![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I would like to draw your attention to a new article that I have created:
History of investment banking in the United States. I admit that much of this text was drawn from earlier drafts which were variously titled
Jews and money (now deleted),
User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and
User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking. All of these drafts are "not ready for prime time". However, it occurred to me that there is an encyclopedic topic under the title "History of investment banking in the United States" so I decided to create it. even though the first version of this article is heavily canted towards the Jewish side of the story. I figure other editors can add information to balance it out with the "Yankee" side of the story. [NOTE: I have since added more information so that the article is no longer as heavily canted towards the 19th-century German-Jewish investment banks. More info on the "Yankee" banks is still needed.] Your contributions and suggestions for improvement are welcomed at
Talk:History of investment banking in the United States. Thank you.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to participate in this CfD discussion, relating to all categories representing intersections between class and priority/importance of articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Experts required; please help sort out the article Utility-possibility frontier ([[Special:EditPage/ Utility-possibility frontier|edit]] | [[Talk: Utility-possibility frontier|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/ Utility-possibility frontier|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/ Utility-possibility frontier|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/ Utility-possibility frontier|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/ Utility-possibility frontier|limit=999}} links] | watch | logs | views). Cheers, Chzz ► 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Would somebody mind watchlisting or having a look over Private finance initiative, please? It's a controversial subject touching on politics, privatisation, and many public infrastructure projects, hence easy to find negative quotes in the newspapers. My personal impression is that the overall tone is rather polemic - particularly the previous version which I expect will be restored sooner or later - but, of course, since it's a controversial subject I could easily be wrong. Any extra attention from this wikiproject could be very helpful. bobrayner ( talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there was a request to have the Spanish WP article on Friedrich von Wieser translated into English. I have completed the translation of the body of the article, preserving the original English language article as a lede.
Could someone trained in economics give this article a going-over? Some of the content was quite technical and, while I tried to do my due diligence, I am no economist.
Also, I would appreciate some feedback as to what to do with the lede. Should I condense it, or translate the (short) lede from the Spanish page, or just leave it as is?
Muchas Gracias,
Dave
You can help!
17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djkernen (
talk •
contribs)
There's been a lot of activity recently on the Fractional-reserve banking page, especially on the talk page. Strong views are being expressed (sometimes quite voluminously!). I'ld appreciate it if the people here could help keep an eye on the article to make sure that no egregious policy violations occur. Much thanks, LK ( talk) 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is something very strange going on at this page. After enormous efforts by editors a section was created to allow an alternative view of FRB to be presented. Three editors are ensuring that page can never fairly represent the view that editors wish to develop ie a bank credit version of FRB. The relending model is very inadequate as the following simple exercise shows
The relending model as as follows
For this model, if a bank has 100 reserves and 100 customer deposits the bank can only create 90 in new loans with a single loan. According to this model, if a customer wanted a loan of 171 credited to their current account, then two loans would have to be done as follows for a bank using a fractional reserve of 10%.
Note: At stage a) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 9 reserves, and then at stage c) it needs to retain another 8.1 reserves
Table 1: Private bank T-account | |
---|---|
Assets | Liabilites |
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited | 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1 |
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $90 | 90 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
(c) Borrower's IOU worth $81 | 81 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"
The credit money model is as follows
Note: at stage a) (as for the relending model) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 17.1 reserves
Table 1: Private bank T-account | |
---|---|
Assets | Liabilites |
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited | 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1 |
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $171 | 171 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"
The results are the same and there is no requirement for stage c)
The relending model mainly focuses on cash/Gold loans rather than bank credit. The relending model is, as BOE deputy Governor Paul Tucker put it, archaic in the context of modern banking systems and practices.
Further quality references are available to show just how inadequate the relending model is.
Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model [1] was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' [2] Ten years later he said [3] ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’
What exactly [4]is so misleading about the money multiplier approach?
I found this page through new page patrol and I can't make any sense of it. I'm not actually sure if this is the best Wikiproject for this, but could someone give me an opinion on if the topic is notable? I deleted a few external links and a section that looked like spam.-- Banana ( talk) 05:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concerns over Matt Taibbi's criticism on Alan Greenspan ( see here). Additional comments are much appreciated. Thanks. -- Artoasis ( talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Full-reserve_banking#ignored_or_dismissed_by_the_mainstream there is a dispute as to how wiki should describe the current state of full reserve banking in the eyes of academia. I would suggest that there are three possible groups that an economist could fall into:
A: I've never really thought about full reserve banking B: I think full reserve banking is a bad idea C: I think full reserve banking is a good idea
FWIW, my guess is that the proportion in each camp is of the order of A: 98%, B: 1%, C: 1% - but I could be wrong - I'd like to hear other people's estimates. I am posting here to see if we can get some consensus on the proportions in each category, and once this is agreed, choose some wording for the main article that clearly reflects our consensus.
P.S. I had a personal email from Ronnie Phillips in which he said of full reserve banking: "there are more advocates than not". Reissgo ( talk) 11:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on a set of articles related to the history of banking. Frankly, I was shocked at the weakness of our article on Banking in the United States as well as the lack of an article on the History of investment banking. I have worked on improving Banking in the United States. In addition, I created History of banking in the United States and History of investment banking in the United States. There are several stub sections in History of investment banking in the United States and I would appreciate help in fleshing those out. I would also appreciate comments on how to improve these articles. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
...on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist. Bear in mind that this is a userbox, not an article - if my characterization of Strasserism is off-base, I would appreciate being made aware. Thanks in advance - Badger Drink ( talk) 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I recently removed an argument by a "David Gordon", fellow at Mises Institute, following a critique expressed by Paul Krugman. I was reverted by Byelf2007, [1] who asked 'by what standard of notability' is Gordon's argument not notable enough for inclusion. I find it laughable that someone should argue that the opinion of Gordon, who is essentially a staff writer at a partisan think tank, should be included in a debate where multiple Nobel laureates and other prominent economists have expressed their views. Per WP:PARITY anbd WP:GEVAL, I believe that viewpoints included in an article should follow a rough parity of sources and notability. Since Byelf2007 has been reverting to my removal, I would invite an outside view on this matter. LK ( talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the FAC of History of macroeconomic thought. The article is well-written, but as a non-expert I cannot judge a few questions that I'm feeling kind of uneasy about. Therefore I'm inviting anyone who has insight into this to weigh in at the FAC page. The question is this: the article is mostly based on a handful of sources, the most prominent being Snowdon, Brian; Vane, Howard (2005). Modern Macroeconomics. I'm not contesting the reliability of this source or other sources used, but I'm concerned that because of the restriction to few sources (for most of the article), there might be topics that these authors just did not care about etc. However, to be comprehensive (maybe the most challenging FA criterion), the article needs to cover everything. Can someone please check whether the article does indeed cover all possible (including tangential) aspects of the topic? Thank you, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Economic globalization is a subject of an educational assignment, that culminates in a Good Article review. The students will stop working on the article around June 20th, but so far no reviewer has volunteered to do a review. Perhaps a member of your project would be interested? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted [2] Libertarian POV terminology over at Quantitative easing. Input would be appreciated. Thanks, LK ( talk) 04:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LK. There seems to be intense abusive personal attacks getting worse. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to haave no mention of the Japanese version of Quantitative Easing. Japan's QE-like efforts, their explanations and their results are all mentioned in the QE article. Is any update to the Economy of Japan article (or the Bank of Japan article) needed? Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What I suggest is that the Infoboxes in those articles should include a category pertaining to the economist's school of economic thought. Shotguntony ( talk) 15:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
After a lengthy struggle, I've drafted
Markov perfect equilibrium. Improvements welcome.
It's a model of tacit collusion, e.g. many airlines setting the same price on each route. Are there other interesting examples? --
Econterms (
talk •
contribs)
23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Colleagues -- Articles on academic journals often show a kind of official abbreviation like Am. Econ. Rev. and J. Econ. Hist. in the infobox. I've proposed that there also be space for the abbreviations commonly used in the social sciences like AER and JEH. There is opposition to adding space for such acronyms, partly on the basis that they are not official and not informative. Your views are welcome at the proposal. -- Econterms ( talk) 09:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Shapley-Folkman lemma is an important result in mathematical economics.
After 3 months and 8 days, there were no comments on the A-class review at the mathematics project. Given the positive statements following a peer reviews after the GA review, I closed the A-class review 3 months late (!). Please check whether the article meets your A-class criteria; there are only two such articles now. Thanks! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this subject of economics is complex and it has many aspects. Yet here there seems to be no serious attempt to organize the material. The basic divisions might be for microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics (statisticas and the associated methods), mathematical economics other than statistics, and the history and development of economic thought including a proper division into the many schools of thought.
Within each of these main subjects some sub headings are needed. For macroeconomics (and possibly for others too) the theory should be presented first and explained, but this requires definitions (a subject that is difficult to express without showing the way the various terms are used and hence the need for their somewhet strange definitions), then modelling and a discussion of the choice of models. This should be followed by performance of the models and some discussion of the resulting policy after making various forecasts.
Without the researcher knowing where he/she is within the full picture of this big subject there is a strong tendency to flit from matter to matter without finding out what is being sought.
As a person devoted to macroeconomics I find the diagrams very unsatisfactory and the failure to draw them logically and to present them consistantly is unhelpful. Having seen so many unsucessful theories all of whicgh are partial representations of the big picture, surely it should be possible to draw the 'big picture' first and then to show on it where each different theory applies (which may then give a clue as to why it does not succeed). Macrocompassion ( talk) 12:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
We still haven't achieved clear consensus on several issues on History of macroeconomic thought. I would at least like to resolve the issue of the amount of weight given to heterodox economic thought, namely Post Keynesian and Austrian economics. Both sections have been trimmed down to single paragraphys, but User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz still contends this is undue weight. Please provide feedback on this issue on the article's talk page.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Heelo. I am an improver of 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline from WikiProject: European Union. I would like to ask for an re-assessment of 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline from your project. I hope to hear from you, – Plarem ( User | talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(Note: what follows is a a copy and paste from a usertalk page. It started off with a comment to the user (by me, S. Rich), and is now presented as the first paragraph. The username I was addressing has been replaced with "XxxX" as his/her name was not relevant to the discussion. (Subsequent mention of the username is "XxxX'd" as well. In any event, user XxxX is more than welcome to put in her/his actual username.) Since the discussion was interesting enough to post to the general community, I have followed the suggestion of LK to move it here. (I will notify the various contributors about this copy & paste.) As user XxxX did make a comment at the very end of the discussion, I have added a pseudonym signature.)-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, XxxX, you are entirely off the mark when you say (or intimate) that mises.org or the Mises Institute is a "fringe site" or that it posts "crap". Consider this write up from the editor of the WSJ Business Europe column: [3]. Specifically, he describes the Mises Institute as "a world class think tank . . .." They do have a community blog page -- http://community.mises.org/ -- but I don't think anything from that page is being used (nor should it be) in WP. (The other blog page -- http://blog.mises.org/ -- has posts by its editors and should qualify as acceptable under the criteria of WP:USERG.) But I think you have a fundamental disapproval of the Mises Institute because you see it as "fringe" and that disapproval is adversely impacting your POV when reviewing edits. I hope you will WP:COOL when contributing. Regards, -- S. Rich ( talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Even the Mises Institute makes a distinction between Austrian economics and mainstream economics, just google "Mises Institute mainstream". You'll find dozens of articles listing distinctions, most on mises.org. WP:FRINGE says "[w]e use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." It doesn't matter if the Mises Institute has a lot of fans. What makes the Mises Institute fringe is that they're not mainstream economics. However, mises.org isn't fringe for Austrian school opinion, so their website is a good source for that.-- Dark Charles ( talk) 21:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review
the recent edits by
User:Srich32977. In general recent edits, he seems to be promoting heterodox economics and removing glosses to
fringe science. In particular, he has been removing the gloss of
fringe science from
Robert Solow's criticism of the 1987
New Palgrave.
The user essay on single-purpose accounts merits consideration (insofar as recent editing displays a consistent POV 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)). Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.
Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested, particularly people on projects other than the English Wikipedia. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the sign-up sheet has opened for anyone interested in three months' free access to Feminist Economics. All members of the project are welcome. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Economic statistics for discussion of the future of the Economic statistics article. Melcombe ( talk) 08:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Another editor just started the new article Technology economics. I did some tagging and cleanup and tagged it with the Economics project tag, but it definitely needs LOTS of work. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't seem to find an article on indirect job creation. (Please note that this is not intended to precipitate a political discussion! :) What I am looking for are figures on what happens when a company or government creates a "plant" in an established area with N new employees, averaging $X annually. This creates a new demand for housing, construction, plumbers, auto repair, auto sales, retail clerks, etc. (It may also reduce them somewhere else, but that is not the problem here).
