![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are they occasionally abused because they are free?
Bluemoose added:
This seems a strange extra requirement. Does that mean that for scuba divers air is a good (since they pay for the privalege), but for someone in the middle of Montana it is not since they don't pay for the air? I think the only significant economic difference is that the free good will be used up to the point of saturation, and so the utility of the last bit of the free good is zero. But it seems odd to say that something would be a good if you had to pay for it, but because you don't it is not a good. Jrincayc 29 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)
I find the start of the article really confusing, because there are a whole load of irrelevant terms there which confuse the need to give a simple definition first up and to distinguish the term from first bads and second services. Wiki articles become crowded and confusing very easily and I want to pare back the introduction a bit to include a fuller discussion later in the article. The Land 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for general cleanup. aaron 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I did my best to clean up the utility section. I think it helps out with some of these confusions. Price is only necessary because it is the easiest way to convey scarcity in the debate, which is important. It is also a way to imagine consumption (you consume what you buy). It isn't strictly necessary however.
For further clarification-- a good is any object whose consumption increases the level of happiness, or utility, of the consumer. Thus, oxygen is a good, whether you pay for it or not (whether the price is nonzero or not). Gcolive 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is in need of references. Many of the types of the goods are not recognized by the mainstream economic literature. If references to established literature were included, "invalid" types of good can be easily identified. At least common good is one that is not recognized by the literature.
do you know literature means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.205.115 ( talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The newer version of this article is far from satisfactory, to the point where someone added the cleanup tag, I have now made a new version of the article, which I think is much more encyclopedic, much tidier and incorporates the merger of accounting good better. See Good (economics and accounting), hopefully we can then redirect this article and the good (accounting) article to that one. Martin 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup tag: it was added without comment here. If people think it's genuinely in need of cleanup, pleas say why.
I think we ran into each other with a move ;-) - now only to worry about the content. I think the page as it was at Good (economics) is better: fewer words, just as much information. The Land 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I did my best to clean up the utility section. I think it helps out with some of these confusions. On the price question: price is only necessary because it is the easiest way to convey scarcity in the debate, which is important. It is also a way to imagine consumption (you consume what you buy). It isn't strictly necessary however.
For further clarification-- a good is any object whose consumption increases the level of happiness, or utility, of the consumer. Thus, oxygen is a good, whether you pay for it or not (whether the price is nonzero or not).
Also-- I added a page for bads. I think this helps to clarify things as well. Gcolive 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the sentence about goods being "positive;" it seems that the usage has already been dissociated with the value meaning of the common adjective "good." If anyone is offended, I'll understand; I simply don't think it adds much. aschwa5 8/8/08 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose an addition of a summary of the different types of good, either as an additional section or a new article linked in the Goodtypes template, or added to the Goodtypes template itself.
The reason for this proposal is that there are too many types of goods available to the reader, and that the names of the goods many not be clearly indicative of its nature, thus an addition of a summary would aid the reader in navigating between the articles regarding the different types of goods.
Xieliwei 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Entitling this article “Good (economics and accounting)” was rather like entitling it “Good (economics and engineering)”. Certainly accounting is concerned with goods and services, but so is engineering. However, their concern is founded in considerations that are economic. — SlamDiego ←T 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The existing definition of the 'Good' has a broken/invalid link; it would be prudent to locate a new one. Pestergaines ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the hell isn't there a divisible good page? Shame on you, wikipedians! Don't let the rest of the world see this glaring error in an otherwise brilliant encyclopaedia. 137.132.3.7 ( talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey people, are you really serious? This isn't a joke? I hardly can believe that... the German article is far better, and so is the Spanish and in other languages. Maybe it is not important to describe the characteristics of each good here but at least there should be an outline plus the differences between the different types of goods. -- Grochim ( talk) 09:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition leaves out intangible good IMO. Software delivered over the internet. A music file delivered by email. And there's no discussion of licensing which is usually central to this sort of good. But I'm not an economist, and I leave this for others to sort out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.150.190 ( talk) 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the introduction, the word "tangible" seems to be taking on ambiguous definitions. In one case, "in economic theory all goods are considered tangible," it seems to mean "to be real or exist," but in another case, "certain classes of goods, such as information, may only exist in intangible forms," it seems to mean "to be physically touchable or tactile." Since this is an economics article, perhaps it would be better to only use "tangible" with the definition given to it by economists, and to describe things like information and news as things that aren't "tactile." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.140.51 ( talk) 05:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And that's sad. Merchandise should be. -- Поверхаххапайко ( talk) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view, the above three are goods, but not much at all. They are actually services, far more than they are goods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 ( talk) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are they occasionally abused because they are free?
