdf to http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_Macroeconomist_as_Scientist.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131012053552/http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363397 to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363397
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130828121217/http://www.kabbalah.info/forums/arosa/engmaterials/Altruism/Ernst_Fehr___Urs_Fischbacher__The_Nature_of_Human_Altruism.pdf to http://www.kabbalah.info/forums/arosa/engmaterials/Altruism/Ernst_Fehr___Urs_Fischbacher__The_Nature_of_Human_Altruism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130828142011/http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/rps/rps2006/rp2006-148.pdf to http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/rps/rps2006/rp2006-148.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120819210707/http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/eier/4/1/7/_pdf to http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/eier/4/1/7/_pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

In the Marxism section, the article included the text (quoted below) which is very disconnected to this section's main point about Marx's labor and surplus theory, also Marx's labor and surplus theory does not suggest that an economy should adopt central planning. The suggestion is to remove the following text.

"The U.S. Export-Import Bank defines a Marxist-Lenninist state as having a centrally planned economy.[133] They are now rare, examples can still be seen in Cuba, North Korea and Laos."

Andyli1757 (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you would like removed does not say what a Marxist-Lenninist state is. It says what the U.S. Export-Import Bank says a Marxist-Lennist state is. Therefore, to argue to remove the sentence, you should show either a) this is not what the U.S. Export-Import Bank says or b) the U.S. Export-Import Bank is not a major economic agent. A third possibility is that the sentence belongs in the article, but should be moved to a different section. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think the sentence is fine. The purpose is to give an example of Marxist-Leninist economies that still exist in the world. But it is not up to Wikipedia to deem an economy "Marxist-Leninist", so instead we rely upon the U.S. Export-Import Bank's perspective. Altamel (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is choice three. This section is about theory, whereas there is another section which talks about international economics and different types of economies. I have moved the paragraph to that section. Minimax Regret (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Economic inequality

I am planning to add a section on economic inequality with a short description of its implications, here and at Macroeconomics. Probably about 1-3 paragraphs. I am open to suggestions about what and what not to cover in such a high-level summary. EllenCT (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing is to include a reliable reference for every statement. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's easier said than done. There are systemic biases towards supply side explanations which made sense before the telegraph. Things are improving though. EllenCT (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Worth discussing are arguments for and against the relevance of inequality. Wikiant (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070512014346/http://www.intute.ac.uk:80/socialsciences/economics/ to http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/economics/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040113031534/http://www.oecd.org:80/statistics/ to http://www.oecd.org/statistics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate claim in the lead

"The ultimate goal of economics is to improve the living conditions of people in their everyday life" This is a very normative and strong statement (an opinion so to speak of Paul Samuelson), which should not be in the lead of this important article. Or in the very least it should be mentioned that it is his point of view. 2A02:1811:8D05:7100:ED7C:437A:DD0F:A61C (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article should mention the two views, economics as descriptive and economics as normative, and attribute them to major economists, not offer them as definitive. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate goal for economics is probably to understand how economies work and how to make them work in the most effeicient way. That people get better lives would simply by a biproduct of this. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

First sentence in lead.

Okay, I'm no economist, but I wonder if the first sentence, which presently reads:

"Economics is a social science that attempts to explain the choices people make when faced with unlimited desires but limited abilities."

is optimal for this article. Yes, I see that similar statements are made in economics textbooks, but is this the over-arching defining concept that we want to communicate? The concept of economics is elaborated upon in the second sentence. Perhaps a merging of these sentences? I might favor removing the first sentence altogether. Just wondering. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the concept we want to communicate is the definition, which is what the sentence provides. The second sentence is not the definition of economics, it is a description of an application of economics. Wikiant (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but "unlimited desires"? This seems like an exaggeration, though I know that this is sometimes said. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Isambard Kingdom. About 15% of economists are libertarian, and would agree that desires are unlimited. But about 85% of economists would disagree, and say that many desires are satisfied. This article should not side with the 15%, especially not in the lead. I think a better first sentence would reflect the dictionary definition, "The science of the production or consumption of goods and services." Many libertarians contribute regularly to Wikipedia, and try to have Wikipedia use their definitions and beliefs. I would support the idea that this article use the dictionary definition. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Unlimited desires have nothing to do with libertarians. Non-satiation is a standard assumption in microeconomic theory. If desires are satisfied, then exchange ceases and you no longer have economics at all. Wikiant (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems kind of black and white. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"If desires are satisfied, then exchange ceases" this implies that "unlimited desires" is the sum of all current and future desires. If this is the case then the same logic would have to be applied to production/fulfillment of those desires and you would have unlimited desires and unlimited production. This is not helpful, useful, or applicable to the world that we live in. Economics must be applicable to the world we live in, otherwise it's just fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.161.81 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean here. You've said that you're not an economist, and you've said that this definition matches definitions found elsewhere. If you want a definition for economics, this is it. If you want something other than a definition of economics, then write it, but don't precede it with, "Economics is..." because it isn't. PS: I notice that you are now commenting on my biography page. Yes, the page does rely heavily on articles written by the subject. That's what one would expect from a biography page is it not? Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The opening has been more or less the same for the past several years. This is an article about economics, and thus is a very broad topic. Trying to shoehorn neoclassical ideas of a certain type into the first sentence is POV. Rick Norwood is right. In the definitions section, Lionel Robbins definition that "Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses" is fine to put. But shoehorning this narrow view in the first sentence doesn't work. I have my own pet ideas of what economics means, as do others, and everyone could have a free for all trying to shoehorn their pet economic ideas in the first sentence. Or you can have a broad definition like we have now. These ideas would work fine at the top of say the Neoclassical economics page, or in the definition with Robbins, or in the neoclassical part of this articles history section, it does not belong in the first sentence, which is why it has not been there for the past several years. I'm not even sure what "limited abilities" means in the modern economy - billions of people download apps for free from mobile app stores, free software is ubiquitous as are so many other services, if anything, scarcity and limited abilities is disappearing in the modern economy. That's just my opinion though so I wouldn't make the case for it in the first sentence. The first paragraph should be a broad definition covering all of economics, as it has been for many years. In the definitions section you have Adam Smith's definition and John Stuart Mill's definition, and you could replace the top with those if you wish. Narrow definitions from one school of economic thought do not belong up top though - it hasn't for years past and it doesn't now. Minimax Regret (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

