![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Please see Talk:Community property (a disambiguation page) for a discussion of whether there is a primary topic for this term; and if so, whether it is Community property (marriage) or Public property. 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, I am working though Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've got to Edgeworth's limit theorem and Edgeworth conjecture. Since my knowledge of economics extends to knowing if I've got the right change, could somebody here determine if this is a valid merge proposal? If it isn't, the merge tags can go. Thanks. Totnesmartin ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my list of missing economics topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently went through the Talk:Inflation discussions on how the word should be defined. I understand the controversy and am not questioning either definition. I'm wondering however if the integrity of the article is hindered by not specifying in the intro definition the two major phenomena to which the word itself is used to refer. I was told by one user that doing so and simply mentioning the fact that the implied meaning of the word has changed over time would give "undue" weight to the view of one school of thought over others. I really don't see how this is so.
When there are two separate, specifying terms, each with their own distinguishing adjective (i.e. price inflation and monetary inflation) would it not make sense to clarify and address both of those terms in the opening introduction of an article simply titled "Inflation"? By looking through the discussions, the fact that this has become as big of an issue as it is seems to be more or less a (for lack of a better term) "partisan" 'my school is right and your school is wrong' argument.
I'm not suggesting changing the course of the intro or anything else about the article...I'm just wondering, if the goal here is to educate and disseminate information effectively, why should we intentionally leave out such a vital distinction in the article introduction and definition? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I know, I wrote the first paragraph. My concern is really the fact that the word is defined in the first sentence of the article, and the introduction and contents box are long enough to shove even that first section well out of sight...and while I think it's certainly appropriate to leave all the details concerning the history of the word in its separate section, I'm wondering if in actually defining the word, a simple mention of the fact that the definition has changed constitutes "undue weight" for a specific school of thought. I don't really see how that is the case.
And on top of that, I believe that a mention of the fact the very definition of the word has completely changed is important to the reader's core understanding of the subject, and would therefore be appropriate to include in the introduction...more specifically directly following, if not part of, the opening definition. What does everyone here think? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey all.
It's clear from this talk page that they are lots of skilled economists here on Wikipedia. I'm not one of them, but I am conversant in all thing Wikipedia, and I'd love to be able to help support the actual economists. Together, I reckon we can work out the future direction of this project, how best it can operate, what needs to be done by whom and so forth.
In this vein, and whatever the outcome, it would be really helpful to have a list of everyone who's willing to help out with WPECON, even if only in a small way. I have prepared this page for that purpose, and I would be indebted to you if you might take ten seconds to sign it.
Thanks, and sorry for spamming your talk page(s). - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good day,
I read the article
Factors of production and some of the related ("See also") topics. I would like to suggest you add to this article a section that lists the factors of production of a typical, today's company. This article has a very complete historical description of the matter but lacks of a more practical perspective. Anyone trying to know which are the actual factors of production of a typical, current company cannot find this information here. A list is required. Here is a proposal but, definitely, it can be expanded and / or improved:
Factors of production of a current, typical company:
1. Real state (land, plant, buildings)
2. Financial resources (capital)
3. Entrepreneurship
4. Office material (stationary)
5. Promotional material
6. Production materials (raw materials, sub-components)
7. Merchandise (goods to be sold)
8. Intangible resources (processes, knowledge, skills, relationships, alliances, brands, patents, information, etc.)
9. Natural resources (e.g. time, climate; not raw materials)
10. Utilities (electric energy, water, telephone service, gas)
11. Technology (Information Technology, communications, production equipment and tools, security equipment)
12. Transportation infrastructure
13. People
A note must be added to mention that these factors vary by industry, sector, and / or company size.
Best regards,
Luis R. Villegas H.
Mexico.
--
LuisVillegas (
talk)
04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that it would be nice to have an article on thought on the normative macro economics of central banking. That is, an article that lays out why central banks try to keep inflation/unemployment targets. There is a minor variation in that the Europeans prefer inflation targets while the US prefers a more mixed eye on inflation and GDP growth, but it is really very minor. I believe that there was an academic article published on the new consensus (right before the bubble burst) that could serve as a foundation for this article, with more recent news articles on why the consensus must have been wrong.
I really don't know macro (even someone who recently took econ 101 would probably be better off writing this article than me),but when I was looking at, Monetary Policy Committee it occurs to me that a reader might validly ask the following related questions: why does the bank care about inflation targets? Why should the lead to good growth patterns? Why not target zero? 018 ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
All members' thoughts on any topics concerning how WPECON should be are welcomed on the talkpage of the census. Everyone is - of course, this is a wiki after all - free to comment on the stuff I noted or to go off in whatever tangent they wish.
Also, any apology to those of you who signed the census but do not wish to receive any further communications in the future - this would include updates on the planning process before settling into a regular "newsletter" feature (hopefully, time permitting) and such items would also be "reprinted" here. I completely forgot you, for which I can only apologise. Would you mind removing your names from this list? Thanks, - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There are changes happening at the WP:NPV page that will significantly affect the articles under our purview. Specifically, WP:UNDUE has been significantly edited in the last week. Please have a look and comment. Thanks. LK ( talk) 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A pressing current issue, and an article that is linked from the main page. My personal view is that the article is a mess, though any efforts I have made to change it have been reverted by a user who believes that the entire issue is a media conspiracy. I'm far from an expert in these things, and more input is sorely needed. - SimonP ( talk) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? If the claim is wrong, a source that labels it as a "popular misconception" would be ideal. Thanks. 128.59.180.241 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick question for y'all: does a concept of slowflation genuinely exist in the study of economics, or is somebody just trying to get one over on us by inventing a neologism? If it really exists, it needs some references, and if it's a hoax it needs to be deleted — so could somebody with more of a background in economics than I've got weigh in? Tanx. Bearcat ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'd appreciate a third opinion, or any other comments/suggestions, on Jobless recovery. I think that the article has several serious problems (length, coatracking, OR / lack of reliable sources, fringe views, &c). Needless to say, the person who seems to have written most of it disagrees. I don't want this to turn adversarial and am prepared to accept that I might be wrong :-)
Can anything be done to improve the article? Others have suggested deletion. So far I have deleted & trimmed several paragraphs of what I thought was the worst fiction, speculation, OR, and scifi [1] but (a) what I've done so far is not popular with another editor, and (b) "several paragraphs" barely makes a dent in it.
What do you think of Jobless recovery? I'd be very grateful if it could get a few more attentive eyeballs, and comments on the talk page.
Thanks for your time - bobrayner ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently removed a PROD on Small Business Lending Index and added it to the Economics project. Maybe you all could give some loving care and better sourcing.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Most main article in Category:Economies by country don't have {{WikiProject Economics}} template. I am slowly moving through them, at this point I am mostly done with A and B. Feel free to help out, but if you do so, try to finish a letter and note that here, so I won't waste time opening dozens of pages you took care of :) Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. Delivered by - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Can anyone translate this financial gobbledygook into English? Fences& Windows 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Featherbedding is in need of work, or at least eyes. Anyone interested?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the section about the Great Depression on the Herbert Hoover article does not represent the mainstream view, (Lee Ohanian theory given undue weight). Can someone more knowledgeable than me look at it. Thanks. Sole Soul ( talk) 02:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone here is familiar with the book, there's a noticeboard request going. BigK HeX ( talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that several articles within the scope of this WikiProject relate to IQ testing. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. I have greatly enjoyed discussing issues of human intelligence with scholars who have an economics perspective, and I'm sure many articles would be improved with more sources from that perspective and more participation by economically trained editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
See section titled "Criticism of mainstream practice" in Austrian school article. (The references are good.) -- RLV 209.217.195.195 ( talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in a dispute with an IP on the Gold standard article. Would appreciate it if people could have a look and watchlist it for a couple of days. Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a survey of American Economic Association economists where most of the economists gave a wrong answer to the question asked, after which the surveyors called it "a dismal performance from the dismal science." [2] Do you guys think this is notable enough for inclusion in the Dismal science article? Shawnc ( talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If anyone would like to weigh in one way or the other on the above, it's not too late at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 25#Category:Economics of production. Thank you. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why does RBI lend money to other banks.??? 59.95.196.152 ( talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add an economic/financial indicator, Doing Business Rank, to the Economy Infoboxes. I think it would be a clearer and more useful way to present the data for each country than adding the statistic to general text on each economy's page. A discussion about this is taking place on the talk page for the Economy Infobox. Please read and contribute your opinion. I hope it can be a useful contribution to the economics project here on wikipedia.
Win.monroe ( talk) 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe
Off my hat to the original poster of this entry.
But the posting seems to contain incorrect information and it has room for improvement with regard to the "attempt to resolve the puzzle"
(1) It is not French and Poterba who first documented home bias puzzle. See Lewis 1999, Journal of Economic Literature. She explains that it goes back to at least 1970s (Levy, Haim and Marshall Sarnat. 1970. “International Diversification of Investment Portfolios,” Amer. Econ. Rev., 60:4, pp. 668–75.)
(2) One can enrich the "attempt to resolve the puzzle" section by reference to Lewis (1999, Journal of Economic Literature) and Sercu and Vanpee (working paper, 2007).
(3) In my opinion, "information immobility" is not implausible. The key idea is that information must be updated for every minute. Then, the curvature of information production function (as in Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp) or cost differential (as in Ehrlich and Shin, 2010, Amer. Econ. Rev) can possibly explain the home bias puzzle by information differential.
