This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economics terminology that differs from common usage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The suggestion for speedy deletion is baffling. Exactly zero percent of the information in this article is in the article Outline of economics. The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage explains conflicts of terminology between lay people and economists. The article Outline of economics contains nothing but links to other economics articles, with no explanations or even discussions of terminology whatsoever, much less terminological conflicts. The speedy-deletion suggestion was not well thought out. Duoduoduo ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered these problems whenever I have taught macroeconomics. I start out telling them that they are going to lose points on exams because they didn't pay attention to the meaning of words like investment and money. Yet when I ask a question about the effects of an increase in the money supply, several students always answer the question thinking there was an increase in wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.199.38 ( talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is badly in need of referencing, but the underlying concept (that terms have different meanings in economics and ordinary usage) and can be sourced. While the tone may be essay-like at present, it has potential. This is the type of article that we should be encouraging, not discouraging at WP.-- SPhilbrick T 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
People think economic rationality is omniscience and characterized by a striving towards an objective good. Rather it should be explained as optimizing a system of utility functions which account for subjective value, uncertainty, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.125.33 ( talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economics terminology that differs from common usage. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Too much focus is given to the NBER, which is a US institusion f 179.191.118.82 ( talk) 12:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economics terminology that differs from common usage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The suggestion for speedy deletion is baffling. Exactly zero percent of the information in this article is in the article Outline of economics. The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage explains conflicts of terminology between lay people and economists. The article Outline of economics contains nothing but links to other economics articles, with no explanations or even discussions of terminology whatsoever, much less terminological conflicts. The speedy-deletion suggestion was not well thought out. Duoduoduo ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered these problems whenever I have taught macroeconomics. I start out telling them that they are going to lose points on exams because they didn't pay attention to the meaning of words like investment and money. Yet when I ask a question about the effects of an increase in the money supply, several students always answer the question thinking there was an increase in wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.199.38 ( talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is badly in need of referencing, but the underlying concept (that terms have different meanings in economics and ordinary usage) and can be sourced. While the tone may be essay-like at present, it has potential. This is the type of article that we should be encouraging, not discouraging at WP.-- SPhilbrick T 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
People think economic rationality is omniscience and characterized by a striving towards an objective good. Rather it should be explained as optimizing a system of utility functions which account for subjective value, uncertainty, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.125.33 ( talk) 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economics terminology that differs from common usage. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Too much focus is given to the NBER, which is a US institusion f 179.191.118.82 ( talk) 12:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)