a short version is "financial climate"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9990xeboar8887777 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 

A better definition of economic science: The study of the needs of mankind, and the means of satisfying them with the least possible waste of human energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.161.81 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms

"The dismal science" is a derogatory alternative name for economics devised by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century. It is often stated that Carlyle gave economics the nickname "the dismal science" as a response to the late 18th century writings of The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, who grimly predicted that starvation would result, as projected population growth exceeded the rate of increase in the food supply. However, the actual phrase was coined by Carlyle in the context of a debate with John Stuart Mill on slavery, in which Carlyle argued for slavery, while Mill opposed it.

It's desirable to begin a section with the most useful and relevant information, and for a criticism section that would constitute the prioritising the most potent and damning criticisms first. The current lead is about a 19th century racist who didn't like it merely because it did not support his political views. This has a great deal of etymological significance, since it is the origin of the phrase "The Dismal Science", but it has next to none as a criticism. I believe the strongest criticism lies somewhere within the Criticisms of Assumptions section; possibly this part.

Economics has been subject to criticism that it relies on unrealistic, unverifiable, or highly simplified assumptions, in some cases because these assumptions simplify the proofs of desired conclusions. Examples of such assumptions include perfect information, profit maximization and rational choices.[174][175] The field of information economics includes both mathematical-economical research and also behavioral economics, akin to studies in behavioral psychology.[176]

Fawby (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Big mistake in a sentence

In the sentence Joseph Schumpeter described Aquinas as "coming nearer than any other group to being the 'founders' of scientific economics", referenced to the book "Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1954). History of Economic Analysis". What Schumpeter really does is calificate the scholastics as "coming nearer than any other group to being the 'founders' of scientific economics", no just Aquinas, but the whole scholastics, specially the late scholastics. Denorio (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Denorio

References

Hi

Twinshaik (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanm1035 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

221.134.28.194 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. — MBlaze Lightning ^T 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202005510/http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu:80/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf to http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/AAAS_War_Iraq_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515034120/http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_G000007&edition=current&q=game%20theory&topicid=&result_number=4 to http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_G000007&edition=current&q=game%20theory&topicid=&result_number=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Webster's Dictionary

Quoting from Webster's dictionary is fine, we want to be sure it is not under copyright or such.

This is not under copyright in the US:

"E'co-nom'ics (-Iks_, n. (See -ICS) The science that investigates the conditions and laws affecting the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, or the material means of satisfying human desires; political economy" - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, third edition of the Merriam Series, 1917

I don't care which version is used, as long as Wikipedia has the legal right to use it.

Minimax Regret (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is nothing wrong with quoting a dictionary when we say what dictionary we're quoting from. In fact, i'm sure Merriam-Webster is very happy for what amounts to free advertisement. Quoting a 1917 definition of economics would be silly and would make nonexperts wonder whether the article is reliable because the definition of any field of study will have changed at least some in the course of 100 years.

If you don't want to quote the definition of one reliable source, you can make a combination of definitions in more than one source and cite both. --Espoo (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tax cut claim in Fiscal policy section

Currently, this article says, "Tax cuts allow consumers to increase their spending, which boosts aggregate demand."

First, doesn't the statement assume that government wouldn't spend the collected taxes?

Second, doesn't the extent of potentially increased demand depend on the incidence of taxation? When upper class earners gain income, they are far more likely to save or invest in fixed assets or real estate, which does not increase agregate demand. And while working class taxpayers would spend the gains, most tax cuts proposed in the English-speaking world over the past several decades have fallen less on the working and middle classes, whose incomes have stagnated and whose median net worth has fallen substantially in most countries. Is it reasonable to make a broad statement like this when it depends so heavily on unstated details?