The only articles I can find (never mind Wikipedia!) are political which I don't quite trust. (Not a matter of parties! :) Can anyone direct me to an site with reliable (scholarly) presentation on indirect job creation? Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Economic history of China before 1911, where there is a discussion on the economy of China over the last 2 millennia, and the accuracy of the description used in this article, China and Asia. See also Talk:China and Talk:Asia for related discussions.
70.24.244.20 ( talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a surprising number of references to the statements by Henry C.K. Liu in sundry articles. As near as I have been able to tell, he has a few articles in Asia Times Online, and his own site with his writings. I think it's clear that his private site isn't a reliable source, but I'm wondering whether his views are worth noting at all. Is Liu prominent in some way I'm not aware of, or have his limited contributions been played up on Wikipedia, and should be removed? (There is an entire article Dollar hegemony which appears to be based on a notion Liu presented in those Asia Times articles.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The article, initiated by David Eppstein, has received many helpful reviews from this project already. The FA project would benefit from economists' insights, from simple support/oppose judgments, to short copy-editing volunteering, to more ambitious commenting/editing.
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is promoted in the next week, it could possibly appear on the main page the day the Nobel Prize is awarded. (Otherwise, we should probably wait another year.)
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Underinvestment employment relationship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Beland (
talk)
23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I brought something similar up previously, but it's come to my mind again in a slightly different form. Are there any objections to merging partial equilibrium into supply and demand? (I did so recently, and they were just de-merged again. I will direct the de-mergerers to this discussion, but thoughts from other project members are also very welcome.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor is trying to improve the prose and coverage of the macroeconomics article. I reverted their additions because they read to me like an essay, with some vagueness and POV and need of references, but the sentiment is sound. If anyone would like to help that editor make improvements, they've started at the article's talk page. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I always use the following example. Suppose the choices in the first case are between 1A and 1B, where
1A: $1 million w/ prob. 1
2A: $4 million w/ prob. 98/99, 0 otherwise
In the second case the choices are:
2A: $1 million w/ prob. 99/100, 0 otherwise
2B: $4 million w/ prob. 98/100, 0 otherwise
The paradox arises when people choose 1A over 1B, but also say they would choose 2B ove 2A if that is the choice. To see why this is rather odd, implement the second choice as follows. I put 100 balls in an urn. 98 are black, 1 is red, and 1 is blue. I give you the choice between 2A and 2B. I will draw a ball at random. If you choose 2A you "win" if the ball is black or red. If you choose 2B you "win" if the ball is black. Suppose you choose 2B. I draw a ball, but before telling you which color it is I tell you whether it is or is not blue and then offer a chance to change you mind. If I tell you it is blue, it doesn't matter, you get zero either way. If I tell you it is not blue, you would want to switch if you prefer 1A to 1B because once blue is ruled out, that is the choice. Ceberw ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
My addition of Mark Blaug's comments about methodological individualism yesterday to the Austrian school article, was quickly reverted by User:Byelf2007, who proceeded to revert myself and Cretog several times about this issue. From what I can gather, Byelf2007 agrees that Blaug's comments are notable, but objects that the criticism is unclear, or isn't a criticism or some such (see his comments here). The passage in question:
Mark Blaug, known for his work on the history of economic thought, has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, "it is helpful to note what methodological individualism strictly interpreted ... would imply for economics. In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, ... this amounts to saying goodbye to almost the whole of received macroeconomics. There must be something wrong with a methodological principle that has such devastating implications."
Since Byelf2007 refuses to stop removing this obviously notable comment by Blaug, I would like to seek further comment about this issue. Thanks, -- LK ( talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that there is no article Economics of taxation? All I could find was a short section in the general article Tax.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I read over the article on economic inequality and saw that there is little information on the role of tax policy and rising economic inequality. The section discusses progressivity as a characteristic of tax policy that attempts to reduce economic inequality but it does not not discuss why tax policy may, or may not, add to economic inequality by easing capital accumulation for the richer while not providing equal relief for the poor. There are numerous articles and literature on the impact of income, estate, inheritance, and cap gains taxes on economic inequality and top economic figures such as Peter Orszag are carrying on this debate in Washington and the business community. Perhaps we should add to that section so Wikipedia readers can have a better understanding of tax policy and economic inequality. This is especially important because of the controversial nature of the Bush Tax Cuts which some have argued (i.e. Orszag and others) that they have contributed to rising income inequality. Other scholars such as Timothy Noah present differing views. What do y'all think?
DanSCohen (
User talk:DanSCohen) —Preceding
undated comment added
01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
I notice that the infobox for economists has fields for influenced and influences. Those fields are occasionally used, but rarely supported in the text. This appears to be contrary to policy. Am I missing something?
Following is the text I've used to support a couple of edits:
Per MOS Infoboxes, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". Not explicitly stated here, but well understood in practice is the notion that material in an infobox is deliberately redundant; any item in an infobox should be found, almost always with supporting references, in the main text of the article.
The infobox for an economist mirrors that purpose, but is more explicit: "Entries in influences, opposed, influenced, and contributions should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted."
-- SPhilbrick T 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to request eyes on an RFC at Paul Krugman regarding how to reflect criticism in the lead. As noted in the RFC request, some thorny issues complicate this question and I don't think a resolution is feasible without a some input from editors having a specific familiarity with the field of economics. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems as if an overview article might be in order to show the changes in approach fostered over time by significant participants. Also, the emergence of "behavioral Economics" as opposed to Econometrics is a significant trend.
The current focus of the WikiEconomics project has some quite detailed discussions on rather arcane topics. Perhaps this is as it should be in WikiWorld. But it seems rather like describing the details of alchemical methods without mentioning that no one has actually seen them work in real life. robdashu ( talk) 12:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In recent times, both GDP and GNP have come under a lot of scrutiny as measuring indices for the development of a given country. it has been generally suggested (and often accepted as fact) that as GDP and GNP increase, so does the relative well-being of the people living in the country. GDP and GNP however, are not distribution-sensitive measuring indices, and as such, they do not reflect or evaluate some important factors that greatly impact the well-being of the general population such as wealth gaps between rich and poor and gender inequality. Around 1995 the UN introduced some new indices such as the Human Development Index and later the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure to address these distribution-related concerns. Wikipedia as a whole has very little on the Gender-related Development Index, and the Gender Empowerment Measure, not only in terms of actual descriptions and uses of these indices, but also in terms of their relationship to GDP and GNP. I wonder if this project would think it a worthy endeavor to expand the pages on GDP and GNP as well as the HDI, GDI, and GEM in order to update the information available on economic and development measuring indices currently in use. FaithSara ( talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This RfC is not getting any attention:
Talk:National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#RFC:_Should_Bruce_Bartlett.27s_view_on_the_US_debt_be_included.3F
If anyone has time, could they drop a quick note? Thanks,
LK (
talk)
13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of capitalism (2nd nomination). I am trying to notify interested editors, as AfD policy says to do. The people who contributed to the article are mostly inactive and it is not listed in any projects. It seems like it might be related somewhat to this project. Thanks if you want to take part in the discussion. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that there is no article for private ordering, and there doesn't appear to be a more general article that obviously subsumes that topic. Please consider this a request. (I'm not qualified to write one myself.) 18.26.0.5 ( talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently on the page Income inequality in the United States there is a section that treats both gender and race disparities together. However, the combining of these two topics represents them as being very similar or as not being worthy of their own sections, which is not true of them. Both topics have their own extensive amount of research to stand on and thus should be separated. The fact that there is very little treatment of the racial wage gap in the United States (a mere 5 sentences) is honestly a glaring hole in the treatment of the economy of the United States, as this is a pervasive phenomenon and impacts many different groups in the population. The racial wage gap impacts workers, their futures and economic mobility, and their families' futures, which in turn affects the nation as a whole. The extensive research that has been done on the racial wage gap warrants an article and the separation of race and gender disparities on the page Income inequality in the United States. KiaraDouds ( talk) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
KiaraDouds ( talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I added today that candidate Herman Cain does not think too big to fail is real. [9] Is this a fringe belief? Or how prevalent is this view? I would appreciate a reliable source. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 06:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired of this left/right wrangling over wealth disparity. I wish a real mathematician (not an economist) would show that the economy is a dynamic fractal, and that the network interchange velocity between nodes becomes worse if you only have a few huge nodes and many tiny ones, with the middle-size nodes having been destroyed or shrunk to tiny.
If you look at a natural fractal, it is always pleasing to the eye, with a bell curve of sizes - such as a picture with mostly medium circles, a lesser number of small ones, and an even lesser number of enormous ones. What we have seen is all the medium circles have been shrunk to leave a few enormous ones and many tiny ones.
This is not only ugly, but doesn't work economically, IMHO. The most efficient economic exchange occurs due to the disparity of size in the network, but also due to a fair range of sizes. A size distribution of largely Tiny to Enormous means less economic activity. In my humble opinion, a median amount of middle-size circles leads to the greatest aggregate dynamic activity between nodes. My intuition says this can be shown mathematically, but that's beyond me at present. Any mathematicians want to step up to the plate?
Your work will remain on Wikipedia, because no one in Washington will understand it or promote it, but at least you will have tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybervigilante ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, Racial wage gap in the United States is currently under review for being a good article. There has been a question raised concerning the name. Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States are current articles on Wikipedia; the reason I termed the wage differences among races as the "racial wage gap" in the title is due to the term's prevalence in the literature, at least from what I have seen. I am not extremely familiar with Wikipedia naming procedures, but based on these and economic conventions, do you think the name needs to be changed? KiaraDouds ( talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I've just added an additional category to the Template:Inflation series covering Measuring Worth's Nominal GDP per capita series for the UK. I'd like advice before fully developing and updating the Inflation series of templates with current data, better footnotes, and non-CPI inflations. See the talk page for the template for the announcement. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The section Finance, economics, and accounting has the following statement, which I find surprising as a non-economist.
Dimensional analysis is rarely used in (mainstream/neoclassical) economic modeling,[8] and economic models are often dimensionally inconsistent.[9] The equation of exchange is the most notable example of a dimensional equation in economic modeling,[8] while the widely-used Cobb–Douglas model does not use dimensions in a meaningful way.[10] This lack of dimensional consistency is criticized by heterodox economics, notably Austrian economics,[11] while dimensional consistency is not considered necessary or desirable by mainstream economists.[9][12]
All the references (8–12) are to — Barnett, William (2007), "Dimensions and Economics: Some Problems" (PDF), Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7 (1)
The google scholar search "DIMENSIONS AND ECONOMICS" barnett gave 31 results of which this seemed to be relevant.
Cantore, Cristiano; Levine, Paul (July 2011).
"Getting Normalization Right: Dealing with 'Dimensional Constants' in Macroeconomics" (PDF). Dynare Working Papers. CEPREMAP.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
They reference
De Jong, F.J. (1967). Dimensional Analysis for Economists. North Holland.
Does that para in Dimensional analysis need more nuance?
RDBrown (
talk)
01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Fear the Boom and Bust survived a speedy deletion last month, and I think that's appropriate -- it's one of the most important popularizations of economics in recent years (at least in my opinion/experience). But I think there's an important point the article is missing: the whole piece (especially the second part) is an Austrian apologetic, not a neutral comparison. (This is clear from the films' backing ( Russ Roberts and the Mercatus Center), but also evident from watching the videos with an eye toward perspective.)
I don't feel comfortable editing here, but if someone is willing I'd be obliged.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Neoclassical Growth model has a problem with the graphs. I think the labels for the axes should be k NOT K and y NOT Y. Whilst this might appear trivial since they mean different things it means I think our graphs are wrong and misleading and this is quite an important article (B-Class on the project's quality scale. and High-importance on the project's importance scale.) I don't yet know how to edit the graphs or where to go to find out. I raised this on the article's page a while ago and on the talk page but as yet there has been no response. I might of course be wrong about this - feel free to let me know. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC))
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Economics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has substantially expanded Median voter theorem but unfortunately much of the new material is inaccurate or irrelevant. I'm working on revising it, but more eyes would be appreciated.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Could members please look at the article price controls. Both the sourcing and neutrality appear to be problems. TFD ( talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Honestly, the article is bad. And the sources are low quality. And the whole text of the article consists of a "Criticism" section and that's it. It does violate NPOV not to mention just common sense quality standards. The thing is, this is pretty much the average quality for a Economics-related articles, so I don't really see why we should get our panties in a twist over this particular one - most Economics articles (with some "exceptions that prove the rule") are at this level, they (almost) all suck. TFD is just objecting to this particular one for his own peculiar reasons. I dunno, do what you want with it, just don't POVit the other way. Reducing it to a one sentence stub so that at some point someone can actually write a decent article is fine with me. Volunteer Marek 06:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The Peter Kennedy textbook would fine for the Macro aspect of price controls. However, the current article is more about the Micro aspects. Ideally both should be included (and obviously they're related). Volunteer Marek 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I started to fix up some language problems in Economics, but I think subject-area expertise is needed. The page currently includes this:
Seems pretty garbled to me. -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI: The article about the economical academic journal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Environmental Studies is listed for deletion. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
GIABO is currently at
AfD. All suggestions and !votes welcome...
bobrayner (
talk)
20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi All. I've doing some digging to try to work out who was the first to formally explain how money supply is affected by the reserves that banks hold against their deposits. David Kinley appears to have been the first in this paper titled The Relation of the Credit System to the Value of Money. This is quite significant because this ratio is the basis of the money multiplier and is a significant variable governing monetary policy. If anyone has any better information, please advise - otherwise I may I suggest we update the relevant pages. Pkearney ( talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery ( talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I suspect that there's a lot of overlap between these two, at least in principle:
However, I think both have content issues (one less than the other). What's the best target? Is laborious merge preferable to slash-and-burn? What else needs to be fixed first? Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near? bobrayner ( talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Economics will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in economics. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits at Kemeny–Young method should be reviewed for appropriateness. They're mostly by anon IP addresses, but they seem to have a common theme.
