This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Veblen good 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is it reasonable to say that Veblen "invented the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking."? It seems that such concepts have existed for about as long as economies have, so perhaps "recognized" would be a better term? - Flooey 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"the counter-Veblen effect, in which preference for a good increases as its price falls."
Yeah. That "counter-Veblen effect" is pretty much econ 101. Price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. Let's not attribute too much genius to the guy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.112.154 ( talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The collective noun goods is never used in the singular. This article should be renamed to Veblen goods. RichBerry 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Penguin Dictionary of Economics, ISBN 0140513760. Please do not go changing the plurals until the matter is resolved. thanks Martin 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, a google of "Economic good" returns 259,000 results and "Economic goods" 172,000. Martin 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a tyranny of the experts. Much of the good work that is done on the project is done by amateurs (including almost all the editing I do, incidentally - I edit on Wikipedia for fun, and I try to keep away from the topics I work on all day). But if we want to be respected, we really mustn't violate the conventions of technical discourse in the fields we are writing about. seglea 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that "good" is really being used to justify someone's own personal eccentric usage. Thank god for traditional grammar books (yes, I meant "god" to be singular; no, "grammar" does not have an 'E'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.126.20 ( talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but it seems reasonably clear that 'good' in the singular stemmed from a misuse that has been successfully rationalised. The result is that it's actually managed to make some headway on the Internet as a correct usage. As mentioned above, it's not correct, but it is undeniably - and unfortunately - common enough that it isn't going to go away. Yes, it looks ignorant, and sounds clumsy, but these reactions are likely to fade over time as more and more people get used to seeing it. I'd much prefer to see this article corrected, but if it hasn't happened in six or seven years, it isn't going to happen now.
And 59.190.126.20? I think you meant 'thank God'. You used the word as a name, so it carries a capital. Yes, I'm correcting someone's 2008 punctuation in 2013. Yes, I need to find a hobby. - 86.173.139.151 ( talk) 09:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Do Apple products really qualify as Veblen goods? As a computer programmer, I think that a) the perceived premium is just that, a perception, and b) Aesthetics and underlying design are not zero-value things to me. -- 19:12, 18 June 2009 129.188.33.25
I changed it to
Some types of high-status goods, such as diamonds, designer handbags and luxury cars, are Veblen goods
diamonds should probably changed to a consumer product to make it more clear, someone who knows more can select 3 representative, non-controversial examples and switch it. Pirate Argh!!1! 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Diamonds have other applications than jewelry (due to the hardness of the crystal), so they would probably follow the law of demand at lower costs. If there are no objections I will change it in a couple days. Rboesch ( talk) 10:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to mention apple you should probably include the I am rich app for iPad and phone. 129.96.130.178 ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
How do these relate to the example at the end of the article? Same car underneath, double the cost for the Bentley... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiraV ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering adding the following text below the snob and bandwagon effects.
But are there any reliable sources documenting the prevalence of this proverb? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is this trying to say? There's a word missing somewhere, and it makes no sense: why would a "Veblen-seeker" buy a non-luxury item of lower quality? "At the other end of the spectrum, where luxury items priced equal to non-luxury items of lower quality, all else being equal more people would buy the luxury items, even though a few Veblen-seekers would not." Jpatokal ( talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This section reads more like an opinion, and it is not well sourced. Veblen good are usually seen as a violation of the law of demand. Putting an equation doesn't make it scientifically sound.
I would suggest to remove it. 193.34.225.91 ( talk) 02:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Veblen good 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is it reasonable to say that Veblen "invented the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking."? It seems that such concepts have existed for about as long as economies have, so perhaps "recognized" would be a better term? - Flooey 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"the counter-Veblen effect, in which preference for a good increases as its price falls."
Yeah. That "counter-Veblen effect" is pretty much econ 101. Price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. Let's not attribute too much genius to the guy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.112.154 ( talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The collective noun goods is never used in the singular. This article should be renamed to Veblen goods. RichBerry 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Penguin Dictionary of Economics, ISBN 0140513760. Please do not go changing the plurals until the matter is resolved. thanks Martin 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, a google of "Economic good" returns 259,000 results and "Economic goods" 172,000. Martin 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a tyranny of the experts. Much of the good work that is done on the project is done by amateurs (including almost all the editing I do, incidentally - I edit on Wikipedia for fun, and I try to keep away from the topics I work on all day). But if we want to be respected, we really mustn't violate the conventions of technical discourse in the fields we are writing about. seglea 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that "good" is really being used to justify someone's own personal eccentric usage. Thank god for traditional grammar books (yes, I meant "god" to be singular; no, "grammar" does not have an 'E'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.126.20 ( talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but it seems reasonably clear that 'good' in the singular stemmed from a misuse that has been successfully rationalised. The result is that it's actually managed to make some headway on the Internet as a correct usage. As mentioned above, it's not correct, but it is undeniably - and unfortunately - common enough that it isn't going to go away. Yes, it looks ignorant, and sounds clumsy, but these reactions are likely to fade over time as more and more people get used to seeing it. I'd much prefer to see this article corrected, but if it hasn't happened in six or seven years, it isn't going to happen now.
And 59.190.126.20? I think you meant 'thank God'. You used the word as a name, so it carries a capital. Yes, I'm correcting someone's 2008 punctuation in 2013. Yes, I need to find a hobby. - 86.173.139.151 ( talk) 09:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Do Apple products really qualify as Veblen goods? As a computer programmer, I think that a) the perceived premium is just that, a perception, and b) Aesthetics and underlying design are not zero-value things to me. -- 19:12, 18 June 2009 129.188.33.25
I changed it to
Some types of high-status goods, such as diamonds, designer handbags and luxury cars, are Veblen goods
diamonds should probably changed to a consumer product to make it more clear, someone who knows more can select 3 representative, non-controversial examples and switch it. Pirate Argh!!1! 11:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Diamonds have other applications than jewelry (due to the hardness of the crystal), so they would probably follow the law of demand at lower costs. If there are no objections I will change it in a couple days. Rboesch ( talk) 10:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to mention apple you should probably include the I am rich app for iPad and phone. 129.96.130.178 ( talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
How do these relate to the example at the end of the article? Same car underneath, double the cost for the Bentley... —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiraV ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering adding the following text below the snob and bandwagon effects.
But are there any reliable sources documenting the prevalence of this proverb? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What is this trying to say? There's a word missing somewhere, and it makes no sense: why would a "Veblen-seeker" buy a non-luxury item of lower quality? "At the other end of the spectrum, where luxury items priced equal to non-luxury items of lower quality, all else being equal more people would buy the luxury items, even though a few Veblen-seekers would not." Jpatokal ( talk) 22:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This section reads more like an opinion, and it is not well sourced. Veblen good are usually seen as a violation of the law of demand. Putting an equation doesn't make it scientifically sound.
I would suggest to remove it. 193.34.225.91 ( talk) 02:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)