Finally, don't such statements tend to support the continuation of policies which shift the social burden to the working and middle classes to the advantage of the rich? Is that the kind of bias which makes sense to eliminate in Wikipedia, given recent political events? Or have we reached a tipping point, where it really doesn't matter anymore because it will just keep happening anyway? 184.96.138.160 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Better language could clarify when this generalization is used as propaganda, to support broad useless "tax cuts for the rich," and when it represents targeted cuts in taxes on consumers, such as the home mortgage interest deduction, which result in actual increase in demand. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "boosts aggregate demand" isn't necessarily correct. Conversely, nor is it necessarily correct that raising taxes and increasing government spending boosts demand. To stick with the facts, it should say simply, "Tax cuts allow consumers to increase their spending." Wikiant (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

"When upper class earners gain income, they are far more likely to save or invest in fixed assets or real estate, which does not increase agregate demand." This is incorrect on two counts. (1) When Person A saves money, that money is available to be loaned to Person B, who then does spend it. In short, the saved money is spent - just not by the person who is doing the saving. (2) Borrowed money is (more often than not) spent on investment (I use the term in the economic, not financial, sense). This increases future productive capacity, consequently shifting (not eliminating) production of consumer goods from the present to the future. Wikiant (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• there are some very usuful phrases:
• "everything equal"
• "to a first approximation"
• "as an immediate effect"

"among the effects"

• "normally" DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Does "aggregate demand" have a definite meaning in economics, the discipline of economics. What other meanings might it have? and in what contexts such as economic journalism or political campaigning. For example would a Wall Street Journal editorial advocating tax cuts speak of "aggregate demand?" User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we have an article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

http://www.reviewecon.com/asad-model.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "aggregate demand" has a specific meaning in economics. I don't know of any instance in which the term is used (with meaning as opposed to word salad) outside of economics. Wikiant (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The "Fiscal Policy" section has no references at all. Would someone expert in the area please provide references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527204129/http://129.3.20.41/econ-wp/em/papers/0511/0511018.pdf to http://129.3.20.41/econ-wp/em/papers/0511/0511018.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071118193838/http://www.icsw.org/publications/sdr/2002-june/un-division.htm to http://www.icsw.org/publications/sdr/2002-june/un-division.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014032025/http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm to http://www.understandingpower.com/Chapter5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

50.32.47.143 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2017

213.55.112.53 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  — Ammarpad (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2017

Please Change:"is "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". To is "a social science that studies behavior within a system of finite resources or choices, broadly applied to the description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Biosteelman (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. The previous definition was from a now inactive user whose opinion of economics was somewhat stronger than his knowledge. Wikiant (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The previous definition is similar to the one that existed on this day a decade ago ([1]). It has been agreed to as a nice, general, broad definition. The definition comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, so I guess you're saying the dictionary is too opinionated. I cover this below any how. As I said, the current definition is a nice, broad, general one. If you want to start edit warring so that everyone starts trying to shove their pet theories into the opening paragraph, so be it. Minimax Regret (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just now saw your rationale for the reversion. I'm not swayed by the, "this is the way it's always been" argument. When it comes to definitions of a science, I'd prefer a definition from a text in the field rather than a (some would argue) second-rate dictionary. Let's find something reasonable from a widely-adopted principles text. Wikiant (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Let's find something reasonable from a widely-adopted principles text." Fine. Economics, a textbook by Paul Krugman, first published in 2004 with a new edition published this year, says on page 2 "And economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services". A definition very similar to what exists, in fact it can be that exactly if one wishes. Insofar as being widely adopted, it is a syllabus textbook for economics classes at universities and colleges across North America - Northwestern University, University of Minnesota, NYU, Swarthmore, Wake Forest, and so on and so on Minimax Regret (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism based on unpublished working papers

The criticism section has the sentence "Issues like central bank independence, central bank policies and rhetoric in central bank governors discourse or the premises of macroeconomic policies (monetary and fiscal policy) of the state, are focus of contention and criticism." and gives sources exclusively from before 2008 and nearly all of them unpublished. This should be improved. Econommist (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Misconception

Contrary to common misconception, most economists generally agree on basic economic theories, and don't differ significantly according to ideology.

I think this source is reliable for this claim and I think it appropriate to include. Benjamin (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person who reverted your initial edit so I owe you a discussion. First, I find this an exceptional claim (as stated in my edit summary). While it's probably true that economists "generally agree on basic economic theories", I find it impossible to see how that means they therefore "don't differ significantly according to ideology". There's a difference between describing the way individuals exchange resources (economic theory) and whether that exchange should be encouraged or discouraged (ideology). For instance, all economists generally agree on the potential effects of price gouging in a scarce market. But, some think price gouging is good, and some think it should be criminal. If you're going to add this claim to the page, you need to find multiple reliable sources beyond a single, older edition of an introductory micro textbook. Second, the wording of the claim itself has too many weasel words. "most...generally...significantly". All of these words are subjective to the reader and therefore the claim simply lacks substance. The article already has statistics from a study that asked how many economists agreed on certain economic theories (although the study itself is a bit dubious, imo), which is a much more informative claim than what you have written. So, I don't think the edit should be included in the article. Lordbedo (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be reworded a bit? Benjamin (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Opening paragraph

After years of the opening paragraph being more or less the same, it was changed three days ago. And limited. I don't know why economics has to be limited to "behavior within a system of finite resources or choices". If I write a free app with ads for Android devices, and publish it, how does finiteness come into play? Are the billions of people and devices it goes out to limited by their finiteness of being only billions? Yes, economics can study finite things, it can also study non-finite things.