Bluemoose added:
This seems a strange extra requirement. Does that mean that for scuba divers air is a good (since they pay for the privalege), but for someone in the middle of Montana it is not since they don't pay for the air? I think the only significant economic difference is that the free good will be used up to the point of saturation, and so the utility of the last bit of the free good is zero. But it seems odd to say that something would be a good if you had to pay for it, but because you don't it is not a good. Jrincayc 29 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)
I find the start of the article really confusing, because there are a whole load of irrelevant terms there which confuse the need to give a simple definition first up and to distinguish the term from first bads and second services. Wiki articles become crowded and confusing very easily and I want to pare back the introduction a bit to include a fuller discussion later in the article. The Land 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for general cleanup. aaron 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I did my best to clean up the utility section. I think it helps out with some of these confusions. Price is only necessary because it is the easiest way to convey scarcity in the debate, which is important. It is also a way to imagine consumption (you consume what you buy). It isn't strictly necessary however.
For further clarification-- a good is any object whose consumption increases the level of happiness, or utility, of the consumer. Thus, oxygen is a good, whether you pay for it or not (whether the price is nonzero or not). Gcolive 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is in need of references. Many of the types of the goods are not recognized by the mainstream economic literature. If references to established literature were included, "invalid" types of good can be easily identified. At least common good is one that is not recognized by the literature.
do you know literature means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.205.115 ( talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The newer version of this article is far from satisfactory, to the point where someone added the cleanup tag, I have now made a new version of the article, which I think is much more encyclopedic, much tidier and incorporates the merger of accounting good better. See Good (economics and accounting), hopefully we can then redirect this article and the good (accounting) article to that one. Martin 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup tag: it was added without comment here. If people think it's genuinely in need of cleanup, pleas say why.
I think we ran into each other with a move ;-) - now only to worry about the content. I think the page as it was at Good (economics) is better: fewer words, just as much information. The Land 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I did my best to clean up the utility section. I think it helps out with some of these confusions. On the price question: price is only necessary because it is the easiest way to convey scarcity in the debate, which is important. It is also a way to imagine consumption (you consume what you buy). It isn't strictly necessary however.
For further clarification-- a good is any object whose consumption increases the level of happiness, or utility, of the consumer. Thus, oxygen is a good, whether you pay for it or not (whether the price is nonzero or not).
Also-- I added a page for bads. I think this helps to clarify things as well. Gcolive 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the sentence about goods being "positive;" it seems that the usage has already been dissociated with the value meaning of the common adjective "good." If anyone is offended, I'll understand; I simply don't think it adds much. aschwa5 8/8/08 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I propose an addition of a summary of the different types of good, either as an additional section or a new article linked in the Goodtypes template, or added to the Goodtypes template itself.
The reason for this proposal is that there are too many types of goods available to the reader, and that the names of the goods many not be clearly indicative of its nature, thus an addition of a summary would aid the reader in navigating between the articles regarding the different types of goods.
Xieliwei 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Entitling this article “Good (economics and accounting)” was rather like entitling it “Good (economics and engineering)”. Certainly accounting is concerned with goods and services, but so is engineering. However, their concern is founded in considerations that are economic. — SlamDiego ←T 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The existing definition of the 'Good' has a broken/invalid link; it would be prudent to locate a new one. Pestergaines ( talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the hell isn't there a divisible good page? Shame on you, wikipedians! Don't let the rest of the world see this glaring error in an otherwise brilliant encyclopaedia. 137.132.3.7 ( talk) 17:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey people, are you really serious? This isn't a joke? I hardly can believe that... the German article is far better, and so is the Spanish and in other languages. Maybe it is not important to describe the characteristics of each good here but at least there should be an outline plus the differences between the different types of goods. -- Grochim ( talk) 09:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The definition leaves out intangible good IMO. Software delivered over the internet. A music file delivered by email. And there's no discussion of licensing which is usually central to this sort of good. But I'm not an economist, and I leave this for others to sort out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.150.190 ( talk) 00:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the introduction, the word "tangible" seems to be taking on ambiguous definitions. In one case, "in economic theory all goods are considered tangible," it seems to mean "to be real or exist," but in another case, "certain classes of goods, such as information, may only exist in intangible forms," it seems to mean "to be physically touchable or tactile." Since this is an economics article, perhaps it would be better to only use "tangible" with the definition given to it by economists, and to describe things like information and news as things that aren't "tactile." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.140.51 ( talk) 05:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
And that's sad. Merchandise should be. -- Поверхаххапайко ( talk) 08:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view, the above three are goods, but not much at all. They are actually services, far more than they are goods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 ( talk) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)