I'm not automatically opposed (else I would have undone them) but they look perhaps questionable. Thoughts?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It's quite unbelievable that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the black economy = underground economy. It is not at all the same thing as the black market and it should not be redirected to that article. -- Espoo ( talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It seemed appropriate, given that welfare is already included. I've quickly added a new section to the former about the state of workfare in the UK - any corrections or contributions much appreciated. Jonathan Deamer ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_future_GDP_(nominal)#cite_note-4
the article faces some conflicts, this article is obviously about nominal gdp numbers which means they are about internantional dollar numbers from today, but people posting HSBC numbers which count dollar numbers from 2000 counting inflation and other financial crysis https://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?ao=20&key=hCmm8WiQC0&n=317638.PDF I will remove the HSBC data since they dont belong there, the people need to make an own article where they can count inflation and all the rest for future gdp numbers.-- Shokioto22 ( talk) 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm part of a class at Rice University, in the Poverty, Justice & Human Capabilities minor program, that focuses on issues of global inequality. One of note that has not received much traffic on Wikipedia (likely because it is largely ignored in the US and simply because the article is not done in-depth) is Elderly Care. I plan to spend the next several weeks expanding this article in relation to a few WikiProjects: WP:MED, WP:SOCIOLOGY and WP:Economics, of course. Elderly care certainly falls under the category of Economics. The way our parents and grandparents will ultimately be treated and cared for is at the very least a partial result of a nation's economic state. When nursing homes lose funding from the government, conditions in such facilities go down. When caretaker organizations can't afford to pay their in-home workers, the elderly are practically forced to move into a nursing home, often something they are reluctant to do. However, in societies where the elderly are placed at very high precedence, conditions may be different regardless of economic state.
My goal is to increase the web's awareness of global elderly care. Through my research, I want to show people how other nations, both developed and developing, treat their older members of society. I want to stress that because a country is developing does not mean it treats its elderly poorly.
Especially since this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I would love any and all feedback from fellow WikiProject Economics members and any other members of the Wikipedia community. If you know anything about Geriatrics professionally or recreationally, I would love to hear from you. Also, if you can give me tips on how to stay consistent with writing format of Wikipedia entries, I would greatly accept!
Ellyhutch ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning to contribute to the existing page on feminist economics. Feminist economics is a vital field of economics and if Wikipedia is to be "an authoritative guide to economics" as the goals on this project page state then it must be accurately and fully represented. Currently, the feminist economic page is rated C class and requires substantial additions, revisions and deletions.
Although the current feminist economics page is a start, it would greatly benefit from substantive additions, reorganization and, perhaps most importantly, an increased focus on theory. Such changes would better represent the scholarly depth of feminist economics and would provide a better representation of the contributions of feminists to the field of economics. Feminist economics are highly concerned with areas that are central to all economic analysis from markets, to paid work, to development, to the informal economy. Indeed, as the project page states "various economic theories and viewpoints should be given due weight in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." Feminist economic theories and ideas are rapidly gaining prominence in economic literature and theory as well as are finding application by economic organizations including the World Bank. As a result, the presence of feminist economics on Wikipedia should be proportional to the presence of feminist economics in the field of economics, which it currently is not.
Additionally, the page would greatly benefit from a shifted-focus to the true economic roots of feminist economics. Consequently, I plan to better connect the feminist economics page with existing economics pages and include more references to the basic ideas of economics as a field.
In order to achieve this I plan to draw heavily on the three volume feminist economics series edited by Benería, May and Strassmann, released in 2011. The volumes are broken into three parts 1) Feminism, Economics, and Well-Being 2) Households, Paid and Unpaid Work and the Economy and 3) Global Perspectives on gender. It seems that a presentation along these lines may be more fruitful in presenting a broader and more accurate illustration of the breadth of feminist economic inquiry. These works also provide a multitude of collected journal articles and book chapters that I plan to draw on as references (a lacking feature of the current article). I hope that through this work the feminist economics page can be raised to a standard more equivalent to the traditional "economics" page that is focused on theory, clearly presented and inclusive of many citations. I look forward to working on this project and would greatly appreciate any feedback, especially regarding feminist economics' relationship to broad economic interests, theories and insights and other WikiProjectEconomics pages to which the feminist economics page should link.
Virginiawhite09 (
talk)
04:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
After reading through the current International Monetary Fund, I feel that the page portrays the IMF too narrowly and omits many of the main controversies. Not all of the perspectives on the IMF are included or even touched upon. Understanding the IMF’s lending in terms of the conditions and policy implications is crucial for developing awareness and education about this organization. I plan to add a section on Lending including the benefits and consequences of conditionality. The current article is dominated by criticisms of the IMF; there is not enough information on the IMF’s global economic role. Let me know your thoughts! QuincyC ( talk) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
After extensive revision to the existing article, I am advocating the inclusion of the “ Malnutrition” article to WP: Economics. Currently the article is in WP:MED, but this leaves out how economic issues affect the prevalence of malnutrition in the world. The addition of the article to the WikiProject would broaden the scope of the project, and demonstrate how integral economics is to many aspects of human life. Many fundamental aspects of the article need correction and clarification. For example, here is UNICEF's definition:
Malnutrition is a broad term commonly used as an alternative to undernutrition but technically it also refers to overnutrition. People are malnourished if their diet does not provide adequate calories and protein for growth and maintenance or they are unable to fully utilize the food they eat due to illness (undernutrition). They are also malnourished if they consume too many calories (overnutrition).
( http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2006n4/malnutritiondefinition.html). The current article does not reflect this definition, focusing instead on nutrient deficiencies. Many aspects of malnutrition (though not thoroughly discussed in the current article) relate to economics, especially food distribution, poor food security, and poverty. Economic growth can help to alleviate malnutrition, but other obstacles stand in the way of eradicating it completely. Amartya Sen’s work on poverty and famines is cited in the article, and I feel that more discussions on the economic causes of malnutrition would greatly improve the current article. People, especially women, with low socioeconomic standing are disproportionately affected by malnutrition. As my contribution is for a “Poverty, Gender, and Development” course, I will be adding a section on gender issues relating to malnutrition. Inequalities in malnutrition in a household can arise, especially if there is a large gap in bargaining power between members. As one can see, the field of economics is tied directly to the issue of malnutrition, so the inclusion of the article in this WikiProject is necessary.
Through my research I have sought well-founded arguments and credible research, but I am seeking feedback and input on the most crucial theories of economics that apply to malnutrition. I would also appreciate feedback concerning the validity of the cited economic research, so that complete and truthful facts on malnutrition are available for everyone’s knowledge. Through this process, I seek to raise awareness of the causes and effects of malnutrition, and advocate thinking on possible solutions and policy changes that could diminish the extent of malnutrition. Khatchell ( talk) 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning on making substantial additions to the " Occupational Segregation" article as part of an assignment for my class on Poverty, Gender, and Development at Rice University. Occupational Segregation is a vital topic in economics because it results in numerous negative consequences not only for women, but also for families as units and for society as a whole. For those WIkipedians unfamiliar with the term Occupational Segregation, a bit of an explanation might be in order. Horizontal Occupational Segregation refers to segregation between occupations, and it allows for professions that consist of a majority of women to be remain both lower in status and lower in pay than other occupations. Vertical Occupational Segregation, in some cases known as ghettoization, refers to the relegation of women to the worse jobs within a given occupation. The "glass ceiling" that women face in their attempts to rise up a hierarchy and a pay scale is an example of vertical segregation. Being a sociology major, I am somewhat comfortable in researching and explaining the social causes and consequences of Occupational Segregation. I plan on greatly expanding the "Types" and "Causes" sections of the article. In addition, I plan on adding a "Consequences" section and a "Social Policy Aimed at Eliminating Occupational Segregation" sections. I must admit, however, that my understanding of economics is somewhat rudimentary, and I would really appreciate any assistance that anyone might be able to give me on the specific economic concepts relevant to occupational segregation. K Gagalis ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ````
I see that in the example listed at Template talk:Infobox economy (for Canada), the shares of GDP by sector sum to 100%. I wish to add the information about GDP by sectors to the infobox in Economy of Slovenia, but the table listed in my source ( 3. BRUTO DOMAČI PROIZVOD (3=1+2), by the Slovenian Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development) also includes the item "correction rates" in the table, if it is to make 100%. Should I list "correction rates" in the infobox and if I do, where should I link it? The first item (A) cites agriculture, forestry, fishing. Should I merge it as 'agriculture' or as 'primary sector'? -- Eleassar my talk 11:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
List of U.S. minimum wages , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Metallurgist (
talk)
17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing to add to the article titled Capability Approach, I would like to further contribute to the subsection that covers the measuring of capabilities. The current section needs further explanation for the critique offered by Capabilities Approach of economics-based measures that are used as measures of well-being. These indices, in fact, only offer an indication of possible economic well being that do not account for inequalities such as income distribution. There is quite a bit to be added about the need for such measures and the history behind such measures, which would include the misuse of Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product. Further expansion is also necessary on the move towards alternative measure of wellbeing that better capture the essence of Capabilities. In addition, more information needs to be added because the critique of economics-based measures is an important component of Capabilities Approach. Furthermore, the explanations of the Human Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and the Gender-related Development Index are brief and there is potential to make the definitions of these measures as well as the use of the measures and the relationship with Capabilities Approach more clear. I would appreciate any feedback that would improve my proposal and revision of the subsection. I look forward to contributing. LupeAguilera ( talk) 03:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Outside thoughts are requested for the economics sidebar. One question is whether the term the JEL 's Mathematical and Quantitative Methods should be called "Technical Methods", following the old New Palgrave (but not the current NP, which follows the JEL). Another question is whether game theory should be classified among the mathematical/quantitative methods (per JEL) or among the economic subfields, alongside information economics and industrial organization. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide some feedback, now that you have seen the info-box for a month:
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Time-stamp marker here to avert premature archiving per ongoing efforts to narrow differences related to the above discussion. Thanks. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I index the following for ease of reference.
0T. I have edited the subheading to the above for more specificity and transparency. The top editor (KW) subsequently changed the Econ sidebar heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” (the JEL-link name to the current “Mathematical & statistical methods” Template heading). Of course, my concern below is to improve the Template, not to suggest otherwise of any other discussant.
1T. For the record, Template discussion as to variations on the same subject has been ongoing since 3 December 2010 by the same 2 parties. In November 2010, one them changed the Template heading at issue to “Methods”. [11] Its predecessor was “Techniques” with a duration was almost 2 years (13 December 2008-10 to November 2010. Its initial placement followed discussion that began on 24 October 2008 (here). There were 5 discussants along the way to "Techniques". Final discussion accompanying the heading change to "Techniques" is in what became a subsection here.
2T. 2nd question of the top Edit:
is problematic for several reasons.'#'§ It is a biased question in referring exclusively to alternatives the first editor favored (except for “Quantitative methods” set off by the pejorative “(sic, imho)”) but not to the template heading of “Technical methods” favored by the other discussant (me) on the Template talk page. So, a “Yes” to “Technical methods” is excluded by the question.
# The 1st question at the top:
presumably on reverting the Template heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” to its predecessor “Econometrics”,
[12]
is now moot but open to the similar problems. Both were favored by KW over “Technical methods”, which was favored by the other discussant (me). So, a “Yes” to either works against “Technical methods” by suppressing it as an option. Arguments for “Technical methods” over “Mathematical methods” as the heading are at
Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (D) various others at (3T, 5T-6T, & 9.1T) in Jan. 2011.
§ The 3rd question at the top, which I welcome, has been discussed on Template talk subsequent to the top edit here ( Template talk:Economics sidebar#Economic data v. Economic statistics as template links) in passing. I believe that further simplification of the Template section that follows the heading back to where it was on 10 November 2010 [13] would significantly improve the Template, but that piecemeal & simultaneous discussion here might work at cross purposes to the heading question. The latter can be settled independently of the former, although simplicity as a criterion applies to both.