(4) Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp's study is published in Journal of Finance (2009)
I wish I could edit this section myself. But do not have time.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.222 ( talk) 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to repeat here my post to Talk:Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule from yesterday as I hope to find someone here who has a better knowledge on the subject. "Hoax? I have used google as well as ISI Web of Knowledge and could not find any reference. There are certainly a great bunch of clones or students who copied WP 1:1 into their powerpoints, but I could not find anything reliable. Hence I start to get the feeling that this is a big hoax. When can one be sure, that something does not exist? When is the right time to remove unreferenced content?" What other sources would you suggest to look for references? What is the procedure if the hypothesis of an hoax cannot be rejected? -- AMH-DS ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage is a recent addition which hasn't gotten much attention. I've tagged it for the project, but it could likely use more visitors, as well as discussion about whether it's appropriate overall or not. (To me it seems strange for Wikipedia, but could certainly be useful.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My last discussion post, an attempt to bring about consensus discussion on the "human molecule" theory as used historically in economics, was reverted by TheFreeloader per comment “A copy-pasted section with no relation to economics”. The section in question, as captured by this table: HMS pioneers, was an effort to bring about dialog, between the science/engineering group and the humanities group, on the topic of the person viewed as a “human molecule”, a theory used prominently in the Lausanne school of economics, particularly Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, Leon Winiarski, and their followers, who viewed people as economic molecules or human molecules, in the case of Pareto; recent examples include physicist Mark Buchanan’s 2007 book on the social atom and how he attempts to update the social physics of economist Thomas Schelling’s 1971 checkerboard model of racial segregation in terms of viewing people, in economics, as atoms or molecules, as compared to the ubiquitous "agent model" used currently. I guess attempts to bring about a common dialog between the chemistry-physics community and the economics community is not permissible at Wikipedia? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
IT has been suggested that the above stated article "Satellite (financial) be incorporated into the article "Modern Portfolio Theory". I support this move since I have not the skills or time to improve the article I authored. My interest is to serve the public by helping define a financial term used by at least one large investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs. If the term "Satellite" would produce a hit at the article "Modern Portfolio Theory" as "(financial)" or otherwise produce a result to those seeking to define the term in financial usage, it would be useful and I would be happy to consent to this incorporation. Please advise if I need to participate or otherwise consent to this change. Thank you. 68.226.21.127 ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Beth Hayes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across the foregoing new article and it seemed a bit thin to me on the issue of notability. The best shot at it seems, to me, to be the strength of her academic contributions, which I'm not in any decent position to judge, and I was hoping that someone more familiar with both academia and economics could give the thing a look at shore it up (or opine that it can't be done).
In brief, the subject was a promising economist who was teaching at Northwestern when she was killed in an auto accident at the age of 29. A minor award was named for her at her alma mater, Penn, spearheaded by one of her mentors there, David Cass. I don't think that award moves the notability ball very far (see Talk:Beth_Hayes for my reasoning) but before her death, the subject also authored two published articles and co-authored two others, which are cited in a variety of other papers. It seems to me that if she's notable, it's for those. As I said above, it's hard for me to judge. Important academics aren't typically written up in the New York Times or featured on CBS News, and as someone with no economics training beyond a couple of undergrad courses many years ago, I have no *idea* how to assess her contributions to the field, no matter how many articles may or may not turn up in a Google search. If she's notable I think the article needs something more to establish it; and if it's not, then it should be deleted. Any help would be appreciated! JohnInDC ( talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
We have a bit of a conundrum at the Central place theory article, where a suggestion has been made that a source has been plagiarized (see the Talk page). The source itself appears to be a copy from another website, so I'm not sure anymore which is the "one true source". Can someone have a look? The question is mostly whether the wording used in the assumptions which form the basis for the theory are irreducible, i.e. is this the standard method by which anyone would present the theory? Or are there sufficiently diverse methods of outlining the theory that it becomes probable that the writing was slavishly copied from this one source? And if so, what is the original source that was copied from? Hopefully there are enough links on the talk page for you to access the relevant information, if not, please let me know. Thanks for any help with this! Franamax ( talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Economics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the past two days I have committed myself to the reconstruction of Richard Cantillon's Wikipedia entry. Having finished the bulk of the content (although not yet going through a customary copy edit of my own), I have asked for a peer review in preparation for featured article candidacy. I would be extremely grateful if anybody would lend their opinions there, especially dealing with information they would like to see included (if there is any). Thank you, JonCatalán (Talk) 04:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious why an article about causes of the Great Depression, primarily in the US, makes no mention of the Dust Bowl. Macroeconomics is not everything (and this from a macroeconomist). Some mention of over-investment (real, not financial) in the late 1920s might also be appropriate. 140.254.199.38 ( talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)ceberw
This edit surprised me in that I had thought of the History of Economic Thought web site at the New School as a reliable source. However, after following through, the introduction to the site modestly downplays itself and says explicitly:
Well, drat! It seemed well-done enough (to one such as me who's very ignorant of the history of economic thought) that I was taking it as a de facto WP:RS. Should we take the author at their word and stop using it as a source, or ignore their caveats based on our own judgment? (I'm asking here first rather than at the RS board because I think there might be more informed feedback here, eventually it would probably have to go to the RS board). CRETOG8( t/ c) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
here CRETOG8( t/ c) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Good Day
After much reading and re-reading it has been brought to my attention that an "intangible-good" is quite possibly an oxy-moron. These texts refer to both a service(intangible) and a physical "good"....it has to be more defined than this, for sure. I think it could go into more detail and define "tangibility" to being created as opposed to transferred....just a thought..or maybe create a "service good"Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)... I have notice a small confusion in all three of these articles:
1.
In economics and accounting, a good is a product that can be used to satisfy some desire or need. More narrowly but commonly, a good is a tangible physical product that can be contrasted with a service which is intangible. As such, it is capable of being delivered to a purchaser and involves the transfer of ownership from seller to customer. For example, an apple is a tangible good, as opposed to a haircut, which is an (intangible) service. One usage that preserves the distinction between goods and services by including both is commodity. In microeconomics, a 'good' is often used in this inclusive sense of the word (Milgate, 1987).
2.
The service sector consists of the "soft" parts of the economy, i.e. activities where people offer their knowledge and time to improve productivity, performance, potential, and sustainability. The basic characteristic of this sector is the production of services instead of end products. Services (also known as "intangible goods") include attention, advice, experience, and discussion. The production of information is generally also regarded as a service, but some economists now attribute it to a fourth sector, the quaternary sector.
3.
An intangible good is a good that is intangible, meaning that it can not be touched, as opposed to a physical good. In an increasingly digitized world, intangible goods play a more and more important role in the economy. Virtually anything that is in a digital form and deliverable on the Internet can be considered an intangible good. A piece of music, a picture, or an article downloaded from the Internet are all examples of intangible goods. In ordinary sense, an intangible good should not be confused with a service since a good is an object whereas a service is a labor. So a haircut is a service, not an intangible good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Owoolcox (
talk •
contribs)
03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the craziness that was the lead for the Central bank article. I've completely rewritten it along standard textbook lines, [5] but it makes me wonder, how many more 'top priority' articles are there with leads that are just plain wrong. Can we get a small project started to read the leads of all the 'top' and 'high' priority articles to check for weirdness? LK ( talk) 11:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Economics article ratings | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Priority | Quality | ||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
B | C | Start | Stub | UA | Total | |
Top | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 32 |
High | 2 | 0 | 8 | 65 | 66 | 176 | 49 | 0 | 373 |
Mid | 4 | 0 | 12 | 102 | 108 | 471 | 139 | 2 | 847 |
Low | 2 | 0 | 10 | 63 | 66 | 469 | 570 | 44 | 1230 |
UA | 0 | 1 | 6 | 51 | 44 | 573 | 1386 | 1388 | 3463 |
Total | 8 | 1 | 36 | 291 | 294 | 1698 | 2147 | 1434 | 5945 |
Given the importance of the Free trade article I am really disappointed by its low quality. It is filled with POV material and poor writing. What can we do to improve this situation? Larrytheordinarydragon ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone look at Subprime lending? It's been tagged for cleanup for a long time and sounds like an important topic. RJFJR ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Economy of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this an actual term? The author Juxo ( talk · contribs) had previously created? now deleted Reverse financial instrument article, which appears to be unverifiable. The undeletion request was unsuccessful. The new article has almost the same content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As I read through the Economic Inequality, I realized that large portions of the article use the terms 'economic inequality' and 'income inequality' interchangeably when they aren't interchangeable. While very similar, economic inequality and income inequality are different.
Economic inequality, unlike income inequality, takes into account different individual economic needs. The example Amartya Sen gives in From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality (2004) is that of a person with a disability: they would need a larger share of income in order to function at the same capacity as a person without the disability, so to be economically equal they would require more income. Income inequality is also rather narrow in that it only applies to numbers and amounts; it doesn’t take into account what the income is worth in the marketplace and how it translates to the cost of living at different economic levels. A rich person has to spend more in order to live decently in a wealthier environment, so what may be more than enough for a poor person may be worth considerably less in a richer environment.
I propose that the name of the article change to "Economic and Income Inequality" to better represent the information on the page and clearly indicate that the concepts, while both discussed on the page, are two separate things. I also intend on providing a new subheader discussing the difference, as well as altering the introduction some to make it clear from the start. Scb3 ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In the current page on Economic Development there is no section concerning development incentives. The closest is the section on "Economic Developers". This section currently focuses on the organizations that influence and oversee economic development projects. The text specifically makes mention of "variations of economic incentives to the potential business such as; tax incentives, help with investment capital, donated land and many others" while providing no background on how the decision to use these incentives is made, under who's authority those policies are decided and implemented and gives no background details on the nature of these programs. Rather than expand this section or add on another section I believe that it would beneficial to create a new page for the development incentives. This page can even be directly linked from this current section.
The current “Incentive” page deals with the larger theories of incentives and does not focus on how they impact economic development. This new page will deal with the practice and examples of development incentives. It will first be focused on the US and urban areas but with time can b expanded to rural development and practices in other nations. For now the main focus of the page will be its relation to poverty and development in the US, specifically focusing on urban renewal and the incentives used to achieve these goals. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gherrrera (
talk •
contribs)
12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent revisions to the methods section of the Economics sidebar are being discussed. Other opinions are most welcome! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The page on Quantitative easing is a mess – filled with POV, OR and SYN. I'm going to try to clean it up over the next few days, but expect some resistance, as edit warring is evident in the history. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks LK ( talk) 09:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
God - you are arrogant David J Johnson ( talk) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I made a new navbox, {{ Types of capital}}, but I'm not an economist, so I'm sure there's some further organizational improvements to be had. Edit away, or post on the template's talkpage. Thanks. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. An editor repeatedly removes GDP stats from the infobox at the article Ghana. S/he provided an explanation at this user talk page, however, I know little about calculation GDP, and therefore I ask here. Could someone help correct the data, please? Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Javalizard seems to have rather strange idiosyncratic ideas about how the money multiplier and the money creation process works. (e.g. he believes that a $100 cash deposit when the reserve ratio is 20%, can create $419430400 of new commercial bank money [6]). I've been involved in a slow edit war with him over it. Could people keep an eye on these articles for a while, as I'm not on regularly anymore? Sorry to continually come to this board with my troubles. Unfortunately recent work at the university has been keeping me busy, and I haven't been on as much as I wish. Thanks to all, LK ( talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose to rename New economic history to Cliometrics. Cliometrics is the standard term among practitioners. New economic history is not much used and is anachronistic, as it dates from the 1960s or 1970s. Another editor renamed the article the other way a while back, so I did ask that editor and received no reply/objection. If objections or comments please note so here or at Talk:New_economic_history.-- Econterms ( talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in participating in this discussion about recent changes to the globalization article. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Any wikipedians going to Denver for this meeting? If more than 1 are going (excluding me) it might be fun to organize a meetup! Ping my talk page or shoot me an email (or just post here) if this holds any interest for you. Protonk ( talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
...but I am done with tagging all articles in the Category:Economies by country as part of this WikiProject. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Significant changes are occurring on the Full reserve banking article, and opinions would be appreciated -- especially on the matter of time deposits. Thanks, all. BigK HeX ( talk) 07:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Often used in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma concerns the approximate convexity of Minkowski sums of non-convex sets.