Anyhow these ideas are covered all over this page, and on other pages. In the Definition of economics section with Lionel Robbins. In the microeconomics markets section. In the Production, cost, and efficiency section. All over the neoclassical economics section. In the neoclassical economics article.

After years of a similar opening paragraph, you are saying the study of economics has to be limited to one narrow area, the one you are interested in and want to promote. But it is not limited to that. I am putting the opening back to the one it has been similar to for the past years, prior to three days ago.

Also, looking through the article I noticed another problem, so this change was not for naught. I will be fixing that as well. Minimax Regret (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now restored our opening definition to something like the long standing version but now with a citation to Krugman - "Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". This is in my view preferable to the Mankiw (Robbins (193) style) definition as it does not frame the subject in terms of scarce resources. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC))

@Msrasnw: Out of intellectual curiosity—why the aversion to a definition that discusses scarce resources? For me, such definitions generally paint with broader brush strokes, allowing the imagination to take over and curiosity to set in. Defining it as a list of human activities seems very formal and unyielding. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 04:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My worry is that Robbin's definition would rule out bits or types of economics which might be important and don't involve this assumption (or framing device or whatever it is) of scarce resources. For example much of Keynes's macro stuff is in the context of unemployed workers. Labour in such a context is not scarce. Marxian economics is about exploitation and technical change and interactions between social classes. Austrian economics, at least in some incarnations, about an unconstrained dynamic of capitalism. Anyway - perhaps the Definitions of economics page is interesting on this. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

Add: Nobel in economics is not an actual nobel in the profession section?

The last sentence of Profession introduces the nobel prize in economics. It provides the wikilink to the prize but one must follow the link to find out that it's not one of the actual Nobel prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will. Since this is a unique feature of economics as a field of study with prizes, it seems relevant to mention that in this article. An academic might pick up on the nuance of the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" and follow the link to see what "memorial" means but a layperson likely won't pick up on that nuance and might conclude that it's a Nobel prize like any other without investigating. KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added a bit about this to the end of the sentence. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 15:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Section Organization

I find the organization of the article confusing. The theory section is somewhere in the middle, even though it provides a very broad overview which would be very helpful to understand prior to diving into topics such as Micro and Macro. Even the discussion of economic systems, though it is a small section seems oddly placed. Then to have related subjects before history? This is madness.

I am proposing:

1. Move Micro, Macro, Intn'l, and Development Econ from being sections 2-5 to after History.

   Unlike "hard" sciences where learning the history of a science bears little fruit, the history of the development of economic theories is pivotal to understanding the current state of economics and why there is disagreement at all. Having the detailed theory sections before the history section also emphasizes certain schools of thought before the reader is offered an explanation of where those schools come from.

2. Move Theory out from under Practice and put it after Economic Systems.
3. Move Related Subjects after criticisms.
4. Move Practice to before See Also

--KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 05:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Seeing no disagreement and inferring consensus: this re-arranging was implemented. -- KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 15:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think moving history up is a good idea, in fact I moved it up even more, over Economic systems and Theory. I don't think these sections - as written - should be so high in the page. For example the new third paragraph down now says "The U.S. Export-Import Bank defines a Marxist–Leninist state as having a centrally planned economy.[30] They are now rare;..." Such a detail as this, especially one which refers to its own current irrelevancy, does not deserve to be moved up. Moving history up, the third paragraph down now introduces the concept of laissez-faire, which seems more relevant.

Economic systems and theory could conceptually be higher, but it makes no sense with the existing content. For one thing economic systems are hunter-gatherer band economic systems, slave empire economic systems, feudal economic systems, capitalist economic systems, Paris commune/Barcelona anarchist economic systems, Soviet economic systems, Italian fascist economic systems etc., not just what the US E-I bank says about the whole world and the Cuban economy. Which has plenty of private enterprise in recent years any how. Minimax Regret (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tariffs article: help needed

If anyone can spare an hour, an anon IP added (and I reverted) a long series of quotes from NYT articles Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman at Tariffs because it was (a) too long and too detailed (b) almost all verbatim quotes without a summary, (c) it probably belongs at free trade in any event and (d) it probably exceeds fair use limits. But it would be a shame to just lose it so some kind soul is needed edit it down. Please? Although I reverted it, I captured it at Talk:Tariff/Archives/2019#Economic analyses of Paul Krugman. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Too big

This article is too big (page size, ~174kB; prose size, ~78kb). Too much information is being condensed into this one article, when it would be better to spread the information over multiple ones. The section on microeconomics is almost as large as the microeconomics article itself. Economics is an extremely broad subject. We should touch briefly, and clearly, on its many facets, but save detailed elaboration for the appropriate articles. That said, I'm going to whittle it down a little by moving information to related articles. GUYWAN ( t · c ) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Most excellent suggestion. Perhaps breakdown into Business, Free Markets, Money, Monetary Policy and Government Average64 (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Poor quality indeed...