3T. The 2nd question looks a lot like a poll, which is deprecated in a WP:Guideline ( Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Why regard polls with caution? and following) -- for one thing because it may unnecessarily polarize discussants, rather than leaving room for discussion or in any way constraining a proposed heading by reasons. If polling is the path taken, however, IMO it should include arguments on the other side from Template talk:Economics sidebar. Omission of such arguments would tend to skew discussion by short-circuiting relevant Template talk content & locking in an option that might be rejected if arguments on the other side had been presented at the same time. Presenting arguments after the “vote” by others may also lock in one alternative, not a good thing if it is prejudicial to consideration of the neglected alternative. IMO, that runs against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics#Goals statement that “[t]he vision of this project is to improve every economics article...,” presumably including those with the templates in them.
Now the above discussion might be crying over spilt milk -- except that it could happen again & again &...
4T. I hope that my holding off comment on this subsection until now would have worked toward a consideration of “Technical methods” on its own merits and despite the above, and I acknowledge that no one has in this section has to this point argued against Technical methods.
5T. Earlier and still-relevant general arguments for “Technical methods” at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods" IMO also apply to “Technical methods” over “Mathematical & statistical methods”. Let me restate them here:
All the above is relevant to comments before the top edit. Let me note comments made thereafter on the Talk:Template page that point in the same direction as to "Technical methods" over "Mathematical & statistical methods".
P.S. The change of the Template:Economics sidebar section name to "Technical methods" was made earlier. TM 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
At long last I have added a new subsection 2.3 at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Proposed re-simplification of 'Technical methods' section from 7 to 4 links below heading to allow an opportunity for comment there (or here) on the 3rd question at the top of the previous subsection for an edit dated 12 May 2011:
My somewhat abbreviated response here is: yes, yes, and thank you for asking. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a student at the University of Utah taking a class on Gender Economic Development and as part of my course work I am planning on creating the article Gender inequality Index (GII) which is a new measurement of gender discrimination built off of the same framework as the Human Development Index (HDI). The (GII) is a replacement for the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which have been the primary measurements of gender inequality since 1995. The (GII) exposes gender discrimination using three dimensions; reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market whereas the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which focused on income levels and left out other aspects of inequality. The (GII) is used in conjunction with the Human Development Index (HDI) and can not be used independently. Depending on the level of the (GII) it negatively impacts the Human Development Index (HDI) score and because no country has perfect gender equality all countries are negatively impacted. I feel the (GII) is an extremely important topic to cover among the Wikipedia community and a good contribution in the areas of Gender Studies, International Development, Economics, and the United Nations projects. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated and welcome. Teashias ( talk) 05:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I plan to write a Wikipedia article on the measurement and valuation of unpaid labor. I will include the different methods that feminist economists have proposed to accomplish this, as well as arguments for and against these quantifications. Data acquisition methods include: time use data, survey questions, in-depth interviews, diaries, participant observation, and the inclusion of multitasking. Some problems included in these methods are collecting accurate information, ease of comparability across societies, the lack of adequate universal language, and the complexity of domestic labor and the separation of unpaid labor categories.
The valuation methods proposed fall into several main categories: opportunity cost, replacement cost, input and output costs, and outputs of care. There are a host of different problems associated with these valuation methods, which include the difficulty of deciding which monetary levels are to be chosen for each of these methods, as well as the problems of using the market system to determine values.
This topic needs to be expanded on Wikipedia, as it is only minimally addressed under Feminist Economics, Theory and Methodology: Domestic Systems. On the Labor Force site, it does mention the issue briefly under Paid and Unpaid Labor: Unpaid Labor and Gender, as well as on the Work Intensity article page, as it is mentioned under Multitasking, and the Labor Economics site, under Criticisms of Labor Economics and Recent Research. Although on all of these sites unpaid labor is mentioned, it is only explained enough to say that it exists, and that the attempts to measure it exist as well. I plan on revising an existing article subsection, specifically: Feminist Economics, 2.1 Domestic systems, under 2. Theory and methodology of the Feminist Economics article. There are also multiple other articles which I will add a few sentences to, along with a link to the revised article (mentioned above).
I would like feedback on the general arguments for and against, and the other info I plan to include – perhaps some reference suggestions or just points to include? Thanks!
Fmveblen ( talk) 21:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Fmveblen
I plan on adding an article titled Feminization of Agriculture. Its going to focus on the recent (last 30 years or so) trends of gendered labor in the agricultural sectors of the undeveloped world. As the phenomenon has been focused there, i will discuss the trends and effects for primarily Africa and Latin America.
A discussion of this concept is very important as it has no coverage on the wikipedia yet has been studied for over twenty years! The economics of agriculture in these regions would make an important addition to the wikipedia's coverage. There are a number of important sociological developments in these sectors. I will include an analysis of the liberalization process and it's effects on the family dynamics in rural areas.
I have a few articles and books from which to derive the article, but there is always more to add, thus if there are any reputable sources that might be of benefit, I would be happy to include them. If you have any contributions to add feel free to comment or message. Thekappen ( talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding. Every one of these comments covers the needs of the individual and not those for a proper encyclopedic presentation of the subject of Economics per se. In particular the matter of Macroeconomics needs to be better defined and the various details sorted out into a locical and comprehensive order under various sub-headings. I doubt if the present editor has appreciated how important this matter is because the situation has not improved over the few months I have been reviewing it.
Should the managers of this subject require some assistance, then I am willing to oblige but I feel that I would need a course on Wikipedia in general before my attempts of improvement would have some useful output. Also I would appreciate if the various critics had a knowledge and ability to express themselves which at least matches what I am likely to say! I am not a new-comer to Macroeconomics and have written and am writing on it quite frequently although my academic degree is in MSc science/engineering of a different kind. The claim for verifiable material is difficult. Not every treatment can be verified and certainly not all of them are sufficiently accepted by the economic community as to be true facts. My interest in macroeconomics comes from my awareness about how badly this general subject seems to be understood and taught and by the fact that I wish to see some better kinds of improvements based on logic rather then premiss. Macrocompassion ( talk) 14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
As part of a course project for the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities class offered at Rice University, I intend to revise and expand the entry titled "Social Risk Management (SRM)". The Social Risk Management page is a short entry regarding a World Bank conceptual framework for efficient risk management. This is a crucial application of economics in the field of international development. Revision and expansion of this entry page to include background that led to the creation of this conceptual framework, detailed strategies and terminology proposed and defined by the World Bank and the current and future implications of the approach can make this entry a resourceful for economists in general and development economists in particular. I would like to request the members of WikiProject Economics for suggestions to improve the page through reorganization and addition of content. Please feel free to propose changes in addition to the ones mentioned above that you would like to see on the page and any questions you would like to have answered by the entry. Thank you. Kjhooda ( talk) 06:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I am working on a draft article to explain the concept of the helicopter drop. You can find it here - User:Remember/Helicopter drop. Please help me make it better. Remember ( talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Economic history of Argentina was nominated for Good Article status in late January, however it's still waiting for a review. Can someone from the WikiProject take a look at it and help in the decision of whether it should, or should not, be recognized as a good article? Thank you.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a dilemma regarding some content in the Rule of 72 article. The article describes Felix's Corollary - from a web search, I've been unable to find a reference to Felix's Corollary that does not stem from the Wikipedia article. It seems that it came to be in an edit by an ip user back in 2007 ( here), but it has no references or other evidence that it is not WP:OR. Does anyone have any insights about this corollary that might merit its being kept as part of the article? If not, it seems it should be removed. — Zach425 talk/ contribs 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Economics |
---|
Thomas Meeks has proposed replacing
with
on the Template:Economics sidebar.
Please comment.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Leather currency as to what should happen to this tiny stub. There are several possible merge targets, such as banknote or history of money or Chinese currency. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal is related to copyrights. Feel free to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks,
We're currently having a discussion on what should be the appropriate title for the article about the financial crisis, which is currently called 2007–2012 global financial crisis. To summarize the discussion till now, most of us agree that the "crisis" ended sometime between 2009 and 2011 - which should be reflected in the title. Our main problem seems to be gathering conclusive sources.
I was wondering if people here have any inputs regarding this. Kindly contribute your thoughts and suggestions to the discussion: here
Thanks, SPat talk 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm part of a project at MIT/Harvard that has created a product tree map generator found at the MIT/Harvard Observatory of Economic Complexity. These product treemaps communicate a lot of information quickly, and can be used in different ways to illustrate a nation's imports or exports, compare countries, see who imports or exports any product. We've been starting to place export treemaps on country pages or, if the country has one, "economy of x country". We're hoping that others might find them useful on different pages. The treemaps can be generated at MIT/Harvard Observatory of Economic Complexity.
Would appreciate any feedback as we're newbies on Wikipedia. What advice would you guys have for how to find people who might be into this sort of thing on Wikipedia? The Wikiproject Economics Page seemed a good place to start asking for help. Thanks! -- Doubleodd ( talk)
Here are a few examples of the treemaps:
I've nominated Michael Rowbotham, an article under the auspices of this Wikiproject, for deletion. Please comment here: WP:Articles for deletion/Michael Rowbotham (2nd nomination) Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Economics members, A few of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have sent
Structural economic problems (current) to AfD. Your comments would be welcome.
bobrayner (
talk)
16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Economics members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee ( talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The page on this subject refers to "propaganda by Keynesian economists." I see no reason to connect internal devaluation to Keynes or his followers, who have no reason to promote internal devaluation. The term "Keynesian economist" is of doubtful value too, since most economists (including the Chicago school) agree with Keynes's main ideas, though not always with those of his self-identified followers. TonyWelsh ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The page on this subject has large sections of uncited original research that, to my eyes, is heavily POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.175.219 ( talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There is edit warring at Econometrics. Second opinions are requested.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 09:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think a small note in the criticism section of the econometrics' article of Austrian criticism of econometrics would be or is (depending on the state of the edit war) fine. I note Hayek talks about this in his nobel prize lecture and I think Frisch explicitly addressed this issue somewhere in the early days when econometrics proper was just starting. I think then the debate was more between those who wanted economic planning the economtrics people - and those like Keynes on the one hand and Austrians on the other wanted a bigger role for the market. (Anyway I have added notes on econometrics talk page too - and might be regarded as an interested party). ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee ( talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this edit. I think I may have trouble being objective.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis #How about "Global_financial_crisis_of_2008"?. This time we are considering multiple choices at the same time. We don't have to have a consensus right away but it will be good if we could drift towards one in finite time.
Yaniv256 (
talk)
23:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know something about about capital expenditure in order to improve articles, especially wife selling (English custom).
Inflation adjustments are applied to monetary amounts for English sales of wives of centuries ago. The Inflation template does not apply to capital expenses. Since these sales were often or typically functionally divorces, rather than sales of stock to pimps for prostitution, these appear to be capital expenses or capital purchases. However, a counterargument is that the prices were artificially depressed by the selling husbands to signify to their communities that they were divorcing women whom they considered almost or actually worthless (some so-called sales were for free or a glass of ale). Unfortunately, we can't know whether that counterargument applied in every case for which an inflation-adjusted equivalent value is being given in the article. Further, one could countercounterargue that the low value was not artificially low but accurately reflected the economic value to the selling husband of the wife, since she might have been unwilling to help him but glad to help another man whom she had in mind, and that would correlate with the divorce happening. Is the expense that is attached to a wife sale (even when not due to prostitution or pimping) sometimes not a capital expense?
I asked virtually the same question at the capital expenditure talk page July 23, 2012, but no reply has been posted yet.
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Your coverage of of USA national debt to GDP ratio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio#cite_note-0 is alarmingly out of date when it could be so useful for warning our country that we are in serious financial trouble. Your last ratio for debt to GDP for the USA at 68% is so wrong as to be misleading. The numbers are approximately 15.5 trillion for the national debt and the same number for the current yearly GDP, giving a ratio of 100% and alarms should be going off in every corner of any government body charged with regulating government spending. If Wiki wants to play a useful role in informing citizens of serious economic problems it should put high priority on updating this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm32644 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#JEL classification categories. jonkerz ♠talk 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to try to open up the Austrian School Criticism discussion at the Keynesian Economics talk page to a larger audience since it seems to have stagnated and there has not been a real resolution to this issue. The discussion is specifically related to a section of the Keynesian economics page, but I felt it might get some more attention if it was mentioned here. Thanks. Wormbread ( talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Our article Distributism uses the term "Third Way", which I assume will be unfamiliar to many readers. There's a dispute about whether we should link to Third Way (centrism).
If interested, please discuss at Talk:Distributism#Re-added_link_for_.22Third_Way.22_which_was_inappropriately_removed.
-- 186.221.135.185 ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I am completely new to editing Wikipedia, so it was by accident that I signed my edit. The icon with the blue pen tip looked to me to be for a strike-through font, for a perceived error.
Anyway, the article originally defines the job vacancy rate as vacancies over the labor force. I checked with the European Commission ( http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post), the Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577335944226268750.html), and EconGuru.com ( http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/job+vacancy+rate. All of them agree that the job vacancy, for a given population/industry is
job vacancies / (job vacancies + filled positions)
I'm sure my correction looks ugly, as I really don't know how to use the interface. But I stand by the substance of the correction, and only hope that one of you experienced editors will have time to clean it up.