The article has received a substantial (Wikipedia) peer-review. The additional suggestions (including article assessment) of (mathematical) economists would be especially helpful now.
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article was recently given Good-Article status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Would this project review the article for A-class standing? (Since the good-article review, the optimization and economics "application" sections have been substantially revised, to make them more understandable to Wikipedia readers.)
Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I came upon the article Annual average GDP growth while doing new page patrol. To my non-economist view it appears to be more or less a subset of the data on List of countries by average GDP growth (nominal), so I've proposed a merge. Neither article looks well travelled though, and my knowledge of the subject is essentially zero, so I'd appreciate views from this project and perhaps some assistance doing the merge if carried. Also, the destination article has been tagged for multiple improvements since last summer, so could probably use an expert eye. Thanks, -- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 12:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This week User:David Eppstein created articles on the mathematical economists Andreu Mas-Colell and Graciela Chichilnisky (yesterday).
Chichilnisky iher work on international trade, development, and environmental economics has received international attention; she is known for her development of continuous social choice theory. Further, she has received national attention in the USA because of a (now settled) sex-discrimination law-suit.
Also, another economics article started by David, the Shapley-Folkman lemma, received "Good Article" status today, thanks to the reviewing of User:Jakob.scholbach, who guided the needed revisions. Further editing, especially copy-editing, would be appreciated.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS table is outdated. Why?-- Forich ( talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The present New Palgrave doesn't include some great articles that appeared in the first edition, notably the articles by Peter Newman on convexity in economics & duality and by Andreu Mas-Colell on non-convexity (economics):
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help)Can such articles be donated to Wikipedia?
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I ran into an interesting "paradox" article on Wikipedia called the " chainstore paradox". In my opinion, the explanation given for resolving the paradox, which uses a theory that is somewhat of an alternate to game theory, does not satisfy me. I believe this can be solved by game theory application. I have looked online and have seen several books written about this paradox but I see a very simple explanation: the actual game theory matrix for multiple games is just not presented in the article. Any takers on this?
Here's the discussion page: Talk:Chainstore_paradox
Thanks!
PS: Should this article be "moved" to "chain store paradox" instead? -- Agamemnus ( talk) 08:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think more eyes may be needed over at Binary economics. It appears to be... well... we see heterodox economics articles from time to time which have a resident POV editor and a whole bunch of soapboxing & synthesis, and I think this article is a good example. bobrayner ( talk) 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The supply and demand curves featured on the project page seem to be mostly inverted from the normal representations. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Economic-surpluses.svg#logically_flawed The correct curve structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supply-and-demand.svg If other economics-minded people here agree that it should be changed, I can invert the curves and update the graph.-- Agamemnus ( talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have listed History of macroeconomic thought for peer review: here. Please let me know what you think of the article and what changes should be made.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if this not the appropriate place but I could find any other topic that discusses this precise entry.
From the outset, let me state that I know nothing about this subject - but I do know a bit about mathematics. The nomenclature used in the article is not correct. The symbol used in the article to denote the derivative is normally used for a multivariate function and is known as a [ derivative]. For a univariate function, the correct symbol can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative .
On a different note, the article would be more useful to people like me if there was a link that describes what a net supply and profit functions are.
Kmg952 ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Oops, the links originally posted were incorrect
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |address=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help)I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A well-meaning user, Paul Hield ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unhelpful and/or wrong material to Tax. He seems to have valid concerns, though I can't fully understand him and unfortunately have been forced (alongside a number of other editors) to revert his edits.
Eyes on the article would be appreciated. There's extensive discussion on the Talk page for those interested. If someone can understand what the user wants and how to placate him, that would be excellent.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you good people create a basic introductory article on the concept of the price of money? To a layperson in economics this sounds silly ("What does a dollar cost, and how much does an ounce of gold weigh?"), but to economists it apparently means something non-trivial, and the term is used without explanation in several other articles. -- Lambiam 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Lionel Robbins, Baron Robbins, formerly of the LSE, is labeled as Austrian school on his page. Although he has similar politics, afaik, outside Wikipedia, he is not usually considered part of the Austrian school. Thoughts anyone? LK ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin started this thread here (and at at least three other locations) without advising editors on the LaRouche talk page of her actions. The effect has been one of
WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has been independently published as an economist.
LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) ( entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts). The book is based on a course he taught, and it was reviewed [7] [8] in the American Economic Review published by the American Economic Association. The review begins,
That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.
According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly damning) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. -- JN 466 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The original note here about the discussion on the LaRouche talk page is not improper cancassing. It is entirely acceptable to inform a Wikiproject about an issue that they have expertise on and interest in. However, any further discussion here would be inappropriate. Could we please keep all discussion of this issue on the LaRouche talk page please. LK ( talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a semi- walled garden of articles by or about Emanuele Canegrati, but I do not have sufficient expertise to judge the appropriateness of the articles. On one hand, the articles are of questionable notability and their author, User:Zauberit, seems to have COI; on the other hand, the articles are well-written and reasonably referenced (though I can't tell which, if any, of the references are peer-reviewed). The articles do make somewhat grandiose claims (e.g., "probabilistic voting theory... has gradually replaced the median voter theory"); the claim I gave as an example is not reflective of modern voting theory, but I'm not familiar enough with the fields of the other articles to say if the claims there are plausible.
Would someone check these?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed Single-mindedness theory for deletion. The AfD discussion is here. [11] LK ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Credo has donated 400 user accounts for its online reference service to Wikimedia. The accounts include access to a number of economics source including Wiley's Dictionary of Economics, Collins Dictionary of Economics, Snowdon and Vane's An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics, and The Penguin Dictionary of Economics. Of the listed items, I've only used the An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics before, but it's a great source. There are 5 requirements for getting an account: No other free access to Credo, an email address enabled in your preferences, you have been continuously active over the past 12 months, you have at least 3,000 non-minor edits, and you are active in content creation like creating featured or good articles or being active in WikiProjects such as this one. There are still 250 accounts available at this time.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Small problem down in the bowels of Wikipedia where us grunts are working! :)
The US census (don't tune out, some of yours may do this too!) records personal income in various forms. Back in the old days, with no better place to put it, the bot merely dropped this information, along with the rest of census information, into "Demographics" in place articles. This made sense then.
As articles matured, we began moving "personal income" into "Economy", recognizing it as a key piece of information for that subsection. Recently, a Wikipedia GA Reviewer said that he didn't like that, and to move it for the article San Diego. I have questioned him on his talk page, but received no answer. I don't know how receptive he is to new ideas, but I would appreciate advice from knowledgeable editors on this matter. Once this gets frozen into concrete with FA articles, it gets impossible to change. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to improve the Wikipedia page titled Labor Force. At the moment it does not present a global prespective, and to a great extent, it does not mention where women stand in the labor force. I want to discuss the overall topic of who is in the labor force and who is not. When considering arigultural versus non-agricultural work, informal and formal labor, paid and unpaid labor, there any many loop holes in which workers in other countries, specifically women, are misrepresented. Currently, there are many discussions about whether these various forms of labor should be included in the labor force, and if so, if the definition of the labor force should be changed into a definition that encompasses a greater majority of the world's workers. I think the presentation of these arguments (in a non-biased way) is important to remind people where women and workers outside the United States stand. Any comments or suggestions? MariaNunez ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am creating an entry on “Household Bargaining,” which will specifically explore the subject of gender relations in intra-household bargaining and decision-making. Wikipedia currently has articles on Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power but these articles only address bargaining in terms of the economic, labor and/or global market, and they fail to acknowledge the role bargaining plays within a household. Due to the market focus of these articles, an examination of traditional gender inequalities of intra-household bargaining is not evident in any Wikipedia entry I have come across. Additionally, the Family Economics Wikipedia entry is rather lacking in substance and does not address this subject at all.
The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining [12], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.