If you want to understand economic theory, see appropedia:economic value. Average64 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

An empty page? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution was deleted there and I have just done so here because it is your personal opinion. This is not censorship, it is merely asserting Wikipedia's right to determine what it will publish and what it will not publish. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia is not a forum for opinion. The purpose of talk pages is to discuss how best to improve the article within the guidelines just stated. Wikipedia follows, not leads. You need to find an eminent economist who expresses the ideas you believe should be included and draw readers attention to them, no more. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Modern Definition of Economics

At an earlier stage in the development of economics as a science (26 years after the Wealth of Nations), economics was defined and explained at length as the study of production, distribution, and consumption of wealth by Jean-Baptiste Say in his "Treatise on Political Economy or, The Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth". This definition has prevailed to our time, save by substituting the word "wealth" by "good and services" meaning that wealth may include nonphysical objects as well. One hundred and thirty years later, Lionel Robbins noticed that definition no longer sufficed, because many economists had made theoretical and philosophical inroads in other areas of human activity besides the macroeconomics aspects of Wealth (production, distribution, consumption, growth, etc.). Then, he proposed a definition of economics as the study of the microeconomics aspects of human activity, the ones falling under the influence of scarcity which forces people to choose, allocate scarce resources to conflicting ends, and economize (avoid the wasting of scarce resources). This opens the door to a modern definition of Economics.

My contribution comes from the following definitions:

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

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

Economics is the study of human behavior, with a particular focus on human decision making (Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, and MacPherson 2006, p. 5). Firulaith (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Things used for production or consumption

Macroeconomic variables are aggregations of microeconomic values: consumption is the sum of household consumptions, production is the aggregation of final outputs of all industries, distribution is the aggregation of all incomes from labor, profit, and rent. Macroeconomics has its own particular issues, therefore it is a separate study in economics. Defining economics in macroeconomics terms ignores what's going on at the microeconomics level from which everything originates. Marxists love Say's definition because they are able to ignore the microeconomic stuff and center in social relations. For example, production is the exploitation of labor by the capitalist class. There is only one way of producing a good or service (the average necessary labor). Without considering microeconomics interactions those affirmations are misleading at best and totally wrong at worst. (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The following is the most accepted definition at universities and new texts: "Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources". Then you have to know or explain what society means in this context; it means individuals, families, firms, government, and all kinds of non-governmental organizations and groups that have access to scarce resources. Then resources are things needed for production or consumption. Then scarce means that the resources are in limited supply. And finally, manages means making decisions to achieve objectives given constraints since all decisions involve a trade-off.Firulaith (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Society is not a person, so it doesn't do anything. This may be used in a bestselling textbook, but that's not much to stand on, in my opinion. Also this, Macroeconomic variables are aggregations of microeconomic values. is a can of worms. For example Credit (a macro variable) is not merely the sum of little credits. The same can be said of the capital stock and other familiar macro terms. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In about a week I will change the definition of economics as follows: "Economics is the study of how society manages its scarce resources" and then explain the meaning of society, in the context of the definition, resources, scarcity, and managing if there is no opposing view.Firulaith (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If we decide to keep the old definition, we should simple say that Economics is the study of wealth, exactly what Adan Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say were thinking about: How wealth is created (production), how it is distributed (wages, profits, and rent), how it is consumed, and how it can grow. All fall in the macroeconomic realm. Firulaith (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

From microeconomics (households, firms, industries, government, buyers, sellers, etc) it is relatively easy to go to macroeconomics but, not the other way around. Firulaith (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You can do class relations analysis in microeconomics if you wish. You can say that firms are in a position of power when hiring workers, but not when workers organize in Unions. There are also labor regulations, minimum wage legislation, and labor markets. When labor is in short supply and there are many firms looking for workers, wages increase and this could lead to fair wages without unions. Firulaith (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I do object to the Mankiw definition, for the reason I said above. It personifies "society" and in so doing ignores the very processes that economists study. For all its incompleteness, the "study of wealth" definition is at least a simple and primal starting point that provokes rich exploration and wide analysis. By the way, I may have missed it, but could you state your objection to the current definition in the lead, cited to Krugman? SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Society means you SPECIFICO, me, and all people; also includes institutions, government, and all organizations. We don't have to list everyone and everything. The primal processes that economists study are price formation, quantity demanded and offered for each product, wage determination, profit as a residual of firm activity, rent determination, taxes, government spending, and others. I can't list them all. Politics is the study of power and its sources. Sociology is in a better equipped to study social relations. At the dawn of economics, it was called Political Economy and included those aspects. Because of the specialization of science, it does not intrude in those areas anymore.Firulaith (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Government is not a person but it does many things. It can subscribe to contracts, enforce the law, etc. Corporations functions as legal. persons.Firulaith (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mankiw definition is basically the same as Bade and Parkin and Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, and MacPherson . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firulaith (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your unintelligible rant about "society" does not invalidate my criticism. There is not a single entity or organism that determines economic outcomes. The current definition, cited to Krugman, avoids giving any such impression. Your proposed text, on the other hand, not only supports but affirms the view that there is some sort of social validation of every economic fact because "society" has chosen the outcomes. I don't see any consensus for replacing the current text or any support for your text. You don't even seem to understand the difference between your Mankiw text and the statements you cite to various other authors above. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"EconomicS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EconomicS. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