-- Pastshelfdate ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Pastshelfdate
Hi, this bio contains a lot of unsourced statements and could use the attention of knowledgeable editors. The unsourced article on the New Austrian School of Economics seems to be part of this, as is Sandeep Jaitly (currently at AfD). This is not my field, so any input is welcome! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've run across a couple blog posts ( [16] and [17]) which confirm the recently empirically validated idea that decreasing the effective corporate tax rate tends to suppress hiring because it puts the cost of paying taxes on profits below the expected risk of hiring and further production using pre-tax revenue, which also involves a feedback threshold effect in the macroeconomic situation when many businesses are facing the same changes in the effective tax rate (if they all aren't hiring, the risk of investing in further production increases because consumer spending is suppressed.) As we've seen, this is accompanied by a spike in profits and bank deposits. I've come across some very oblique references to this effect in old theory papers, and in one recent labor economics sourcebook, but I'm looking for more mainstream sources on it. Does anyone have any suggestions for where this particular situation might have been studied in academic journal papers? — Cupco 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a student at Rice University in Houston, TX, and I'm planning to write an article entry about wealth distribution in Southeast Asia for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. This existing page on Southeast Asia is quite extensive in its depiction of the region’s history, political systems, geography, and culture, but lacks an analysis of development – an extremely relevant subject in a region with expanding economies. The Southeast Asia page does has an “Economy” section with a little over five hundred words, but lacks within that section any information about wealth on a non-macro level or about human capabilities. The word “poverty” is not mentioned once in the entire Southeast Asia Wikipedia page. There are also various pages on income-specific inequality in the United States, a short article on international inequality, and other related topics. They do not, however, adequately address the issue of wealth distribution and corresponding measurements of human capabilities in the region being examined. A region-specific article that focuses on macroeconomic development as well as individual wealth distribution could unite these issues into a more targeted analysis of wealth in that region, and perhaps encourage future work on other regions. Therefore, I plan to write a new, comprehensive article with information regarding and various analyses of wealth distribution and poverty in Southeast Asia, with a link to this new page as a subsection under “Southeast Asia / Economy”. As previously discussed, my article will focus on wealth distribution on Southeast Asia, the various forces acting on said distribution (tax policy, globalization, market forces, socio-economic relationships, etc.), and effects of various levels of wealth throughout the region on human capabilities and overall economic development in Southeast Asian countries. I believe this is a better course of action than to simply revise and expand upon the “Economy” section of the Southeast Asia Wikipedia page, as an expansion of a topic such as this one might lead to an unreasonably lengthy addition to an already lengthy article. An extensive focus on individual capabilities through wealth distribution analysis may overshadow the section’s (and article’s for that matter) focus on macro-economic policy, history, and indices. Note, however, that I do support the overall expansion of the "Economy" section of this page as it is an extremely important aspect of this developing region. With a new article clearly linked (probably as a subsection of “Economy”), I will be able to more easily connect with and build upon scattered and often inadequate pages on poverty and human development in various countries in Southeast Asia. As a highly interconnected region through ASEAN, trade, social exchange, and many other mediums, the region as a whole warrants a more cohesive and comprehensive analysis regarding poverty and human development. By looking at wealth distribution in the region (among and within different countries) with a new Wikipedia article, we can more effectively examine these issues pertinent to the shaping of policies in those countries. I'm expecting to encounter some problems along the way, the most difficult of which is probably the scope of the region as a whole with regard to development on the individual level. I welcome constructive criticism and ideas to overcome these problems, so please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my planned contribution. Thanks,
Reillysolis ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There is interest to expand the article. Anyone interested in sharing that project? -- Pass3456 ( talk) 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The term "fractional reserve banking" relates to a period in history when the role of the banking institution shifted from that of a depository institution to a lending institution. The first modern depository institution was the Bank of Amsterdam, a good description of which is found in the book "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (1776). This bank accepted deposits of gold and coinage then in circulation and minted coinage of a standard gold content and weight, held on deposit for bank customers, who were issued what amounted to a certificate of deposit that was accepted in the commercial world as currency. As Smith describes, the bank's directors eventually committed fraud on the public by issuing bank notes not fully backed by gold owned by the bank. They operated on the observation that with the increase in circulation of the certificates of deposit, only a small percentage of depositors came to the bank to withdraw their "money" at any given time. Thus, the bank directors adopted a practice of keeping only fractional reserves of specie (i.e., hard money) in the vault.
The Bank of England was later chartered from the first as a fractional reserve bank, its depositors protected (or, insured) by the revenue raising capacity of the British Crown. From this point onward, the distinction between depository banks and fractional reserve lending institutions ended.
Present-day regulation over banking institutions (at least in most countries) imposes no requirement on all that the bank holds specie in reserve against outstanding loans. In the United States, notes issued by the Federal Reserve System (which is owned by the nation's nationally-chartered commercial banks and is not an agency of the national government) are by law legal tender currency. However, the exchange value of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) is governed not by reserves of precious metals or any basket of goods or commodities but by public confidence in the strength of the nation's economy. In essence, the FRNs could be described as "promises to pay nothing in particular," as demonstrated by the almost continuous decline in the quantity or quality of goods or services one can obtain with a fixed unit of currency.
ACTUAL BANK RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
Central banks in most countries have some degree of regulatory oversight over the investment and lending activity of financial institutions. The central bank may or may not set a reserve requirement for banks to keep a level of currency balance on deposit with the central bank as a protection against depositor runs on the banks as has periodically occurred in every country. The establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the United States in 1933 (to which banks pay an insurance premium) ostensibly protected deposits from loss of deposit balances in the event a bank becomes insolvent and is closed by regulators. EdwardJDodson ( talk) 22:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC) EdwardJDodson
Althought this article should be quite central, I just observed that its twin macroeconomics is much better written mainly because: 1.It ilustrates basics concepts of the field (in micreconomics the only basic concept explained is opportunity cost) 2.It's entirely lacking a development of the field part, which I think its important to someone trying to gain insight on the matter. -- Lbertolotti ( talk) 22:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
money multiplier, as an introduction to the theory of fractional reserve banking. I suppose students have to learn that, and it is easy to teach, but most practitioners find it to be a pretty unsatisfactory description of how the monetary and credit system actually works. In large part, this is because it ignores the role of financial prices in the process.
The base-multiplier model of money supply determination (which lies behind the exogenously determined money stock of the LM curve) was condemned years ago as 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction ...'(Goodhart 1984. Page 188)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I would like to draw your attention to a new article that I have created:
History of investment banking in the United States. I admit that much of this text was drawn from earlier drafts which were variously titled
Jews and money (now deleted),
User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and
User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking. All of these drafts are "not ready for prime time". However, it occurred to me that there is an encyclopedic topic under the title "History of investment banking in the United States" so I decided to create it. even though the first version of this article is heavily canted towards the Jewish side of the story. I figure other editors can add information to balance it out with the "Yankee" side of the story. [NOTE: I have since added more information so that the article is no longer as heavily canted towards the 19th-century German-Jewish investment banks. More info on the "Yankee" banks is still needed.] Your contributions and suggestions for improvement are welcomed at
Talk:History of investment banking in the United States. Thank you.
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk)
01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to participate in this CfD discussion, relating to all categories representing intersections between class and priority/importance of articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Experts required; please help sort out the article Utility-possibility frontier ([[Special:EditPage/ Utility-possibility frontier|edit]] | [[Talk: Utility-possibility frontier|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/ Utility-possibility frontier|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/ Utility-possibility frontier|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/ Utility-possibility frontier|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/ Utility-possibility frontier|limit=999}} links] | watch | logs | views). Cheers, Chzz ► 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Would somebody mind watchlisting or having a look over Private finance initiative, please? It's a controversial subject touching on politics, privatisation, and many public infrastructure projects, hence easy to find negative quotes in the newspapers. My personal impression is that the overall tone is rather polemic - particularly the previous version which I expect will be restored sooner or later - but, of course, since it's a controversial subject I could easily be wrong. Any extra attention from this wikiproject could be very helpful. bobrayner ( talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there was a request to have the Spanish WP article on Friedrich von Wieser translated into English. I have completed the translation of the body of the article, preserving the original English language article as a lede.
Could someone trained in economics give this article a going-over? Some of the content was quite technical and, while I tried to do my due diligence, I am no economist.
Also, I would appreciate some feedback as to what to do with the lede. Should I condense it, or translate the (short) lede from the Spanish page, or just leave it as is?
Muchas Gracias,
Dave
You can help!
17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djkernen (
talk •
contribs)
There's been a lot of activity recently on the Fractional-reserve banking page, especially on the talk page. Strong views are being expressed (sometimes quite voluminously!). I'ld appreciate it if the people here could help keep an eye on the article to make sure that no egregious policy violations occur. Much thanks, LK ( talk) 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There is something very strange going on at this page. After enormous efforts by editors a section was created to allow an alternative view of FRB to be presented. Three editors are ensuring that page can never fairly represent the view that editors wish to develop ie a bank credit version of FRB. The relending model is very inadequate as the following simple exercise shows
The relending model as as follows
For this model, if a bank has 100 reserves and 100 customer deposits the bank can only create 90 in new loans with a single loan. According to this model, if a customer wanted a loan of 171 credited to their current account, then two loans would have to be done as follows for a bank using a fractional reserve of 10%.
Note: At stage a) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 9 reserves, and then at stage c) it needs to retain another 8.1 reserves
Table 1: Private bank T-account | |
---|---|
Assets | Liabilites |
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited | 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1 |
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $90 | 90 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
(c) Borrower's IOU worth $81 | 81 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"
The credit money model is as follows
Note: at stage a) (as for the relending model) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 17.1 reserves
Table 1: Private bank T-account | |
---|---|
Assets | Liabilites |
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited | 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1 |
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $171 | 171 created deposit money owed to customer 2 |
The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"
The results are the same and there is no requirement for stage c)
The relending model mainly focuses on cash/Gold loans rather than bank credit. The relending model is, as BOE deputy Governor Paul Tucker put it, archaic in the context of modern banking systems and practices.
Further quality references are available to show just how inadequate the relending model is.
Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model [1] was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' [2] Ten years later he said [3] ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’
What exactly [4]is so misleading about the money multiplier approach?
I found this page through new page patrol and I can't make any sense of it. I'm not actually sure if this is the best Wikiproject for this, but could someone give me an opinion on if the topic is notable? I deleted a few external links and a section that looked like spam.-- Banana ( talk) 05:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor has expressed concerns over Matt Taibbi's criticism on Alan Greenspan ( see here). Additional comments are much appreciated. Thanks. -- Artoasis ( talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Full-reserve_banking#ignored_or_dismissed_by_the_mainstream there is a dispute as to how wiki should describe the current state of full reserve banking in the eyes of academia. I would suggest that there are three possible groups that an economist could fall into:
A: I've never really thought about full reserve banking B: I think full reserve banking is a bad idea C: I think full reserve banking is a good idea
FWIW, my guess is that the proportion in each camp is of the order of A: 98%, B: 1%, C: 1% - but I could be wrong - I'd like to hear other people's estimates. I am posting here to see if we can get some consensus on the proportions in each category, and once this is agreed, choose some wording for the main article that clearly reflects our consensus.
P.S. I had a personal email from Ronnie Phillips in which he said of full reserve banking: "there are more advocates than not". Reissgo ( talk) 11:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on a set of articles related to the history of banking. Frankly, I was shocked at the weakness of our article on Banking in the United States as well as the lack of an article on the History of investment banking. I have worked on improving Banking in the United States. In addition, I created History of banking in the United States and History of investment banking in the United States. There are several stub sections in History of investment banking in the United States and I would appreciate help in fleshing those out. I would also appreciate comments on how to improve these articles. -- Pseudo-Richard ( talk) 05:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
...on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist. Bear in mind that this is a userbox, not an article - if my characterization of Strasserism is off-base, I would appreciate being made aware. Thanks in advance - Badger Drink ( talk) 17:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I recently removed an argument by a "David Gordon", fellow at Mises Institute, following a critique expressed by Paul Krugman. I was reverted by Byelf2007, [1] who asked 'by what standard of notability' is Gordon's argument not notable enough for inclusion. I find it laughable that someone should argue that the opinion of Gordon, who is essentially a staff writer at a partisan think tank, should be included in a debate where multiple Nobel laureates and other prominent economists have expressed their views. Per WP:PARITY anbd WP:GEVAL, I believe that viewpoints included in an article should follow a rough parity of sources and notability. Since Byelf2007 has been reverting to my removal, I would invite an outside view on this matter. LK ( talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the FAC of History of macroeconomic thought. The article is well-written, but as a non-expert I cannot judge a few questions that I'm feeling kind of uneasy about. Therefore I'm inviting anyone who has insight into this to weigh in at the FAC page. The question is this: the article is mostly based on a handful of sources, the most prominent being Snowdon, Brian; Vane, Howard (2005). Modern Macroeconomics. I'm not contesting the reliability of this source or other sources used, but I'm concerned that because of the restriction to few sources (for most of the article), there might be topics that these authors just did not care about etc. However, to be comprehensive (maybe the most challenging FA criterion), the article needs to cover everything. Can someone please check whether the article does indeed cover all possible (including tangential) aspects of the topic? Thank you, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Economic globalization is a subject of an educational assignment, that culminates in a Good Article review. The students will stop working on the article around June 20th, but so far no reviewer has volunteered to do a review. Perhaps a member of your project would be interested? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted [2] Libertarian POV terminology over at Quantitative easing. Input would be appreciated. Thanks, LK ( talk) 04:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LK. There seems to be intense abusive personal attacks getting worse. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to haave no mention of the Japanese version of Quantitative Easing. Japan's QE-like efforts, their explanations and their results are all mentioned in the QE article. Is any update to the Economy of Japan article (or the Bank of Japan article) needed? Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
What I suggest is that the Infoboxes in those articles should include a category pertaining to the economist's school of economic thought. Shotguntony ( talk) 15:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
After a lengthy struggle, I've drafted
Markov perfect equilibrium. Improvements welcome.