I wanted to consult with the members of the Economics WikiProject before creating this entry, because I have a few questions about the subject. I was planning on making an entirely new entry instead of including it in the Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power pages because they seem to be rather market-oriented, while this subject falls slightly outside of the arena of traditional economics, but does anyone think I should do otherwise? Does anyone have thoughts on this subject or suggestions for related sources? Mfandersen ( talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page for the Glass ceiling, I found an issue that there is no mention of any differences in the pay for women versus men. I find that formal and informal sector of work have been left out completely in this page. The different work sectors seem important to me because I feel like a major reason that women are discriminated against in their workplaces is the burden of raising a child is mainly put on a women, among other things. Motherhood is something that keeps women away from work for a certain period of time in which they have to care for their child, and when they return they may be too soft to follow through with their job. This pay gap based on gender has become a major issue of the glass ceiling. Any suggestions or comments to help me? Clwilson91 ( talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The Glass ceiling article does have a good bit on the gender gap and there's also a separate article on the Income gender gap. Both articles are pretty sloppy thought. Also, although the latter article has a table with the wage gap in manufacturing it is pretty US-centric. I think you need to be a little more specific about what exactly you want to write about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing to create an entirely new page on “work intensity.” This new article will primarily focus on developing nations, and it is important to note the nature of said circumstances largely affect women. Work intensity falls into the realm of economics for a variety or reasons. A large component to work intensity is multitasking, both at home and on the job. Quantifying multitasking, such as care work, has become a source of much debate between philosophers and economists alike. Measuring work intensity and multitasking will forever change the field of macroeconomics, and it is important to show Wikipedia users the significance of the issues plaguing work intensity. In addition, the newly formed work intensity page will cover topics such as time poverty and policy options, which have strong economic ties. Not only will the article discuss potential ways to measure work intensity, multitasking, and time poverty, it will also discuss similar measures such as the GDI and the GEM. The article will draw from many works published by the journal, Feminist Economics, further demonstrating its economic ties. Currently, no page exists to tie in the interconnectedness of gender, development, and time use. I feel that the creation of the page will further educate people and give the subject the attention it deserves. Abolivar3 ( talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if the course coordinator or lecturer who has encouraged their class to expand the articles on Economics on wikipedia would drop by and say hi. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
While looking at the Conditional Cash Transfer page, I noticed that many of the facts were very out-dated. Most of the specific programs mentioned were cited as still functioning, even though-- especially after the 2008 financial crisis-- they had to be terminated. One of these in particular that was a critical model for CCT's but that is only briefly listed in the article was Nicaragua's Social Protection Web. I believe that in order for people to gain an understanding of CCT's, the specific programs and their downfalls, particularly Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, should be updated and elaborated on. With a section elaborating on some of the more critical programs, as well as what mistakes in design or implementation caused them to be terminated, the CCT model can be more fully understood and improved upon. If anyone could suggest where I could find some unbiased information regarding these programs, specifically Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, I would greatly appreciate it! Loretteb ( talk) 04:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
One statistic that I have managed to keep out of place articles is the projection of how many jobs a particular business creates (for anyone new to economics, this is NOT how many the business employes or intends to employ) and how much "product" in cash, it generates in the community (again, indirectly, not their payroll nor accounting). Normally, if you add these up for anybody, they way outstrip the local product and the number of adults in the area. Great for chamber of commerce pitches. Seems lousy for reporting in "fact" articles. Student7 ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For anybody who may come across this, I have written a draft section for the Hedge fund page about regulations in the U.S. and abroad ( that version here), with the aim of bringing the current section ( the current one here) up to present day. Right now it's definitely out of date, in fact it doesn't even mention the Dodd-Frank rules going into effect. Because my day job involves me in the financial industry, I'd like to get someone else's view of it, before I consider moving it myself. And since the hedge fund article falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I figured I would ask here (as I will ask at others) in case anyone has thoughts to share on the subject. Please respond to my post on the Hedge fund Talk page, if you like. Thank you. -- Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft of an article on the economic history of Christianity ( here). I would appreciate feedback on the article. I'm trying to figure out how to organize it (i.e. chronologically or by topic). Also, another user ( User:Savidan) has suggested that Economic issues in Christian theology might be a more appropriate topic. He wrote " It does seem that by organizing it by topic, you are really talking about theology as it affects economic issues. " I'd like to hear more opinions before changing the title. Thanx. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. Bobrayner, in particular, has given me a lot to chew on. It may take a while but I will try to incorporate these various suggestions. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 06:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Would a large majority of economists support the removal of "economic ideologies" from the template? (This content has a lot to do with political ideologies and other ideologies, but little to do with the mainstream economics profession.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an increasing amount of crap on this project's articles, pushed by POV cultists of heterodox economics. This project tried to deal with the enthusiasms of the Austrian economics cultists before, and I wish you luck dealing with articles like
Complexity economics. It is like nursing articles being hijacked by fans of
Jean Watson. Perhaps this article has problems complying with NPOV and RELIABLE policies?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion) (updated to be sugar and spice and everything nice ...
14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
The article seems to reflect reliable content and strives to have NPOV phrasing. The scope of Complexity & Economics is considerably broader than the topics currently discussed.
As a bonus, these are all fascinating topics and worth writing about on WP! (They provide greater substance to the interminible discussions of socialist calculation debates and Hayek, etc.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Much of the recent changes have been deleting stuff that's arguably true and can be sourced. We seem to be seeing the effects of ganging up by a number of editors that aren't familiar with the field - note the edit summaries. There's nothing wrong in this context with talk about a new paradigm, emergent behavior, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, neoclassical economics as having been developed by imitating physics prior to the development of the second law of thermodynamics, and the suggestion that mainstream economics can gain by drawing on information-theoretic ideas of entropy, for example. Although I disagree with some of the details that was in the deleted table, I think it has a point. I'm personally intrigued by the idea that economic theory should pay more attention to constructive mathematics. 151.190.254.108 ( talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
Can any body try to talk Kiefer Wolfowitz out of deleting sourced and easily sourced (e.g., advocates of complexity economics see it as a new paradigm) material out of mere dislike? Personally, when I come across somebody who writes, "intelligent economists who did not fail their qualifying examinations even at the New School" [13], "I am beginning to wonder whether this page is a trolling hoax" [14], "Complexity economics and other soft intellectual trash" [15], and "Hysterical giddiness over Arthur or over 'chaos, complexity, catastrophe, and another c-word (but not that c-word!)" [16], I'm inclined just to point and laugh. But then, reliable sources (e.g., Frederick Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century) document that mainstream economists are socialized into unlettered bullying. 209.217.195.112 ( talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
I'll ignore the silliness and confusion above. I find this [21] amusing, when it comes to the topic of Brian Arthur and Santa Fe. 209.217.195.203 ( talk) 09:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (new example [25]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? 209.217.195.147 ( talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC) --RLV
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (a slow-motion example [26] [27] [28]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? -- RLV 209.217.195.124 ( talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting on-topic, reliably sourced material? This morning's slow-motion deletions are complicated enough that I don't provide diffs in this comment. Kiefer Wolfowitz has also moved his odd gyrations over to the talk page of Complexity Economics. Apparently Stalin and Mao are on-topic for this conversation, as are Solow's and Stigler's comments of the first edition of the New Palgrave. It is also apparently Wikipedia policy that, in the text of an article, one refers solely to the journal name of a citation without mentioning the authors. Also a supposed attribution of mine is "shoddy". I guess it's mine; I always have difficulty in figuring out what Kiefer Wolfowitz's animus is directed against. -- RLV 209.217.195.175 ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An article in the Review of Political Economy stated that contemporary mainstream economics is "moving away from from a strict adherence to the holy trinity---rationality, selfishness, and equilibrium---and to a more eclectic position of purposeful behavior, enlightened self-interest and sustainability", and attributes part of this change to the increasing recognition of complexity economics, along with dynamical systems and recursive methods. [1]
- ^ Colander, Holt & Barkley Rosser (2004, p. 485): Colander, David; Holt, Richard P. F.; Barkley Rosser, J., Jr. (2004). "The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics". Review of Political Economy. 16 (4): 485–499. doi: 10.1080/0953825042000256702.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (example: [29]) on-topic, reliably sourced material? And, by the way, what is the policy about accusing living people of "blasphemy" on talk pages? --RLV 209.217.195.162 ( talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Some inaccurate material has been put back into the page. See my comments: Talk:Complexity_economics#Completely_inaccurate_description_of_mainstream_economics. Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Economists have increasingly studied non-convex sets with nonsmooth analysis, which generalizes convex analysis. Convex analysis centers on convex sets and convex functions, for which it provides powerful ideas and clear results, but it is not adequate for the analysis of non-convexities, such as increasing returns to scale. [1] "Non-convexities in [both] production and consumption ... required mathematical tools that went beyond convexity, and further development had to await the invention of non-smooth calculus": For example, Clarke's differential calculus for Lipschitz continuous functions, which uses Rademacher's theorem and which is described by Rockafellar & Wets (1998) [2] and Mordukhovich (2006) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMordukhovich2006 ( help), [3] according to Khan (2008) . [4] Brown (1995, pp. 1967–1968) wrote that the "major methodological innovation in the general equilibrium analysis of firms with pricing rules" was "the introduction of the methods of non-smooth analysis, as a [synthesis] of global analysis (differential topology) and [of] convex analysis." According to Brown (1995, p. 1966) , "Non-smooth analysis extends the local approximation of manifolds by tangent planes [and extends] the analogous approximation of convex sets by tangent cones to sets" that can be non-smooth or non-convex. [5] [6]
Mas-Colell has also contributed to the theory of general equilibrium in topological vector lattices. [7] The sets of prices and quantities can be described as partially ordered vector spaces, often as vector lattices. Economies with uncertain or dynamic decisions typically require that the vector spaces be infinite-dimensional, in which case the order properties of vector lattices allow stronger conclusions to be made. [8] Recently researchers have studied nonlinear pricing: A "main motivation came from the fact that Mas-Colell's fundamental theory of welfare economics with no interiority assumptions crucially requires lattice properties of commodity spaces, even in finite-dimensional settings." [3]
- ^ Heal (1999, p. 4 in preprint): Heal, G. M. (1999). "Introduction". The economics of increasing returns (PDF). The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Edward Elgar. p. 640. ISBN 978-1-85898-160-4. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
- ^ Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell; Wets, Roger J-B (1998). Variational analysis. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Vol. 317. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv+733. ISBN 3-540-62772-3. MR 1491362.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ a b Chapter 8 "Applications to economics", especially Section 8.5.3 "Enter nonconvexity" (and the remainder of the chapter), particularly page 495:
Mordukhovich, Boris S. (2006). Variational analysis and generalized differentiation II: Applications. Grundlehren Series (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences). Vol. 331. Springer. pp. i–xxii and 1–610. MR 2191745.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)Cite error: The named reference "Mordukhovich2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Khan 2008
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Brown, Donald J. (1991). "36 Equilibrium analysis with non-convex technologies". In Hildenbrand, Werner; Sonnenschein, Hugo (eds.). Handbook of mathematical economics, Volume IV. Handbooks in Economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. p. 1966. doi: 10.1016/S1573-4382(05)80011-6. ISBN 0-444-87461-5. MR 1207195.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help); More than one of|pages=
and|p=
specified ( help)- ^ Algebraic topology has also been used to study convex and non-convex sets in economics: Chichilnisky, G. (1993). "Intersecting families of sets and the topology of cones in economics" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (New Series). Vol. 29, no. 2. pp. 189–207. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00439-7. MR 1218037.
{{ cite news}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Florenzano, Monique; Gourdel, Pascal; Jofré, Alejandro (2006). "Supporting weakly Pareto optimal allocations in infinite dimensional nonconvex economies". Economic Theory. Vol. 29, no. 3. pp. 549–564. doi: 10.1007/s00199-005-0033-y. MR 2272312.