     That might be more enticing if the editor in question were state, here, more precisely why they like (or dislike) the camel-cased word. See wikt:nonplussed.
--JerzyA (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Anthropological Economics

Please go through my work on Anthropological Economics

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandavilli Sujay Rao (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

At the end of "Branches of economics" section, pls add:

Anthropological Economics is a criterion for analyzing economic systems, whether public or private. It analyzes and modifies economic processes using the language of economics in favor of the anthropological perspective. Ag69360 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where exactly do you want this added? Additionally this will probably need more sourcing and consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ag69360, perhaps more suited to #Related subjects? It doesn't use economic framework, but describes economics from an anthropological perspective. Caius G. (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have some opinions here on the current economy phase, during and post corona pandemic?

Hi, it would be great if anyone can share opinions and some data points on the world economies during the current phase and what it will likely to be post corona pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsgup (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're looking for information on the current state of economics vis-a-vis Covid-19, there are separate "history of economics" pages. If you want information about the state of the economy post-coronavirus, then the page on covid-19 should have a summary of its impact. If you're looking to have specific questions answered, talk pages generally aren't the places to request specific opinions from other users about the subject of the article. VineFynn (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Critique of political economy

The lead (at least) of the article Critique of political economy is an incoherent and incomprehensible mess. Would anyone care to clean it up? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This section has already been removed from the article.

Pauloroboto (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Pauloroboto is referring to a section he added to this article (and I reverted, not realising its provenance), which copied that incomprehensible lead. So the underlying problem remains extant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The article references Samuelson & Nordhaus (2004) extensively. I gather that this is a standard textbook in the field, but neither GBooks nor WorldCat list an edition published in 2004. If by chance any editors are in possession of this textbook – any edition – it would be great if you could add bibliographic information for it and update the references, checking the page numbers as you go. Many thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Worldcat has this: Samuelson, Paul A., and William D. Nordhaus. 2004. Economics. Boston, Mass: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC))

Further reading

Dear all, the Further Reading section looks to have some slightly odd entries that look to me to be pushing particular ideas or persons views which are not really what I would expect on the main economics page. I would expect more on what economics is and highly noted works. Does anyone have any views? (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC))

• I have trimmed down the Further Reading section and added Blaug and Samuelson and Nordhaus. Why? To make it more relevant to the topic and subject matter of the page. Feel free to discuss here ... or, of course, do as you wish. I feel those deleted were not really appropriate here ... and am not sure about Anderson or the audiobook (Msrasnw (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC))

Opening

For many years, this article had a broad opening, to encompass a wide view of economics. A few days ago, the opening was modified, saying economics only dealt with studying scarcity (I guess billion dollar Avengers releases do not fall under the realm of economics, as the movie is no longer scarce when final cut is sent to digital media). I changed back to a definition without scarcity, as has been for years. Neoclassical ideas about scarcity are discussed in detail on the page. If someone wants to change back to last month's opening, that is fine too. Minimax Regret (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hate to be that guy (not really), but Avengers releases are still constrained by scarcity because we have finite time with which to consume them, and the resources required to display the film are scarce. Just because IP is non-rivalrous doesn't mean its exploitation isn't constrained by scarcity. VineFynn (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

the resources required to display the film are scarce.

If we use the word scarce to describe the resources to display a film, then the word scarcity loses its meaning. You might as well say grains of sand on a beach are scarce, since they are finite. It is estimated that over 90% of households worldwide have a television, that is not something that is scarce. Minimax Regret (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Go have this argument with an economist, please. I don't define these terms, I just know what they mean.VineFynn (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is the "Agreements" section about?

Why is it there? Are we somehow to believe that consensus equals truth? FALLACY. If the consensus is based off of terrible reasons, who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4302:40A0:BDFD:9651:8061:1B2B (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I think the section is informative for readers who are under the impression econ is a deeply divided, positively subjective field, I agree that the section sticks out like a sore thumb- stylistically, at least. It's not saying anything about consensus=truth, though VineFynn (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but then it's either a red-herring and/or strawman. The critique of certain economic theories--or certain ways of doing economics--is that they are pure a priori speculation. Which is bullshit outside of things like mathematics & logic. For the real world, which is necessarily what economics is concerned with, we have to run tests. And that's not an opinion or self-defeating; that's part of our background knowledge.

It doesn't have to be either, because the page is not making an argument. It is just providing information. Also, remember to sign your posts.VineFynn (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the "Agreements" section should be removed. It presents several problems: it synthesizes content from various sources, only presents viewpoints of American economists, and a lot of the "views" are already and/or debunked. BeŻet (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Another problem is that it aggregates several different studies from different years, which obviously is problematic. Moreover, those opinions change all the time. Taking the minimum wage debate for instance, the article claims that 79% of economists are of the opinion that increase of minimum wage would cause unemployment amongst low-skilled labour, while not only empirical evidence does not support this, there's an increase in the number of economists who don't believe in that statement. A 2013 survey already shows that less than half of the respondents support it. BeŻet (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've canned the section.VineFynn (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Import/Export

What happens when we buy goods from other countries 41.114.137.46 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The article International trade may help. If you still have questions, talk:International trade is probably a better place to ask than here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I question the neutrality of this article because I think it shows heavy systemic bias.