It's a model of tacit collusion, e.g. many airlines setting the same price on each route. Are there other interesting examples? --
Econterms (
talk •
contribs)
23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Colleagues -- Articles on academic journals often show a kind of official abbreviation like Am. Econ. Rev. and J. Econ. Hist. in the infobox. I've proposed that there also be space for the abbreviations commonly used in the social sciences like AER and JEH. There is opposition to adding space for such acronyms, partly on the basis that they are not official and not informative. Your views are welcome at the proposal. -- Econterms ( talk) 09:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The Shapley-Folkman lemma is an important result in mathematical economics.
After 3 months and 8 days, there were no comments on the A-class review at the mathematics project. Given the positive statements following a peer reviews after the GA review, I closed the A-class review 3 months late (!). Please check whether the article meets your A-class criteria; there are only two such articles now. Thanks! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 23:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this subject of economics is complex and it has many aspects. Yet here there seems to be no serious attempt to organize the material. The basic divisions might be for microeconomics, macroeconomics, econometrics (statisticas and the associated methods), mathematical economics other than statistics, and the history and development of economic thought including a proper division into the many schools of thought.
Within each of these main subjects some sub headings are needed. For macroeconomics (and possibly for others too) the theory should be presented first and explained, but this requires definitions (a subject that is difficult to express without showing the way the various terms are used and hence the need for their somewhet strange definitions), then modelling and a discussion of the choice of models. This should be followed by performance of the models and some discussion of the resulting policy after making various forecasts.
Without the researcher knowing where he/she is within the full picture of this big subject there is a strong tendency to flit from matter to matter without finding out what is being sought.
As a person devoted to macroeconomics I find the diagrams very unsatisfactory and the failure to draw them logically and to present them consistantly is unhelpful. Having seen so many unsucessful theories all of whicgh are partial representations of the big picture, surely it should be possible to draw the 'big picture' first and then to show on it where each different theory applies (which may then give a clue as to why it does not succeed). Macrocompassion ( talk) 12:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
We still haven't achieved clear consensus on several issues on History of macroeconomic thought. I would at least like to resolve the issue of the amount of weight given to heterodox economic thought, namely Post Keynesian and Austrian economics. Both sections have been trimmed down to single paragraphys, but User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz still contends this is undue weight. Please provide feedback on this issue on the article's talk page.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Heelo. I am an improver of 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline from WikiProject: European Union. I would like to ask for an re-assessment of 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline from your project. I hope to hear from you, – Plarem ( User | talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(Note: what follows is a a copy and paste from a usertalk page. It started off with a comment to the user (by me, S. Rich), and is now presented as the first paragraph. The username I was addressing has been replaced with "XxxX" as his/her name was not relevant to the discussion. (Subsequent mention of the username is "XxxX'd" as well. In any event, user XxxX is more than welcome to put in her/his actual username.) Since the discussion was interesting enough to post to the general community, I have followed the suggestion of LK to move it here. (I will notify the various contributors about this copy & paste.) As user XxxX did make a comment at the very end of the discussion, I have added a pseudonym signature.)-- S. Rich ( talk) 21:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, XxxX, you are entirely off the mark when you say (or intimate) that mises.org or the Mises Institute is a "fringe site" or that it posts "crap". Consider this write up from the editor of the WSJ Business Europe column: [3]. Specifically, he describes the Mises Institute as "a world class think tank . . .." They do have a community blog page -- http://community.mises.org/ -- but I don't think anything from that page is being used (nor should it be) in WP. (The other blog page -- http://blog.mises.org/ -- has posts by its editors and should qualify as acceptable under the criteria of WP:USERG.) But I think you have a fundamental disapproval of the Mises Institute because you see it as "fringe" and that disapproval is adversely impacting your POV when reviewing edits. I hope you will WP:COOL when contributing. Regards, -- S. Rich ( talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Even the Mises Institute makes a distinction between Austrian economics and mainstream economics, just google "Mises Institute mainstream". You'll find dozens of articles listing distinctions, most on mises.org. WP:FRINGE says "[w]e use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." It doesn't matter if the Mises Institute has a lot of fans. What makes the Mises Institute fringe is that they're not mainstream economics. However, mises.org isn't fringe for Austrian school opinion, so their website is a good source for that.-- Dark Charles ( talk) 21:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review
the recent edits by
User:Srich32977. In general recent edits, he seems to be promoting heterodox economics and removing glosses to
fringe science. In particular, he has been removing the gloss of
fringe science from
Robert Solow's criticism of the 1987
New Palgrave.
The user essay on single-purpose accounts merits consideration (insofar as recent editing displays a consistent POV 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)). Kiefer. Wolfowitz 10:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.
Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested, particularly people on projects other than the English Wikipedia. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the sign-up sheet has opened for anyone interested in three months' free access to Feminist Economics. All members of the project are welcome. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Economic statistics for discussion of the future of the Economic statistics article. Melcombe ( talk) 08:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Another editor just started the new article Technology economics. I did some tagging and cleanup and tagged it with the Economics project tag, but it definitely needs LOTS of work. Thanks. Safiel ( talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't seem to find an article on indirect job creation. (Please note that this is not intended to precipitate a political discussion! :) What I am looking for are figures on what happens when a company or government creates a "plant" in an established area with N new employees, averaging $X annually. This creates a new demand for housing, construction, plumbers, auto repair, auto sales, retail clerks, etc. (It may also reduce them somewhere else, but that is not the problem here).
The only articles I can find (never mind Wikipedia!) are political which I don't quite trust. (Not a matter of parties! :) Can anyone direct me to an site with reliable (scholarly) presentation on indirect job creation? Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Economic history of China before 1911, where there is a discussion on the economy of China over the last 2 millennia, and the accuracy of the description used in this article, China and Asia. See also Talk:China and Talk:Asia for related discussions.
70.24.244.20 ( talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There are a surprising number of references to the statements by Henry C.K. Liu in sundry articles. As near as I have been able to tell, he has a few articles in Asia Times Online, and his own site with his writings. I think it's clear that his private site isn't a reliable source, but I'm wondering whether his views are worth noting at all. Is Liu prominent in some way I'm not aware of, or have his limited contributions been played up on Wikipedia, and should be removed? (There is an entire article Dollar hegemony which appears to be based on a notion Liu presented in those Asia Times articles.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The article, initiated by David Eppstein, has received many helpful reviews from this project already. The FA project would benefit from economists' insights, from simple support/oppose judgments, to short copy-editing volunteering, to more ambitious commenting/editing.
Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is promoted in the next week, it could possibly appear on the main page the day the Nobel Prize is awarded. (Otherwise, we should probably wait another year.)
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The article Underinvestment employment relationship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Beland (
talk)
23:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I brought something similar up previously, but it's come to my mind again in a slightly different form. Are there any objections to merging partial equilibrium into supply and demand? (I did so recently, and they were just de-merged again. I will direct the de-mergerers to this discussion, but thoughts from other project members are also very welcome.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor is trying to improve the prose and coverage of the macroeconomics article. I reverted their additions because they read to me like an essay, with some vagueness and POV and need of references, but the sentiment is sound. If anyone would like to help that editor make improvements, they've started at the article's talk page. CRETOG8( t/ c) 17:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I always use the following example. Suppose the choices in the first case are between 1A and 1B, where
1A: $1 million w/ prob. 1
2A: $4 million w/ prob. 98/99, 0 otherwise
In the second case the choices are:
2A: $1 million w/ prob. 99/100, 0 otherwise
2B: $4 million w/ prob. 98/100, 0 otherwise
The paradox arises when people choose 1A over 1B, but also say they would choose 2B ove 2A if that is the choice. To see why this is rather odd, implement the second choice as follows. I put 100 balls in an urn. 98 are black, 1 is red, and 1 is blue. I give you the choice between 2A and 2B. I will draw a ball at random. If you choose 2A you "win" if the ball is black or red. If you choose 2B you "win" if the ball is black. Suppose you choose 2B. I draw a ball, but before telling you which color it is I tell you whether it is or is not blue and then offer a chance to change you mind. If I tell you it is blue, it doesn't matter, you get zero either way. If I tell you it is not blue, you would want to switch if you prefer 1A to 1B because once blue is ruled out, that is the choice. Ceberw ( talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
My addition of Mark Blaug's comments about methodological individualism yesterday to the Austrian school article, was quickly reverted by User:Byelf2007, who proceeded to revert myself and Cretog several times about this issue. From what I can gather, Byelf2007 agrees that Blaug's comments are notable, but objects that the criticism is unclear, or isn't a criticism or some such (see his comments here). The passage in question:
Mark Blaug, known for his work on the history of economic thought, has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, "it is helpful to note what methodological individualism strictly interpreted ... would imply for economics. In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, ... this amounts to saying goodbye to almost the whole of received macroeconomics. There must be something wrong with a methodological principle that has such devastating implications."
Since Byelf2007 refuses to stop removing this obviously notable comment by Blaug, I would like to seek further comment about this issue. Thanks, -- LK ( talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible that there is no article Economics of taxation? All I could find was a short section in the general article Tax.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I read over the article on economic inequality and saw that there is little information on the role of tax policy and rising economic inequality. The section discusses progressivity as a characteristic of tax policy that attempts to reduce economic inequality but it does not not discuss why tax policy may, or may not, add to economic inequality by easing capital accumulation for the richer while not providing equal relief for the poor. There are numerous articles and literature on the impact of income, estate, inheritance, and cap gains taxes on economic inequality and top economic figures such as Peter Orszag are carrying on this debate in Washington and the business community. Perhaps we should add to that section so Wikipedia readers can have a better understanding of tax policy and economic inequality. This is especially important because of the controversial nature of the Bush Tax Cuts which some have argued (i.e. Orszag and others) that they have contributed to rising income inequality. Other scholars such as Timothy Noah present differing views. What do y'all think?
DanSCohen (
User talk:DanSCohen) —Preceding
undated comment added
01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC).
I notice that the infobox for economists has fields for influenced and influences. Those fields are occasionally used, but rarely supported in the text. This appears to be contrary to policy. Am I missing something?
Following is the text I've used to support a couple of edits:
Per MOS Infoboxes, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". Not explicitly stated here, but well understood in practice is the notion that material in an infobox is deliberately redundant; any item in an infobox should be found, almost always with supporting references, in the main text of the article.
The infobox for an economist mirrors that purpose, but is more explicit: "Entries in influences, opposed, influenced, and contributions should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted."
-- SPhilbrick T 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to request eyes on an RFC at Paul Krugman regarding how to reflect criticism in the lead. As noted in the RFC request, some thorny issues complicate this question and I don't think a resolution is feasible without a some input from editors having a specific familiarity with the field of economics. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems as if an overview article might be in order to show the changes in approach fostered over time by significant participants. Also, the emergence of "behavioral Economics" as opposed to Econometrics is a significant trend.