- ^ Aliprantis, Charalambos D.; Brown, Donald J.; Burkinshaw, Owen (1990). Existence and optimality of competitive equilibria. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xii+284. ISBN 3-540-52866-0. MR 1075992.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Please see Talk:Community property (a disambiguation page) for a discussion of whether there is a primary topic for this term; and if so, whether it is Community property (marriage) or Public property. 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, I am working though Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've got to Edgeworth's limit theorem and Edgeworth conjecture. Since my knowledge of economics extends to knowing if I've got the right change, could somebody here determine if this is a valid merge proposal? If it isn't, the merge tags can go. Thanks. Totnesmartin ( talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated my list of missing economics topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently went through the Talk:Inflation discussions on how the word should be defined. I understand the controversy and am not questioning either definition. I'm wondering however if the integrity of the article is hindered by not specifying in the intro definition the two major phenomena to which the word itself is used to refer. I was told by one user that doing so and simply mentioning the fact that the implied meaning of the word has changed over time would give "undue" weight to the view of one school of thought over others. I really don't see how this is so.
When there are two separate, specifying terms, each with their own distinguishing adjective (i.e. price inflation and monetary inflation) would it not make sense to clarify and address both of those terms in the opening introduction of an article simply titled "Inflation"? By looking through the discussions, the fact that this has become as big of an issue as it is seems to be more or less a (for lack of a better term) "partisan" 'my school is right and your school is wrong' argument.
I'm not suggesting changing the course of the intro or anything else about the article...I'm just wondering, if the goal here is to educate and disseminate information effectively, why should we intentionally leave out such a vital distinction in the article introduction and definition? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I know, I wrote the first paragraph. My concern is really the fact that the word is defined in the first sentence of the article, and the introduction and contents box are long enough to shove even that first section well out of sight...and while I think it's certainly appropriate to leave all the details concerning the history of the word in its separate section, I'm wondering if in actually defining the word, a simple mention of the fact that the definition has changed constitutes "undue weight" for a specific school of thought. I don't really see how that is the case.
And on top of that, I believe that a mention of the fact the very definition of the word has completely changed is important to the reader's core understanding of the subject, and would therefore be appropriate to include in the introduction...more specifically directly following, if not part of, the opening definition. What does everyone here think? -- JohnDoe0007 ( talk) 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey all.
It's clear from this talk page that they are lots of skilled economists here on Wikipedia. I'm not one of them, but I am conversant in all thing Wikipedia, and I'd love to be able to help support the actual economists. Together, I reckon we can work out the future direction of this project, how best it can operate, what needs to be done by whom and so forth.
In this vein, and whatever the outcome, it would be really helpful to have a list of everyone who's willing to help out with WPECON, even if only in a small way. I have prepared this page for that purpose, and I would be indebted to you if you might take ten seconds to sign it.
Thanks, and sorry for spamming your talk page(s). - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Good day,
I read the article
Factors of production and some of the related ("See also") topics. I would like to suggest you add to this article a section that lists the factors of production of a typical, today's company. This article has a very complete historical description of the matter but lacks of a more practical perspective. Anyone trying to know which are the actual factors of production of a typical, current company cannot find this information here. A list is required. Here is a proposal but, definitely, it can be expanded and / or improved:
Factors of production of a current, typical company:
1. Real state (land, plant, buildings)
2. Financial resources (capital)
3. Entrepreneurship
4. Office material (stationary)
5. Promotional material
6. Production materials (raw materials, sub-components)
7. Merchandise (goods to be sold)
8. Intangible resources (processes, knowledge, skills, relationships, alliances, brands, patents, information, etc.)
9. Natural resources (e.g. time, climate; not raw materials)
10. Utilities (electric energy, water, telephone service, gas)
11. Technology (Information Technology, communications, production equipment and tools, security equipment)
12. Transportation infrastructure
13. People
A note must be added to mention that these factors vary by industry, sector, and / or company size.
Best regards,
Luis R. Villegas H.
Mexico.
--
LuisVillegas (
talk)
04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that it would be nice to have an article on thought on the normative macro economics of central banking. That is, an article that lays out why central banks try to keep inflation/unemployment targets. There is a minor variation in that the Europeans prefer inflation targets while the US prefers a more mixed eye on inflation and GDP growth, but it is really very minor. I believe that there was an academic article published on the new consensus (right before the bubble burst) that could serve as a foundation for this article, with more recent news articles on why the consensus must have been wrong.
I really don't know macro (even someone who recently took econ 101 would probably be better off writing this article than me),but when I was looking at, Monetary Policy Committee it occurs to me that a reader might validly ask the following related questions: why does the bank care about inflation targets? Why should the lead to good growth patterns? Why not target zero? 018 ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
All members' thoughts on any topics concerning how WPECON should be are welcomed on the talkpage of the census. Everyone is - of course, this is a wiki after all - free to comment on the stuff I noted or to go off in whatever tangent they wish.
Also, any apology to those of you who signed the census but do not wish to receive any further communications in the future - this would include updates on the planning process before settling into a regular "newsletter" feature (hopefully, time permitting) and such items would also be "reprinted" here. I completely forgot you, for which I can only apologise. Would you mind removing your names from this list? Thanks, - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
There are changes happening at the WP:NPV page that will significantly affect the articles under our purview. Specifically, WP:UNDUE has been significantly edited in the last week. Please have a look and comment. Thanks. LK ( talk) 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A pressing current issue, and an article that is linked from the main page. My personal view is that the article is a mess, though any efforts I have made to change it have been reverted by a user who believes that the entire issue is a media conspiracy. I'm far from an expert in these things, and more input is sorely needed. - SimonP ( talk) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? If the claim is wrong, a source that labels it as a "popular misconception" would be ideal. Thanks. 128.59.180.241 ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick question for y'all: does a concept of slowflation genuinely exist in the study of economics, or is somebody just trying to get one over on us by inventing a neologism? If it really exists, it needs some references, and if it's a hoax it needs to be deleted — so could somebody with more of a background in economics than I've got weigh in? Tanx. Bearcat ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'd appreciate a third opinion, or any other comments/suggestions, on Jobless recovery. I think that the article has several serious problems (length, coatracking, OR / lack of reliable sources, fringe views, &c). Needless to say, the person who seems to have written most of it disagrees. I don't want this to turn adversarial and am prepared to accept that I might be wrong :-)
Can anything be done to improve the article? Others have suggested deletion. So far I have deleted & trimmed several paragraphs of what I thought was the worst fiction, speculation, OR, and scifi [1] but (a) what I've done so far is not popular with another editor, and (b) "several paragraphs" barely makes a dent in it.
What do you think of Jobless recovery? I'd be very grateful if it could get a few more attentive eyeballs, and comments on the talk page.
Thanks for your time - bobrayner ( talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently removed a PROD on Small Business Lending Index and added it to the Economics project. Maybe you all could give some loving care and better sourcing.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Most main article in Category:Economies by country don't have {{WikiProject Economics}} template. I am slowly moving through them, at this point I am mostly done with A and B. Feel free to help out, but if you do so, try to finish a letter and note that here, so I won't waste time opening dozens of pages you took care of :) Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. Delivered by - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
Can anyone translate this financial gobbledygook into English? Fences& Windows 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Featherbedding is in need of work, or at least eyes. Anyone interested?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the section about the Great Depression on the Herbert Hoover article does not represent the mainstream view, (Lee Ohanian theory given undue weight). Can someone more knowledgeable than me look at it. Thanks. Sole Soul ( talk) 02:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If anyone here is familiar with the book, there's a noticeboard request going. BigK HeX ( talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I see that several articles within the scope of this WikiProject relate to IQ testing. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. I have greatly enjoyed discussing issues of human intelligence with scholars who have an economics perspective, and I'm sure many articles would be improved with more sources from that perspective and more participation by economically trained editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
See section titled "Criticism of mainstream practice" in Austrian school article. (The references are good.) -- RLV 209.217.195.195 ( talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in a dispute with an IP on the Gold standard article. Would appreciate it if people could have a look and watchlist it for a couple of days. Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a survey of American Economic Association economists where most of the economists gave a wrong answer to the question asked, after which the surveyors called it "a dismal performance from the dismal science." [2] Do you guys think this is notable enough for inclusion in the Dismal science article? Shawnc ( talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If anyone would like to weigh in one way or the other on the above, it's not too late at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 25#Category:Economics of production. Thank you. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Why does RBI lend money to other banks.??? 59.95.196.152 ( talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add an economic/financial indicator, Doing Business Rank, to the Economy Infoboxes. I think it would be a clearer and more useful way to present the data for each country than adding the statistic to general text on each economy's page. A discussion about this is taking place on the talk page for the Economy Infobox. Please read and contribute your opinion. I hope it can be a useful contribution to the economics project here on wikipedia.
Win.monroe ( talk) 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe
Off my hat to the original poster of this entry.
But the posting seems to contain incorrect information and it has room for improvement with regard to the "attempt to resolve the puzzle"
(1) It is not French and Poterba who first documented home bias puzzle. See Lewis 1999, Journal of Economic Literature. She explains that it goes back to at least 1970s (Levy, Haim and Marshall Sarnat. 1970. “International Diversification of Investment Portfolios,” Amer. Econ. Rev., 60:4, pp. 668–75.)
(2) One can enrich the "attempt to resolve the puzzle" section by reference to Lewis (1999, Journal of Economic Literature) and Sercu and Vanpee (working paper, 2007).
(3) In my opinion, "information immobility" is not implausible. The key idea is that information must be updated for every minute. Then, the curvature of information production function (as in Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp) or cost differential (as in Ehrlich and Shin, 2010, Amer. Econ. Rev) can possibly explain the home bias puzzle by information differential.