The article seems neoclassical to its very core.

(Personally I think all "economic" theory is more or less blatantly absurd, so I choose not to engage in these questions much at all.) But wikipedia should be about education, if you're going to present someone with the "supply and demand curve", which hardly ever corresponds to reality, the first thing you do without much reservation. You might as well admit openly that the topic of the article is going to be about religion. The whole piece on "market failure", is a result of people going against the model of science which all other social sciences take for granted. You might for example come up with a theory, and test it. If it doesn't correspond to what you find, you go back to your data or your theory, or both. This is the case in sociology or any respectable social science really. The talk about "market failures" inverts the most basic scientific method. Instead of thinking that your theory might be incorrect, which would be the logical thing to do. You instead point out that "the market", in effect society, has failed in corresponding to your theory.

I won't make any big changes to this article as of now, but leave that to those of you who consider yourselves "economists".

I hope all goes well here.

Pauloroboto (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pauloroboto: As I said on your talk page, such analysis and criticism is most definitely welcome. But, as I also said, to be effective it has to be written so that people can understand it. The article Critique of political economy is an incoherent mess of pseudo-English. So please reconsider. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, it's very kind of you to respond so fast to this. But I don't have any claims to include any form of critique of political economy what so ever. My claim here is rather regarding the narrowly orthodox view that is common to this article, which must be considered pseudoscience proper. (Where I come from we have a way of distinguishing the technocrat economists from the dogmatists, and I think such a project could do well for this article.) If you want to talk about some other wikipedia page, you are very welcome to do so, on another page.

Thank you for your contribution. If you have any contributions you can make regarding the language, of any post, I encourage you to do so. Kind regards, Pauloroboto (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup

For the information of other readers and as a result of this and other discussions, Pauloroboto (mainly) and I are working to bring Critique of political economy up to a level where it might help rather than hinder the case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello John Maynard Friedman I've made some changes to this article due to the undue weight it gave to certain perspectives. I'd be delighted if you would be able to go through my edits. I previously said that I wouldn't get involved with this, since I feel like economists tend to behave like the sectarian preists of the middle ages sometimes, but to get the article to a more nuanced state, something really had to be done. I really do not think that the article is neutral as it is now, but I consider my edits a major improvement, which in turn has to be critiqued so that the the entire article can become more balanced.

Thanks for any contributions you might do.

//Pauloroboto (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Paulo, I am not an economist despite my user-name (it is a morph of my home city, Milton Keynes). You have moved long past the crude errors of the original version, which was really as much as I was competent enough to help with. Perhaps 15 (who removed the systemic bias tag from Economics) can advise? What would the article need to achieve wp:good article, wp:NPOV being the obvious test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As the article is currently very messy (and should probably be pruned of tangential and overly detailed information), evaluating NPOV is a bit difficult, but ultimately Wikipedia is supposed to represent the mainstream. Sure, there are plenty of criticms and a wide range of alternative schools of thought, but given that almost everyone is a mainstream economists (likely to a higher degree than in most other disciplines in which "schools of thought" exist), the article is going to be mainly written from a mainstream perspective. If editors wish to write more about Feminist economics or Marxist economics, they can do so at the respective articles. The fact that there are plenty of alternative schools of thought doesn't mean that they are big in a relative sense, given their low number of adherents. 15 (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Paulo, the reference policy behind 15's response is wp:undue but of course who is disinterested enough but also competent enough to be able to declare what 'due' or 'undue', what is 'mainstream', how wide that stream is, and how much consensus it enjoys. Certainly there are different schools of thought, most famously [that even I have heard of them], the 'dries' from Chicago and Vienna versus the 'wets' from US east and west coasts plus UK and France. I infer that Thomas Piketty and Modern monetary theory are considered fringe (though not WP:fringe!) by the 'mainstream', so the Marxist view would have very few adherents. But can that be quantified? As ever, wp:reliable sources. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input from both of you. I've fixed the source you deemed hard to find 15 , in the page of mainstream economics as well. I think adherents is a strange way to view this. Consider the following:

I am a man who thinks the sun revolves around the earth, so does everyone else --> hence this must be well worth mentioning?

If we're going to meet the critera of " it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." we should not overemphasise one view to the point that it dominates the entire article, as it is now. This is even more strange considering that most economic theory is heterodox theory. Basing what should be all over the article based on followers of one kind of economic axioms is like if the article on football focused exclusively on whatever team happends ho have the most supporters. (which I hope it doesn't...) Pauloroboto (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your example. Is this a verifiability vs truth issue? Or WP:WEIGHT?

We should emphasise the mainstream view, which is neoclassical. I don't understand "this is even more strange considering that most economic theory is heterodox theory". Do you mean in the volume of work?