The current focus of the WikiEconomics project has some quite detailed discussions on rather arcane topics. Perhaps this is as it should be in WikiWorld. But it seems rather like describing the details of alchemical methods without mentioning that no one has actually seen them work in real life. robdashu ( talk) 12:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In recent times, both GDP and GNP have come under a lot of scrutiny as measuring indices for the development of a given country. it has been generally suggested (and often accepted as fact) that as GDP and GNP increase, so does the relative well-being of the people living in the country. GDP and GNP however, are not distribution-sensitive measuring indices, and as such, they do not reflect or evaluate some important factors that greatly impact the well-being of the general population such as wealth gaps between rich and poor and gender inequality. Around 1995 the UN introduced some new indices such as the Human Development Index and later the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure to address these distribution-related concerns. Wikipedia as a whole has very little on the Gender-related Development Index, and the Gender Empowerment Measure, not only in terms of actual descriptions and uses of these indices, but also in terms of their relationship to GDP and GNP. I wonder if this project would think it a worthy endeavor to expand the pages on GDP and GNP as well as the HDI, GDI, and GEM in order to update the information available on economic and development measuring indices currently in use. FaithSara ( talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This RfC is not getting any attention:
Talk:National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#RFC:_Should_Bruce_Bartlett.27s_view_on_the_US_debt_be_included.3F
If anyone has time, could they drop a quick note? Thanks,
LK (
talk)
13:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of capitalism (2nd nomination). I am trying to notify interested editors, as AfD policy says to do. The people who contributed to the article are mostly inactive and it is not listed in any projects. It seems like it might be related somewhat to this project. Thanks if you want to take part in the discussion. BigJim707 ( talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I see that there is no article for private ordering, and there doesn't appear to be a more general article that obviously subsumes that topic. Please consider this a request. (I'm not qualified to write one myself.) 18.26.0.5 ( talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Currently on the page Income inequality in the United States there is a section that treats both gender and race disparities together. However, the combining of these two topics represents them as being very similar or as not being worthy of their own sections, which is not true of them. Both topics have their own extensive amount of research to stand on and thus should be separated. The fact that there is very little treatment of the racial wage gap in the United States (a mere 5 sentences) is honestly a glaring hole in the treatment of the economy of the United States, as this is a pervasive phenomenon and impacts many different groups in the population. The racial wage gap impacts workers, their futures and economic mobility, and their families' futures, which in turn affects the nation as a whole. The extensive research that has been done on the racial wage gap warrants an article and the separation of race and gender disparities on the page Income inequality in the United States. KiaraDouds ( talk) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
KiaraDouds ( talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I added today that candidate Herman Cain does not think too big to fail is real. [9] Is this a fringe belief? Or how prevalent is this view? I would appreciate a reliable source. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 06:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired of this left/right wrangling over wealth disparity. I wish a real mathematician (not an economist) would show that the economy is a dynamic fractal, and that the network interchange velocity between nodes becomes worse if you only have a few huge nodes and many tiny ones, with the middle-size nodes having been destroyed or shrunk to tiny.
If you look at a natural fractal, it is always pleasing to the eye, with a bell curve of sizes - such as a picture with mostly medium circles, a lesser number of small ones, and an even lesser number of enormous ones. What we have seen is all the medium circles have been shrunk to leave a few enormous ones and many tiny ones.
This is not only ugly, but doesn't work economically, IMHO. The most efficient economic exchange occurs due to the disparity of size in the network, but also due to a fair range of sizes. A size distribution of largely Tiny to Enormous means less economic activity. In my humble opinion, a median amount of middle-size circles leads to the greatest aggregate dynamic activity between nodes. My intuition says this can be shown mathematically, but that's beyond me at present. Any mathematicians want to step up to the plate?
Your work will remain on Wikipedia, because no one in Washington will understand it or promote it, but at least you will have tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybervigilante ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, Racial wage gap in the United States is currently under review for being a good article. There has been a question raised concerning the name. Male–female income disparity in the United States and Income inequality in the United States are current articles on Wikipedia; the reason I termed the wage differences among races as the "racial wage gap" in the title is due to the term's prevalence in the literature, at least from what I have seen. I am not extremely familiar with Wikipedia naming procedures, but based on these and economic conventions, do you think the name needs to be changed? KiaraDouds ( talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I've just added an additional category to the Template:Inflation series covering Measuring Worth's Nominal GDP per capita series for the UK. I'd like advice before fully developing and updating the Inflation series of templates with current data, better footnotes, and non-CPI inflations. See the talk page for the template for the announcement. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The section Finance, economics, and accounting has the following statement, which I find surprising as a non-economist.
Dimensional analysis is rarely used in (mainstream/neoclassical) economic modeling,[8] and economic models are often dimensionally inconsistent.[9] The equation of exchange is the most notable example of a dimensional equation in economic modeling,[8] while the widely-used Cobb–Douglas model does not use dimensions in a meaningful way.[10] This lack of dimensional consistency is criticized by heterodox economics, notably Austrian economics,[11] while dimensional consistency is not considered necessary or desirable by mainstream economists.[9][12]
All the references (8–12) are to — Barnett, William (2007), "Dimensions and Economics: Some Problems" (PDF), Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7 (1)
The google scholar search "DIMENSIONS AND ECONOMICS" barnett gave 31 results of which this seemed to be relevant.
Cantore, Cristiano; Levine, Paul (July 2011).
"Getting Normalization Right: Dealing with 'Dimensional Constants' in Macroeconomics" (PDF). Dynare Working Papers. CEPREMAP.{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
They reference
De Jong, F.J. (1967). Dimensional Analysis for Economists. North Holland.
Does that para in Dimensional analysis need more nuance?
RDBrown (
talk)
01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Fear the Boom and Bust survived a speedy deletion last month, and I think that's appropriate -- it's one of the most important popularizations of economics in recent years (at least in my opinion/experience). But I think there's an important point the article is missing: the whole piece (especially the second part) is an Austrian apologetic, not a neutral comparison. (This is clear from the films' backing ( Russ Roberts and the Mercatus Center), but also evident from watching the videos with an eye toward perspective.)
I don't feel comfortable editing here, but if someone is willing I'd be obliged.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Neoclassical Growth model has a problem with the graphs. I think the labels for the axes should be k NOT K and y NOT Y. Whilst this might appear trivial since they mean different things it means I think our graphs are wrong and misleading and this is quite an important article (B-Class on the project's quality scale. and High-importance on the project's importance scale.) I don't yet know how to edit the graphs or where to go to find out. I raised this on the article's page a while ago and on the talk page but as yet there has been no response. I might of course be wrong about this - feel free to let me know. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC))
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Economics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 06:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has substantially expanded Median voter theorem but unfortunately much of the new material is inaccurate or irrelevant. I'm working on revising it, but more eyes would be appreciated.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 14:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Could members please look at the article price controls. Both the sourcing and neutrality appear to be problems. TFD ( talk) 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Honestly, the article is bad. And the sources are low quality. And the whole text of the article consists of a "Criticism" section and that's it. It does violate NPOV not to mention just common sense quality standards. The thing is, this is pretty much the average quality for a Economics-related articles, so I don't really see why we should get our panties in a twist over this particular one - most Economics articles (with some "exceptions that prove the rule") are at this level, they (almost) all suck. TFD is just objecting to this particular one for his own peculiar reasons. I dunno, do what you want with it, just don't POVit the other way. Reducing it to a one sentence stub so that at some point someone can actually write a decent article is fine with me. Volunteer Marek 06:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The Peter Kennedy textbook would fine for the Macro aspect of price controls. However, the current article is more about the Micro aspects. Ideally both should be included (and obviously they're related). Volunteer Marek 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I started to fix up some language problems in Economics, but I think subject-area expertise is needed. The page currently includes this:
Seems pretty garbled to me. -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI: The article about the economical academic journal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Environmental Studies is listed for deletion. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all,
GIABO is currently at
AfD. All suggestions and !votes welcome...
bobrayner (
talk)
20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi All. I've doing some digging to try to work out who was the first to formally explain how money supply is affected by the reserves that banks hold against their deposits. David Kinley appears to have been the first in this paper titled The Relation of the Credit System to the Value of Money. This is quite significant because this ratio is the basis of the money multiplier and is a significant variable governing monetary policy. If anyone has any better information, please advise - otherwise I may I suggest we update the relevant pages. Pkearney ( talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! Selery ( talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I suspect that there's a lot of overlap between these two, at least in principle:
However, I think both have content issues (one less than the other). What's the best target? Is laborious merge preferable to slash-and-burn? What else needs to be fixed first? Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near? bobrayner ( talk) 00:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Economics will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in economics. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits at Kemeny–Young method should be reviewed for appropriateness. They're mostly by anon IP addresses, but they seem to have a common theme.
I'm not automatically opposed (else I would have undone them) but they look perhaps questionable. Thoughts?
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It's quite unbelievable that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the black economy = underground economy. It is not at all the same thing as the black market and it should not be redirected to that article. -- Espoo ( talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It seemed appropriate, given that welfare is already included. I've quickly added a new section to the former about the state of workfare in the UK - any corrections or contributions much appreciated. Jonathan Deamer ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_future_GDP_(nominal)#cite_note-4
the article faces some conflicts, this article is obviously about nominal gdp numbers which means they are about internantional dollar numbers from today, but people posting HSBC numbers which count dollar numbers from 2000 counting inflation and other financial crysis https://www.research.hsbc.com/midas/Res/RDV?ao=20&key=hCmm8WiQC0&n=317638.PDF I will remove the HSBC data since they dont belong there, the people need to make an own article where they can count inflation and all the rest for future gdp numbers.-- Shokioto22 ( talk) 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm part of a class at Rice University, in the Poverty, Justice & Human Capabilities minor program, that focuses on issues of global inequality. One of note that has not received much traffic on Wikipedia (likely because it is largely ignored in the US and simply because the article is not done in-depth) is Elderly Care. I plan to spend the next several weeks expanding this article in relation to a few WikiProjects: WP:MED, WP:SOCIOLOGY and WP:Economics, of course. Elderly care certainly falls under the category of Economics. The way our parents and grandparents will ultimately be treated and cared for is at the very least a partial result of a nation's economic state. When nursing homes lose funding from the government, conditions in such facilities go down. When caretaker organizations can't afford to pay their in-home workers, the elderly are practically forced to move into a nursing home, often something they are reluctant to do. However, in societies where the elderly are placed at very high precedence, conditions may be different regardless of economic state.
My goal is to increase the web's awareness of global elderly care. Through my research, I want to show people how other nations, both developed and developing, treat their older members of society. I want to stress that because a country is developing does not mean it treats its elderly poorly.
Especially since this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I would love any and all feedback from fellow WikiProject Economics members and any other members of the Wikipedia community. If you know anything about Geriatrics professionally or recreationally, I would love to hear from you. Also, if you can give me tips on how to stay consistent with writing format of Wikipedia entries, I would greatly accept!
Ellyhutch ( talk) 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning to contribute to the existing page on feminist economics. Feminist economics is a vital field of economics and if Wikipedia is to be "an authoritative guide to economics" as the goals on this project page state then it must be accurately and fully represented. Currently, the feminist economic page is rated C class and requires substantial additions, revisions and deletions.
Although the current feminist economics page is a start, it would greatly benefit from substantive additions, reorganization and, perhaps most importantly, an increased focus on theory. Such changes would better represent the scholarly depth of feminist economics and would provide a better representation of the contributions of feminists to the field of economics. Feminist economics are highly concerned with areas that are central to all economic analysis from markets, to paid work, to development, to the informal economy. Indeed, as the project page states "various economic theories and viewpoints should be given due weight in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources." Feminist economic theories and ideas are rapidly gaining prominence in economic literature and theory as well as are finding application by economic organizations including the World Bank. As a result, the presence of feminist economics on Wikipedia should be proportional to the presence of feminist economics in the field of economics, which it currently is not.
Additionally, the page would greatly benefit from a shifted-focus to the true economic roots of feminist economics. Consequently, I plan to better connect the feminist economics page with existing economics pages and include more references to the basic ideas of economics as a field.
In order to achieve this I plan to draw heavily on the three volume feminist economics series edited by Benería, May and Strassmann, released in 2011. The volumes are broken into three parts 1) Feminism, Economics, and Well-Being 2) Households, Paid and Unpaid Work and the Economy and 3) Global Perspectives on gender. It seems that a presentation along these lines may be more fruitful in presenting a broader and more accurate illustration of the breadth of feminist economic inquiry. These works also provide a multitude of collected journal articles and book chapters that I plan to draw on as references (a lacking feature of the current article). I hope that through this work the feminist economics page can be raised to a standard more equivalent to the traditional "economics" page that is focused on theory, clearly presented and inclusive of many citations. I look forward to working on this project and would greatly appreciate any feedback, especially regarding feminist economics' relationship to broad economic interests, theories and insights and other WikiProjectEconomics pages to which the feminist economics page should link.
Virginiawhite09 (
talk)
04:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
After reading through the current International Monetary Fund, I feel that the page portrays the IMF too narrowly and omits many of the main controversies. Not all of the perspectives on the IMF are included or even touched upon. Understanding the IMF’s lending in terms of the conditions and policy implications is crucial for developing awareness and education about this organization. I plan to add a section on Lending including the benefits and consequences of conditionality. The current article is dominated by criticisms of the IMF; there is not enough information on the IMF’s global economic role. Let me know your thoughts! QuincyC ( talk) 05:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
After extensive revision to the existing article, I am advocating the inclusion of the “ Malnutrition” article to WP: Economics. Currently the article is in WP:MED, but this leaves out how economic issues affect the prevalence of malnutrition in the world. The addition of the article to the WikiProject would broaden the scope of the project, and demonstrate how integral economics is to many aspects of human life. Many fundamental aspects of the article need correction and clarification. For example, here is UNICEF's definition:
Malnutrition is a broad term commonly used as an alternative to undernutrition but technically it also refers to overnutrition. People are malnourished if their diet does not provide adequate calories and protein for growth and maintenance or they are unable to fully utilize the food they eat due to illness (undernutrition). They are also malnourished if they consume too many calories (overnutrition).