(4) Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp's study is published in Journal of Finance (2009)
I wish I could edit this section myself. But do not have time.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.222 ( talk) 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to repeat here my post to Talk:Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule from yesterday as I hope to find someone here who has a better knowledge on the subject. "Hoax? I have used google as well as ISI Web of Knowledge and could not find any reference. There are certainly a great bunch of clones or students who copied WP 1:1 into their powerpoints, but I could not find anything reliable. Hence I start to get the feeling that this is a big hoax. When can one be sure, that something does not exist? When is the right time to remove unreferenced content?" What other sources would you suggest to look for references? What is the procedure if the hypothesis of an hoax cannot be rejected? -- AMH-DS ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage is a recent addition which hasn't gotten much attention. I've tagged it for the project, but it could likely use more visitors, as well as discussion about whether it's appropriate overall or not. (To me it seems strange for Wikipedia, but could certainly be useful.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My last discussion post, an attempt to bring about consensus discussion on the "human molecule" theory as used historically in economics, was reverted by TheFreeloader per comment “A copy-pasted section with no relation to economics”. The section in question, as captured by this table: HMS pioneers, was an effort to bring about dialog, between the science/engineering group and the humanities group, on the topic of the person viewed as a “human molecule”, a theory used prominently in the Lausanne school of economics, particularly Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, Leon Winiarski, and their followers, who viewed people as economic molecules or human molecules, in the case of Pareto; recent examples include physicist Mark Buchanan’s 2007 book on the social atom and how he attempts to update the social physics of economist Thomas Schelling’s 1971 checkerboard model of racial segregation in terms of viewing people, in economics, as atoms or molecules, as compared to the ubiquitous "agent model" used currently. I guess attempts to bring about a common dialog between the chemistry-physics community and the economics community is not permissible at Wikipedia? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
IT has been suggested that the above stated article "Satellite (financial) be incorporated into the article "Modern Portfolio Theory". I support this move since I have not the skills or time to improve the article I authored. My interest is to serve the public by helping define a financial term used by at least one large investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs. If the term "Satellite" would produce a hit at the article "Modern Portfolio Theory" as "(financial)" or otherwise produce a result to those seeking to define the term in financial usage, it would be useful and I would be happy to consent to this incorporation. Please advise if I need to participate or otherwise consent to this change. Thank you. 68.226.21.127 ( talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Beth Hayes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across the foregoing new article and it seemed a bit thin to me on the issue of notability. The best shot at it seems, to me, to be the strength of her academic contributions, which I'm not in any decent position to judge, and I was hoping that someone more familiar with both academia and economics could give the thing a look at shore it up (or opine that it can't be done).
In brief, the subject was a promising economist who was teaching at Northwestern when she was killed in an auto accident at the age of 29. A minor award was named for her at her alma mater, Penn, spearheaded by one of her mentors there, David Cass. I don't think that award moves the notability ball very far (see Talk:Beth_Hayes for my reasoning) but before her death, the subject also authored two published articles and co-authored two others, which are cited in a variety of other papers. It seems to me that if she's notable, it's for those. As I said above, it's hard for me to judge. Important academics aren't typically written up in the New York Times or featured on CBS News, and as someone with no economics training beyond a couple of undergrad courses many years ago, I have no *idea* how to assess her contributions to the field, no matter how many articles may or may not turn up in a Google search. If she's notable I think the article needs something more to establish it; and if it's not, then it should be deleted. Any help would be appreciated! JohnInDC ( talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) |
We have a bit of a conundrum at the Central place theory article, where a suggestion has been made that a source has been plagiarized (see the Talk page). The source itself appears to be a copy from another website, so I'm not sure anymore which is the "one true source". Can someone have a look? The question is mostly whether the wording used in the assumptions which form the basis for the theory are irreducible, i.e. is this the standard method by which anyone would present the theory? Or are there sufficiently diverse methods of outlining the theory that it becomes probable that the writing was slavishly copied from this one source? And if so, what is the original source that was copied from? Hopefully there are enough links on the talk page for you to access the relevant information, if not, please let me know. Thanks for any help with this! Franamax ( talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Economics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.
All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the past two days I have committed myself to the reconstruction of Richard Cantillon's Wikipedia entry. Having finished the bulk of the content (although not yet going through a customary copy edit of my own), I have asked for a peer review in preparation for featured article candidacy. I would be extremely grateful if anybody would lend their opinions there, especially dealing with information they would like to see included (if there is any). Thank you, JonCatalán (Talk) 04:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious why an article about causes of the Great Depression, primarily in the US, makes no mention of the Dust Bowl. Macroeconomics is not everything (and this from a macroeconomist). Some mention of over-investment (real, not financial) in the late 1920s might also be appropriate. 140.254.199.38 ( talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)ceberw
This edit surprised me in that I had thought of the History of Economic Thought web site at the New School as a reliable source. However, after following through, the introduction to the site modestly downplays itself and says explicitly:
Well, drat! It seemed well-done enough (to one such as me who's very ignorant of the history of economic thought) that I was taking it as a de facto WP:RS. Should we take the author at their word and stop using it as a source, or ignore their caveats based on our own judgment? (I'm asking here first rather than at the RS board because I think there might be more informed feedback here, eventually it would probably have to go to the RS board). CRETOG8( t/ c) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
here CRETOG8( t/ c) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Good Day
After much reading and re-reading it has been brought to my attention that an "intangible-good" is quite possibly an oxy-moron. These texts refer to both a service(intangible) and a physical "good"....it has to be more defined than this, for sure. I think it could go into more detail and define "tangibility" to being created as opposed to transferred....just a thought..or maybe create a "service good"Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page)... I have notice a small confusion in all three of these articles:
1.
In economics and accounting, a good is a product that can be used to satisfy some desire or need. More narrowly but commonly, a good is a tangible physical product that can be contrasted with a service which is intangible. As such, it is capable of being delivered to a purchaser and involves the transfer of ownership from seller to customer. For example, an apple is a tangible good, as opposed to a haircut, which is an (intangible) service. One usage that preserves the distinction between goods and services by including both is commodity. In microeconomics, a 'good' is often used in this inclusive sense of the word (Milgate, 1987).
2.
The service sector consists of the "soft" parts of the economy, i.e. activities where people offer their knowledge and time to improve productivity, performance, potential, and sustainability. The basic characteristic of this sector is the production of services instead of end products. Services (also known as "intangible goods") include attention, advice, experience, and discussion. The production of information is generally also regarded as a service, but some economists now attribute it to a fourth sector, the quaternary sector.
3.
An intangible good is a good that is intangible, meaning that it can not be touched, as opposed to a physical good. In an increasingly digitized world, intangible goods play a more and more important role in the economy. Virtually anything that is in a digital form and deliverable on the Internet can be considered an intangible good. A piece of music, a picture, or an article downloaded from the Internet are all examples of intangible goods. In ordinary sense, an intangible good should not be confused with a service since a good is an object whereas a service is a labor. So a haircut is a service, not an intangible good. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Owoolcox (
talk •
contribs)
03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed the craziness that was the lead for the Central bank article. I've completely rewritten it along standard textbook lines, [5] but it makes me wonder, how many more 'top priority' articles are there with leads that are just plain wrong. Can we get a small project started to read the leads of all the 'top' and 'high' priority articles to check for weirdness? LK ( talk) 11:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Economics article ratings | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Priority | Quality | ||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
B | C | Start | Stub | UA | Total | |
Top | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 32 |
High | 2 | 0 | 8 | 65 | 66 | 176 | 49 | 0 | 373 |
Mid | 4 | 0 | 12 | 102 | 108 | 471 | 139 | 2 | 847 |
Low | 2 | 0 | 10 | 63 | 66 | 469 | 570 | 44 | 1230 |
UA | 0 | 1 | 6 | 51 | 44 | 573 | 1386 | 1388 | 3463 |
Total | 8 | 1 | 36 | 291 | 294 | 1698 | 2147 | 1434 | 5945 |
Given the importance of the Free trade article I am really disappointed by its low quality. It is filled with POV material and poor writing. What can we do to improve this situation? Larrytheordinarydragon ( talk) 11:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone look at Subprime lending? It's been tagged for cleanup for a long time and sounds like an important topic. RJFJR ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Economy of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this an actual term? The author Juxo ( talk · contribs) had previously created? now deleted Reverse financial instrument article, which appears to be unverifiable. The undeletion request was unsuccessful. The new article has almost the same content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As I read through the Economic Inequality, I realized that large portions of the article use the terms 'economic inequality' and 'income inequality' interchangeably when they aren't interchangeable. While very similar, economic inequality and income inequality are different.
Economic inequality, unlike income inequality, takes into account different individual economic needs. The example Amartya Sen gives in From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality (2004) is that of a person with a disability: they would need a larger share of income in order to function at the same capacity as a person without the disability, so to be economically equal they would require more income. Income inequality is also rather narrow in that it only applies to numbers and amounts; it doesn’t take into account what the income is worth in the marketplace and how it translates to the cost of living at different economic levels. A rich person has to spend more in order to live decently in a wealthier environment, so what may be more than enough for a poor person may be worth considerably less in a richer environment.
I propose that the name of the article change to "Economic and Income Inequality" to better represent the information on the page and clearly indicate that the concepts, while both discussed on the page, are two separate things. I also intend on providing a new subheader discussing the difference, as well as altering the introduction some to make it clear from the start. Scb3 ( talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
In the current page on Economic Development there is no section concerning development incentives. The closest is the section on "Economic Developers". This section currently focuses on the organizations that influence and oversee economic development projects. The text specifically makes mention of "variations of economic incentives to the potential business such as; tax incentives, help with investment capital, donated land and many others" while providing no background on how the decision to use these incentives is made, under who's authority those policies are decided and implemented and gives no background details on the nature of these programs. Rather than expand this section or add on another section I believe that it would beneficial to create a new page for the development incentives. This page can even be directly linked from this current section.
The current “Incentive” page deals with the larger theories of incentives and does not focus on how they impact economic development. This new page will deal with the practice and examples of development incentives. It will first be focused on the US and urban areas but with time can b expanded to rural development and practices in other nations. For now the main focus of the page will be its relation to poverty and development in the US, specifically focusing on urban renewal and the incentives used to achieve these goals. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gherrrera (
talk •
contribs)
12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Recent revisions to the methods section of the Economics sidebar are being discussed. Other opinions are most welcome! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The page on Quantitative easing is a mess – filled with POV, OR and SYN. I'm going to try to clean it up over the next few days, but expect some resistance, as edit warring is evident in the history. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks LK ( talk) 09:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
God - you are arrogant David J Johnson ( talk) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I made a new navbox, {{ Types of capital}}, but I'm not an economist, so I'm sure there's some further organizational improvements to be had. Edit away, or post on the template's talkpage. Thanks. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. An editor repeatedly removes GDP stats from the infobox at the article Ghana. S/he provided an explanation at this user talk page, however, I know little about calculation GDP, and therefore I ask here. Could someone help correct the data, please? Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Javalizard seems to have rather strange idiosyncratic ideas about how the money multiplier and the money creation process works. (e.g. he believes that a $100 cash deposit when the reserve ratio is 20%, can create $419430400 of new commercial bank money [6]). I've been involved in a slow edit war with him over it. Could people keep an eye on these articles for a while, as I'm not on regularly anymore? Sorry to continually come to this board with my troubles. Unfortunately recent work at the university has been keeping me busy, and I haven't been on as much as I wish. Thanks to all, LK ( talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I propose to rename New economic history to Cliometrics. Cliometrics is the standard term among practitioners. New economic history is not much used and is anachronistic, as it dates from the 1960s or 1970s. Another editor renamed the article the other way a while back, so I did ask that editor and received no reply/objection. If objections or comments please note so here or at Talk:New_economic_history.-- Econterms ( talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in participating in this discussion about recent changes to the globalization article. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Any wikipedians going to Denver for this meeting? If more than 1 are going (excluding me) it might be fun to organize a meetup! Ping my talk page or shoot me an email (or just post here) if this holds any interest for you. Protonk ( talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
...but I am done with tagging all articles in the Category:Economies by country as part of this WikiProject. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Significant changes are occurring on the Full reserve banking article, and opinions would be appreciated -- especially on the matter of time deposits. Thanks, all. BigK HeX ( talk) 07:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Often used in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma concerns the approximate convexity of Minkowski sums of non-convex sets.