See WP:WEIGHT regarding your last point. You presumably read John Maynard Friedman's 19:06 comment and are familiar with it, this is not the place to discuss basic policy. Your example does not describe the current state of the article: there are significant portions devoted towards criticisms and alternative schools of thought. It does not focus "exclusively" on mainstream econ. 15 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The claim you removed due to a lack of a source is in my humble opinion so blatantly obvious that it doesn't need a source. (Check the image on the article on heterodox economics if you run into trouble verifying it.)

I think you're largely incorrect regarding that "It does not focus "exclusively" on mainstream econ." You may correct me if I'm wrong but talk of e.g "market failiures", are exclusively a product of neoclassical economic theory, which absurdly posits "the market" i.e capitalism, as "perfect". You probably know all this.

I really don't aim to discuss basic policy, I just think that the article should incorporate, 1. Heterodox theory. 2. Not be drowned in the language of specific theories or models but express the ideas in general terminology since the article is about economics, not mainstream economics. 3. Fairly give space for critical accounts of the concept of the proclaimed "economic science".

Regarding questions of distrubution of resources a lot of economists and especially mainstream economists is effectively the society for proclaiming that the earth is flat, but I'm not unreasonable, since this dogma is widely accepted it should for sure be included. The reader should be made aware of that axioms of mainstream economics is falsified by decades of very basic, and empirically verifiable research in psychology. But to include it without clearly mentioning that this is a position which is questioned by basically all critics of political economy, and by large sections of economists themselves, aside from being scientifically questionable at best, is in my opinion to fool people. Which, well doesn't really sit well with the categorical imperative...

I wish you all a good day. Pauloroboto (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of heterodox economics contradicts the image. Please avoid general WP:FORUMy comments on talk pages, they tend to make discussion more arduous - you don't know who might take offence and start complaining. Market failure is a quite prominent topic within economics, which means it should be included. Perhaps Economics § Branches of economics is a bit too detailed in general - "Market failure" is not really a branch but a concept, the same applies to other subsections. It might useful to move some material to the respective articles.

Addressing your points in order: 1. Heterodox theories are covered in both the history and criticism section. It would probably make sense to have a dedicated section talking about schools of thought in general, although NPOV will be hard to maintain. 2. Mainstream economics is most of economics, so neoclassical "language" will be used mostly. This is ultimately closer to economic practice than general philosophical ideas on economics are. 3. and the parts of the following paragraph: Economics § Criticisms of assumptions. These can also be covered in a heterodox schools section. 15 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You would be hard pressed to try to claim that most of economic theory is neoclassical. Are you trying to make another point perhaps? Thanks for any clarification. I agree regarding that some content could be moved to make the article more balanced. More history could also be included, since this page has huge issues with WP:Recentism. (Neoclassical economy is *currently* most of ecnomics. But wikipedia doesn't work that way. In that case the philosophy page would be dedicated to basically only analytical philosophy. Which would undermine the reason why that page even exists.) I'm sorry for any issues in communication, I'm on a rather tight schedule and hence don't have a whole lot of time to put into this. (Time really is the ultimate luxury.) Pauloroboto (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk) Regarding your edit in which you stated that "Critique_of_political_economy_versus_common_economic_criticism says, critique of the political economy is not the same as criticism of economics, and should (if at all) be found at economy".

Please review the following.

Phenomena X exists.

Party Y critiques Phenomena X on a ontological level.

Party Z critiques Phenomena X on a epistemological level.

Hence:

Party Y does not in fact critique Phenomena X, but Party Z does critique X.

Thanks for your time. //Pauloroboto (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the other article's talk page might be more appropriate if you want to discuss edits to it.VineFynn (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this input VineFynn I would also like it if relevant topics were covered where they belong and have some meaning. We'll see.

Kannada

Economistes as seytista information in Kannada pdf 2402:3A80:1EE6:C847:0:0:FC9:CA0F (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO

Please read the rest of the talk page.

I'd be happy to slim down the content somewhat, but as of now that would give undue weight towards recent events if I do that as of now. Which part do you mean have a "weakly sourced emphasis", the entire article right now has a huge emphasis towards a just one branch of economic theory, and the version you tried to take back is historically questionable.

I, however, appreciate that you want to make this article better.

Thanks for any answer.

Pauloroboto (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

When an edit is reverted, the onus to gain consensus for re-inclusion is on the editor who proposed the content, in this case you. I am going to undo your reinsertion and you need to state your case convincingly on this talk page to generate support from other editors. So far, you have none and the content should remain out of the article. Your emphasis on non-mainstream views and emphasis is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to present mainstream views on the subject topic only and only in proportion to their incidence in mainstream reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Marx is both fringe in contemporary econ and as the historical development of the field goes not terribly important. That his works are relatively well-popularised (in comparison to others in the field) doesn't change any of that (any more than the proliferation of flat-earth conspiracy theories makes them less fringe in astronomy).

Marx's contributions were to political philosophy/historiography first and economics a distant second, which is why his influence is still felt today in the first two areas. The article on Economics should reflect that.

With all that in mind, I agree with SPECIFICO that there was far too much attention being dedicated to him in the deleted content. VineFynn (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)