The article has received a substantial (Wikipedia) peer-review. The additional suggestions (including article assessment) of (mathematical) economists would be especially helpful now.
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The article was recently given Good-Article status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Would this project review the article for A-class standing? (Since the good-article review, the optimization and economics "application" sections have been substantially revised, to make them more understandable to Wikipedia readers.)
Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I came upon the article Annual average GDP growth while doing new page patrol. To my non-economist view it appears to be more or less a subset of the data on List of countries by average GDP growth (nominal), so I've proposed a merge. Neither article looks well travelled though, and my knowledge of the subject is essentially zero, so I'd appreciate views from this project and perhaps some assistance doing the merge if carried. Also, the destination article has been tagged for multiple improvements since last summer, so could probably use an expert eye. Thanks, -- ThePaintedOne ( talk) 12:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This week User:David Eppstein created articles on the mathematical economists Andreu Mas-Colell and Graciela Chichilnisky (yesterday).
Chichilnisky iher work on international trade, development, and environmental economics has received international attention; she is known for her development of continuous social choice theory. Further, she has received national attention in the USA because of a (now settled) sex-discrimination law-suit.
Also, another economics article started by David, the Shapley-Folkman lemma, received "Good Article" status today, thanks to the reviewing of User:Jakob.scholbach, who guided the needed revisions. Further editing, especially copy-editing, would be appreciated.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS table is outdated. Why?-- Forich ( talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The present New Palgrave doesn't include some great articles that appeared in the first edition, notably the articles by Peter Newman on convexity in economics & duality and by Andreu Mas-Colell on non-convexity (economics):
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |newedition=
ignored (
help)Can such articles be donated to Wikipedia?
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I ran into an interesting "paradox" article on Wikipedia called the " chainstore paradox". In my opinion, the explanation given for resolving the paradox, which uses a theory that is somewhat of an alternate to game theory, does not satisfy me. I believe this can be solved by game theory application. I have looked online and have seen several books written about this paradox but I see a very simple explanation: the actual game theory matrix for multiple games is just not presented in the article. Any takers on this?
Here's the discussion page: Talk:Chainstore_paradox
Thanks!
PS: Should this article be "moved" to "chain store paradox" instead? -- Agamemnus ( talk) 08:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think more eyes may be needed over at Binary economics. It appears to be... well... we see heterodox economics articles from time to time which have a resident POV editor and a whole bunch of soapboxing & synthesis, and I think this article is a good example. bobrayner ( talk) 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The supply and demand curves featured on the project page seem to be mostly inverted from the normal representations. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Economic-surpluses.svg#logically_flawed The correct curve structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supply-and-demand.svg If other economics-minded people here agree that it should be changed, I can invert the curves and update the graph.-- Agamemnus ( talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have listed History of macroeconomic thought for peer review: here. Please let me know what you think of the article and what changes should be made.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if this not the appropriate place but I could find any other topic that discusses this precise entry.
From the outset, let me state that I know nothing about this subject - but I do know a bit about mathematics. The nomenclature used in the article is not correct. The symbol used in the article to denote the derivative is normally used for a multivariate function and is known as a [ derivative]. For a univariate function, the correct symbol can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative .
On a different note, the article would be more useful to people like me if there was a link that describes what a net supply and profit functions are.
Kmg952 ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Oops, the links originally posted were incorrect
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |address=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help)I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A well-meaning user, Paul Hield ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unhelpful and/or wrong material to Tax. He seems to have valid concerns, though I can't fully understand him and unfortunately have been forced (alongside a number of other editors) to revert his edits.
Eyes on the article would be appreciated. There's extensive discussion on the Talk page for those interested. If someone can understand what the user wants and how to placate him, that would be excellent.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could you good people create a basic introductory article on the concept of the price of money? To a layperson in economics this sounds silly ("What does a dollar cost, and how much does an ounce of gold weigh?"), but to economists it apparently means something non-trivial, and the term is used without explanation in several other articles. -- Lambiam 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Lionel Robbins, Baron Robbins, formerly of the LSE, is labeled as Austrian school on his page. Although he has similar politics, afaik, outside Wikipedia, he is not usually considered part of the Austrian school. Thoughts anyone? LK ( talk) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin started this thread here (and at at least three other locations) without advising editors on the LaRouche talk page of her actions. The effect has been one of
WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has been independently published as an economist.
LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) ( entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts). The book is based on a course he taught, and it was reviewed [7] [8] in the American Economic Review published by the American Economic Association. The review begins,
That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.
According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly damning) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. -- JN 466 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The original note here about the discussion on the LaRouche talk page is not improper cancassing. It is entirely acceptable to inform a Wikiproject about an issue that they have expertise on and interest in. However, any further discussion here would be inappropriate. Could we please keep all discussion of this issue on the LaRouche talk page please. LK ( talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a semi- walled garden of articles by or about Emanuele Canegrati, but I do not have sufficient expertise to judge the appropriateness of the articles. On one hand, the articles are of questionable notability and their author, User:Zauberit, seems to have COI; on the other hand, the articles are well-written and reasonably referenced (though I can't tell which, if any, of the references are peer-reviewed). The articles do make somewhat grandiose claims (e.g., "probabilistic voting theory... has gradually replaced the median voter theory"); the claim I gave as an example is not reflective of modern voting theory, but I'm not familiar enough with the fields of the other articles to say if the claims there are plausible.
Would someone check these?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed Single-mindedness theory for deletion. The AfD discussion is here. [11] LK ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Credo has donated 400 user accounts for its online reference service to Wikimedia. The accounts include access to a number of economics source including Wiley's Dictionary of Economics, Collins Dictionary of Economics, Snowdon and Vane's An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics, and The Penguin Dictionary of Economics. Of the listed items, I've only used the An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics before, but it's a great source. There are 5 requirements for getting an account: No other free access to Credo, an email address enabled in your preferences, you have been continuously active over the past 12 months, you have at least 3,000 non-minor edits, and you are active in content creation like creating featured or good articles or being active in WikiProjects such as this one. There are still 250 accounts available at this time.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Small problem down in the bowels of Wikipedia where us grunts are working! :)
The US census (don't tune out, some of yours may do this too!) records personal income in various forms. Back in the old days, with no better place to put it, the bot merely dropped this information, along with the rest of census information, into "Demographics" in place articles. This made sense then.
As articles matured, we began moving "personal income" into "Economy", recognizing it as a key piece of information for that subsection. Recently, a Wikipedia GA Reviewer said that he didn't like that, and to move it for the article San Diego. I have questioned him on his talk page, but received no answer. I don't know how receptive he is to new ideas, but I would appreciate advice from knowledgeable editors on this matter. Once this gets frozen into concrete with FA articles, it gets impossible to change. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to improve the Wikipedia page titled Labor Force. At the moment it does not present a global prespective, and to a great extent, it does not mention where women stand in the labor force. I want to discuss the overall topic of who is in the labor force and who is not. When considering arigultural versus non-agricultural work, informal and formal labor, paid and unpaid labor, there any many loop holes in which workers in other countries, specifically women, are misrepresented. Currently, there are many discussions about whether these various forms of labor should be included in the labor force, and if so, if the definition of the labor force should be changed into a definition that encompasses a greater majority of the world's workers. I think the presentation of these arguments (in a non-biased way) is important to remind people where women and workers outside the United States stand. Any comments or suggestions? MariaNunez ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am creating an entry on “Household Bargaining,” which will specifically explore the subject of gender relations in intra-household bargaining and decision-making. Wikipedia currently has articles on Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power but these articles only address bargaining in terms of the economic, labor and/or global market, and they fail to acknowledge the role bargaining plays within a household. Due to the market focus of these articles, an examination of traditional gender inequalities of intra-household bargaining is not evident in any Wikipedia entry I have come across. Additionally, the Family Economics Wikipedia entry is rather lacking in substance and does not address this subject at all.
The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining [12], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.
I wanted to consult with the members of the Economics WikiProject before creating this entry, because I have a few questions about the subject. I was planning on making an entirely new entry instead of including it in the Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power pages because they seem to be rather market-oriented, while this subject falls slightly outside of the arena of traditional economics, but does anyone think I should do otherwise? Does anyone have thoughts on this subject or suggestions for related sources? Mfandersen ( talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page for the Glass ceiling, I found an issue that there is no mention of any differences in the pay for women versus men. I find that formal and informal sector of work have been left out completely in this page. The different work sectors seem important to me because I feel like a major reason that women are discriminated against in their workplaces is the burden of raising a child is mainly put on a women, among other things. Motherhood is something that keeps women away from work for a certain period of time in which they have to care for their child, and when they return they may be too soft to follow through with their job. This pay gap based on gender has become a major issue of the glass ceiling. Any suggestions or comments to help me? Clwilson91 ( talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The Glass ceiling article does have a good bit on the gender gap and there's also a separate article on the Income gender gap. Both articles are pretty sloppy thought. Also, although the latter article has a table with the wage gap in manufacturing it is pretty US-centric. I think you need to be a little more specific about what exactly you want to write about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing to create an entirely new page on “work intensity.” This new article will primarily focus on developing nations, and it is important to note the nature of said circumstances largely affect women. Work intensity falls into the realm of economics for a variety or reasons. A large component to work intensity is multitasking, both at home and on the job. Quantifying multitasking, such as care work, has become a source of much debate between philosophers and economists alike. Measuring work intensity and multitasking will forever change the field of macroeconomics, and it is important to show Wikipedia users the significance of the issues plaguing work intensity. In addition, the newly formed work intensity page will cover topics such as time poverty and policy options, which have strong economic ties. Not only will the article discuss potential ways to measure work intensity, multitasking, and time poverty, it will also discuss similar measures such as the GDI and the GEM. The article will draw from many works published by the journal, Feminist Economics, further demonstrating its economic ties. Currently, no page exists to tie in the interconnectedness of gender, development, and time use. I feel that the creation of the page will further educate people and give the subject the attention it deserves. Abolivar3 ( talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if the course coordinator or lecturer who has encouraged their class to expand the articles on Economics on wikipedia would drop by and say hi. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
While looking at the Conditional Cash Transfer page, I noticed that many of the facts were very out-dated. Most of the specific programs mentioned were cited as still functioning, even though-- especially after the 2008 financial crisis-- they had to be terminated. One of these in particular that was a critical model for CCT's but that is only briefly listed in the article was Nicaragua's Social Protection Web. I believe that in order for people to gain an understanding of CCT's, the specific programs and their downfalls, particularly Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, should be updated and elaborated on. With a section elaborating on some of the more critical programs, as well as what mistakes in design or implementation caused them to be terminated, the CCT model can be more fully understood and improved upon. If anyone could suggest where I could find some unbiased information regarding these programs, specifically Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, I would greatly appreciate it! Loretteb ( talk) 04:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
One statistic that I have managed to keep out of place articles is the projection of how many jobs a particular business creates (for anyone new to economics, this is NOT how many the business employes or intends to employ) and how much "product" in cash, it generates in the community (again, indirectly, not their payroll nor accounting). Normally, if you add these up for anybody, they way outstrip the local product and the number of adults in the area. Great for chamber of commerce pitches. Seems lousy for reporting in "fact" articles. Student7 ( talk) 12:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For anybody who may come across this, I have written a draft section for the Hedge fund page about regulations in the U.S. and abroad ( that version here), with the aim of bringing the current section ( the current one here) up to present day. Right now it's definitely out of date, in fact it doesn't even mention the Dodd-Frank rules going into effect. Because my day job involves me in the financial industry, I'd like to get someone else's view of it, before I consider moving it myself. And since the hedge fund article falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I figured I would ask here (as I will ask at others) in case anyone has thoughts to share on the subject. Please respond to my post on the Hedge fund Talk page, if you like. Thank you. -- Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a draft of an article on the economic history of Christianity ( here). I would appreciate feedback on the article. I'm trying to figure out how to organize it (i.e. chronologically or by topic). Also, another user ( User:Savidan) has suggested that Economic issues in Christian theology might be a more appropriate topic. He wrote " It does seem that by organizing it by topic, you are really talking about theology as it affects economic issues. " I'd like to hear more opinions before changing the title. Thanx. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for all your comments. Bobrayner, in particular, has given me a lot to chew on. It may take a while but I will try to incorporate these various suggestions. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 06:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Would a large majority of economists support the removal of "economic ideologies" from the template? (This content has a lot to do with political ideologies and other ideologies, but little to do with the mainstream economics profession.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an increasing amount of crap on this project's articles, pushed by POV cultists of heterodox economics. This project tried to deal with the enthusiasms of the Austrian economics cultists before, and I wish you luck dealing with articles like
Complexity economics. It is like nursing articles being hijacked by fans of
Jean Watson. Perhaps this article has problems complying with NPOV and RELIABLE policies?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (
Discussion) (updated to be sugar and spice and everything nice ...
14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
The article seems to reflect reliable content and strives to have NPOV phrasing. The scope of Complexity & Economics is considerably broader than the topics currently discussed.
As a bonus, these are all fascinating topics and worth writing about on WP! (They provide greater substance to the interminible discussions of socialist calculation debates and Hayek, etc.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Much of the recent changes have been deleting stuff that's arguably true and can be sourced. We seem to be seeing the effects of ganging up by a number of editors that aren't familiar with the field - note the edit summaries. There's nothing wrong in this context with talk about a new paradigm, emergent behavior, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, neoclassical economics as having been developed by imitating physics prior to the development of the second law of thermodynamics, and the suggestion that mainstream economics can gain by drawing on information-theoretic ideas of entropy, for example. Although I disagree with some of the details that was in the deleted table, I think it has a point. I'm personally intrigued by the idea that economic theory should pay more attention to constructive mathematics. 151.190.254.108 ( talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
Can any body try to talk Kiefer Wolfowitz out of deleting sourced and easily sourced (e.g., advocates of complexity economics see it as a new paradigm) material out of mere dislike? Personally, when I come across somebody who writes, "intelligent economists who did not fail their qualifying examinations even at the New School" [13], "I am beginning to wonder whether this page is a trolling hoax" [14], "Complexity economics and other soft intellectual trash" [15], and "Hysterical giddiness over Arthur or over 'chaos, complexity, catastrophe, and another c-word (but not that c-word!)" [16], I'm inclined just to point and laugh. But then, reliable sources (e.g., Frederick Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century) document that mainstream economists are socialized into unlettered bullying. 209.217.195.112 ( talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
I'll ignore the silliness and confusion above. I find this [21] amusing, when it comes to the topic of Brian Arthur and Santa Fe. 209.217.195.203 ( talk) 09:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (new example [25]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? 209.217.195.147 ( talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC) --RLV
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (a slow-motion example [26] [27] [28]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? -- RLV 209.217.195.124 ( talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting on-topic, reliably sourced material? This morning's slow-motion deletions are complicated enough that I don't provide diffs in this comment. Kiefer Wolfowitz has also moved his odd gyrations over to the talk page of Complexity Economics. Apparently Stalin and Mao are on-topic for this conversation, as are Solow's and Stigler's comments of the first edition of the New Palgrave. It is also apparently Wikipedia policy that, in the text of an article, one refers solely to the journal name of a citation without mentioning the authors. Also a supposed attribution of mine is "shoddy". I guess it's mine; I always have difficulty in figuring out what Kiefer Wolfowitz's animus is directed against. -- RLV 209.217.195.175 ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An article in the Review of Political Economy stated that contemporary mainstream economics is "moving away from from a strict adherence to the holy trinity---rationality, selfishness, and equilibrium---and to a more eclectic position of purposeful behavior, enlightened self-interest and sustainability", and attributes part of this change to the increasing recognition of complexity economics, along with dynamical systems and recursive methods. [1]
- ^ Colander, Holt & Barkley Rosser (2004, p. 485): Colander, David; Holt, Richard P. F.; Barkley Rosser, J., Jr. (2004). "The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics". Review of Political Economy. 16 (4): 485–499. doi: 10.1080/0953825042000256702.
{{ cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (example: [29]) on-topic, reliably sourced material? And, by the way, what is the policy about accusing living people of "blasphemy" on talk pages? --RLV 209.217.195.162 ( talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Some inaccurate material has been put back into the page. See my comments: Talk:Complexity_economics#Completely_inaccurate_description_of_mainstream_economics. Rinconsoleao ( talk) 10:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Economists have increasingly studied non-convex sets with nonsmooth analysis, which generalizes convex analysis. Convex analysis centers on convex sets and convex functions, for which it provides powerful ideas and clear results, but it is not adequate for the analysis of non-convexities, such as increasing returns to scale. [1] "Non-convexities in [both] production and consumption ... required mathematical tools that went beyond convexity, and further development had to await the invention of non-smooth calculus": For example, Clarke's differential calculus for Lipschitz continuous functions, which uses Rademacher's theorem and which is described by Rockafellar & Wets (1998) [2] and Mordukhovich (2006) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMordukhovich2006 ( help), [3] according to Khan (2008) . [4] Brown (1995, pp. 1967–1968) wrote that the "major methodological innovation in the general equilibrium analysis of firms with pricing rules" was "the introduction of the methods of non-smooth analysis, as a [synthesis] of global analysis (differential topology) and [of] convex analysis." According to Brown (1995, p. 1966) , "Non-smooth analysis extends the local approximation of manifolds by tangent planes [and extends] the analogous approximation of convex sets by tangent cones to sets" that can be non-smooth or non-convex. [5] [6]
Mas-Colell has also contributed to the theory of general equilibrium in topological vector lattices. [7] The sets of prices and quantities can be described as partially ordered vector spaces, often as vector lattices. Economies with uncertain or dynamic decisions typically require that the vector spaces be infinite-dimensional, in which case the order properties of vector lattices allow stronger conclusions to be made. [8] Recently researchers have studied nonlinear pricing: A "main motivation came from the fact that Mas-Colell's fundamental theory of welfare economics with no interiority assumptions crucially requires lattice properties of commodity spaces, even in finite-dimensional settings." [3]
- ^ Heal (1999, p. 4 in preprint): Heal, G. M. (1999). "Introduction". The economics of increasing returns (PDF). The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Edward Elgar. p. 640. ISBN 978-1-85898-160-4. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
- ^ Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell; Wets, Roger J-B (1998). Variational analysis. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Vol. 317. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv+733. ISBN 3-540-62772-3. MR 1491362.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ a b Chapter 8 "Applications to economics", especially Section 8.5.3 "Enter nonconvexity" (and the remainder of the chapter), particularly page 495:
Mordukhovich, Boris S. (2006). Variational analysis and generalized differentiation II: Applications. Grundlehren Series (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences). Vol. 331. Springer. pp. i–xxii and 1–610. MR 2191745.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)Cite error: The named reference "Mordukhovich2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Khan 2008
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Brown, Donald J. (1991). "36 Equilibrium analysis with non-convex technologies". In Hildenbrand, Werner; Sonnenschein, Hugo (eds.). Handbook of mathematical economics, Volume IV. Handbooks in Economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. p. 1966. doi: 10.1016/S1573-4382(05)80011-6. ISBN 0-444-87461-5. MR 1207195.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help); More than one of|pages=
and|p=
specified ( help)- ^ Algebraic topology has also been used to study convex and non-convex sets in economics: Chichilnisky, G. (1993). "Intersecting families of sets and the topology of cones in economics" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (New Series). Vol. 29, no. 2. pp. 189–207. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00439-7. MR 1218037.
{{ cite news}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)- ^ Florenzano, Monique; Gourdel, Pascal; Jofré, Alejandro (2006). "Supporting weakly Pareto optimal allocations in infinite dimensional nonconvex economies". Economic Theory. Vol. 29, no. 3. pp. 549–564. doi: 10.1007/s00199-005-0033-y. MR 2272312.
- ^ Aliprantis, Charalambos D.; Brown, Donald J.; Burkinshaw, Owen (1990). Existence and optimality of competitive equilibria. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xii+284. ISBN 3-540-52866-0. MR 1075992.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)