( http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2006n4/malnutritiondefinition.html). The current article does not reflect this definition, focusing instead on nutrient deficiencies. Many aspects of malnutrition (though not thoroughly discussed in the current article) relate to economics, especially food distribution, poor food security, and poverty. Economic growth can help to alleviate malnutrition, but other obstacles stand in the way of eradicating it completely. Amartya Sen’s work on poverty and famines is cited in the article, and I feel that more discussions on the economic causes of malnutrition would greatly improve the current article. People, especially women, with low socioeconomic standing are disproportionately affected by malnutrition. As my contribution is for a “Poverty, Gender, and Development” course, I will be adding a section on gender issues relating to malnutrition. Inequalities in malnutrition in a household can arise, especially if there is a large gap in bargaining power between members. As one can see, the field of economics is tied directly to the issue of malnutrition, so the inclusion of the article in this WikiProject is necessary.
Through my research I have sought well-founded arguments and credible research, but I am seeking feedback and input on the most crucial theories of economics that apply to malnutrition. I would also appreciate feedback concerning the validity of the cited economic research, so that complete and truthful facts on malnutrition are available for everyone’s knowledge. Through this process, I seek to raise awareness of the causes and effects of malnutrition, and advocate thinking on possible solutions and policy changes that could diminish the extent of malnutrition. Khatchell ( talk) 08:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am planning on making substantial additions to the " Occupational Segregation" article as part of an assignment for my class on Poverty, Gender, and Development at Rice University. Occupational Segregation is a vital topic in economics because it results in numerous negative consequences not only for women, but also for families as units and for society as a whole. For those WIkipedians unfamiliar with the term Occupational Segregation, a bit of an explanation might be in order. Horizontal Occupational Segregation refers to segregation between occupations, and it allows for professions that consist of a majority of women to be remain both lower in status and lower in pay than other occupations. Vertical Occupational Segregation, in some cases known as ghettoization, refers to the relegation of women to the worse jobs within a given occupation. The "glass ceiling" that women face in their attempts to rise up a hierarchy and a pay scale is an example of vertical segregation. Being a sociology major, I am somewhat comfortable in researching and explaining the social causes and consequences of Occupational Segregation. I plan on greatly expanding the "Types" and "Causes" sections of the article. In addition, I plan on adding a "Consequences" section and a "Social Policy Aimed at Eliminating Occupational Segregation" sections. I must admit, however, that my understanding of economics is somewhat rudimentary, and I would really appreciate any assistance that anyone might be able to give me on the specific economic concepts relevant to occupational segregation. K Gagalis ( talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ````
I see that in the example listed at Template talk:Infobox economy (for Canada), the shares of GDP by sector sum to 100%. I wish to add the information about GDP by sectors to the infobox in Economy of Slovenia, but the table listed in my source ( 3. BRUTO DOMAČI PROIZVOD (3=1+2), by the Slovenian Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development) also includes the item "correction rates" in the table, if it is to make 100%. Should I list "correction rates" in the infobox and if I do, where should I link it? The first item (A) cites agriculture, forestry, fishing. Should I merge it as 'agriculture' or as 'primary sector'? -- Eleassar my talk 11:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing,
List of U.S. minimum wages , has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going
here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
Metallurgist (
talk)
17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I am proposing to add to the article titled Capability Approach, I would like to further contribute to the subsection that covers the measuring of capabilities. The current section needs further explanation for the critique offered by Capabilities Approach of economics-based measures that are used as measures of well-being. These indices, in fact, only offer an indication of possible economic well being that do not account for inequalities such as income distribution. There is quite a bit to be added about the need for such measures and the history behind such measures, which would include the misuse of Gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product. Further expansion is also necessary on the move towards alternative measure of wellbeing that better capture the essence of Capabilities. In addition, more information needs to be added because the critique of economics-based measures is an important component of Capabilities Approach. Furthermore, the explanations of the Human Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure, and the Gender-related Development Index are brief and there is potential to make the definitions of these measures as well as the use of the measures and the relationship with Capabilities Approach more clear. I would appreciate any feedback that would improve my proposal and revision of the subsection. I look forward to contributing. LupeAguilera ( talk) 03:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Outside thoughts are requested for the economics sidebar. One question is whether the term the JEL 's Mathematical and Quantitative Methods should be called "Technical Methods", following the old New Palgrave (but not the current NP, which follows the JEL). Another question is whether game theory should be classified among the mathematical/quantitative methods (per JEL) or among the economic subfields, alongside information economics and industrial organization. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please provide some feedback, now that you have seen the info-box for a month:
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Time-stamp marker here to avert premature archiving per ongoing efforts to narrow differences related to the above discussion. Thanks. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I index the following for ease of reference.
0T. I have edited the subheading to the above for more specificity and transparency. The top editor (KW) subsequently changed the Econ sidebar heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” (the JEL-link name to the current “Mathematical & statistical methods” Template heading). Of course, my concern below is to improve the Template, not to suggest otherwise of any other discussant.
1T. For the record, Template discussion as to variations on the same subject has been ongoing since 3 December 2010 by the same 2 parties. In November 2010, one them changed the Template heading at issue to “Methods”. [11] Its predecessor was “Techniques” with a duration was almost 2 years (13 December 2008-10 to November 2010. Its initial placement followed discussion that began on 24 October 2008 (here). There were 5 discussants along the way to "Techniques". Final discussion accompanying the heading change to "Techniques" is in what became a subsection here.
2T. 2nd question of the top Edit:
is problematic for several reasons.'#'§ It is a biased question in referring exclusively to alternatives the first editor favored (except for “Quantitative methods” set off by the pejorative “(sic, imho)”) but not to the template heading of “Technical methods” favored by the other discussant (me) on the Template talk page. So, a “Yes” to “Technical methods” is excluded by the question.
# The 1st question at the top:
presumably on reverting the Template heading from “Mathematical & quantitative methods” to its predecessor “Econometrics”,
[12]
is now moot but open to the similar problems. Both were favored by KW over “Technical methods”, which was favored by the other discussant (me). So, a “Yes” to either works against “Technical methods” by suppressing it as an option. Arguments for “Technical methods” over “Mathematical methods” as the heading are at
Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (D) various others at (3T, 5T-6T, & 9.1T) in Jan. 2011.
§ The 3rd question at the top, which I welcome, has been discussed on Template talk subsequent to the top edit here ( Template talk:Economics sidebar#Economic data v. Economic statistics as template links) in passing. I believe that further simplification of the Template section that follows the heading back to where it was on 10 November 2010 [13] would significantly improve the Template, but that piecemeal & simultaneous discussion here might work at cross purposes to the heading question. The latter can be settled independently of the former, although simplicity as a criterion applies to both.
3T. The 2nd question looks a lot like a poll, which is deprecated in a WP:Guideline ( Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Why regard polls with caution? and following) -- for one thing because it may unnecessarily polarize discussants, rather than leaving room for discussion or in any way constraining a proposed heading by reasons. If polling is the path taken, however, IMO it should include arguments on the other side from Template talk:Economics sidebar. Omission of such arguments would tend to skew discussion by short-circuiting relevant Template talk content & locking in an option that might be rejected if arguments on the other side had been presented at the same time. Presenting arguments after the “vote” by others may also lock in one alternative, not a good thing if it is prejudicial to consideration of the neglected alternative. IMO, that runs against the Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics#Goals statement that “[t]he vision of this project is to improve every economics article...,” presumably including those with the templates in them.
Now the above discussion might be crying over spilt milk -- except that it could happen again & again &...
4T. I hope that my holding off comment on this subsection until now would have worked toward a consideration of “Technical methods” on its own merits and despite the above, and I acknowledge that no one has in this section has to this point argued against Technical methods.
5T. Earlier and still-relevant general arguments for “Technical methods” at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods" IMO also apply to “Technical methods” over “Mathematical & statistical methods”. Let me restate them here:
All the above is relevant to comments before the top edit. Let me note comments made thereafter on the Talk:Template page that point in the same direction as to "Technical methods" over "Mathematical & statistical methods".
P.S. The change of the Template:Economics sidebar section name to "Technical methods" was made earlier. TM 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
At long last I have added a new subsection 2.3 at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Proposed re-simplification of 'Technical methods' section from 7 to 4 links below heading to allow an opportunity for comment there (or here) on the 3rd question at the top of the previous subsection for an edit dated 12 May 2011:
My somewhat abbreviated response here is: yes, yes, and thank you for asking. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I am a student at the University of Utah taking a class on Gender Economic Development and as part of my course work I am planning on creating the article Gender inequality Index (GII) which is a new measurement of gender discrimination built off of the same framework as the Human Development Index (HDI). The (GII) is a replacement for the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which have been the primary measurements of gender inequality since 1995. The (GII) exposes gender discrimination using three dimensions; reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market whereas the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure which focused on income levels and left out other aspects of inequality. The (GII) is used in conjunction with the Human Development Index (HDI) and can not be used independently. Depending on the level of the (GII) it negatively impacts the Human Development Index (HDI) score and because no country has perfect gender equality all countries are negatively impacted. I feel the (GII) is an extremely important topic to cover among the Wikipedia community and a good contribution in the areas of Gender Studies, International Development, Economics, and the United Nations projects. Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated and welcome. Teashias ( talk) 05:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I plan to write a Wikipedia article on the measurement and valuation of unpaid labor. I will include the different methods that feminist economists have proposed to accomplish this, as well as arguments for and against these quantifications. Data acquisition methods include: time use data, survey questions, in-depth interviews, diaries, participant observation, and the inclusion of multitasking. Some problems included in these methods are collecting accurate information, ease of comparability across societies, the lack of adequate universal language, and the complexity of domestic labor and the separation of unpaid labor categories.
The valuation methods proposed fall into several main categories: opportunity cost, replacement cost, input and output costs, and outputs of care. There are a host of different problems associated with these valuation methods, which include the difficulty of deciding which monetary levels are to be chosen for each of these methods, as well as the problems of using the market system to determine values.
This topic needs to be expanded on Wikipedia, as it is only minimally addressed under Feminist Economics, Theory and Methodology: Domestic Systems. On the Labor Force site, it does mention the issue briefly under Paid and Unpaid Labor: Unpaid Labor and Gender, as well as on the Work Intensity article page, as it is mentioned under Multitasking, and the Labor Economics site, under Criticisms of Labor Economics and Recent Research. Although on all of these sites unpaid labor is mentioned, it is only explained enough to say that it exists, and that the attempts to measure it exist as well. I plan on revising an existing article subsection, specifically: Feminist Economics, 2.1 Domestic systems, under 2. Theory and methodology of the Feminist Economics article. There are also multiple other articles which I will add a few sentences to, along with a link to the revised article (mentioned above).
I would like feedback on the general arguments for and against, and the other info I plan to include – perhaps some reference suggestions or just points to include? Thanks!
Fmveblen ( talk) 21:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Fmveblen
I plan on adding an article titled Feminization of Agriculture. Its going to focus on the recent (last 30 years or so) trends of gendered labor in the agricultural sectors of the undeveloped world. As the phenomenon has been focused there, i will discuss the trends and effects for primarily Africa and Latin America.
A discussion of this concept is very important as it has no coverage on the wikipedia yet has been studied for over twenty years! The economics of agriculture in these regions would make an important addition to the wikipedia's coverage. There are a number of important sociological developments in these sectors. I will include an analysis of the liberalization process and it's effects on the family dynamics in rural areas.
I have a few articles and books from which to derive the article, but there is always more to add, thus if there are any reputable sources that might be of benefit, I would be happy to include them. If you have any contributions to add feel free to comment or message. Thekappen ( talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding. Every one of these comments covers the needs of the individual and not those for a proper encyclopedic presentation of the subject of Economics per se. In particular the matter of Macroeconomics needs to be better defined and the various details sorted out into a locical and comprehensive order under various sub-headings. I doubt if the present editor has appreciated how important this matter is because the situation has not improved over the few months I have been reviewing it.
Should the managers of this subject require some assistance, then I am willing to oblige but I feel that I would need a course on Wikipedia in general before my attempts of improvement would have some useful output. Also I would appreciate if the various critics had a knowledge and ability to express themselves which at least matches what I am likely to say! I am not a new-comer to Macroeconomics and have written and am writing on it quite frequently although my academic degree is in MSc science/engineering of a different kind. The claim for verifiable material is difficult. Not every treatment can be verified and certainly not all of them are sufficiently accepted by the economic community as to be true facts. My interest in macroeconomics comes from my awareness about how badly this general subject seems to be understood and taught and by the fact that I wish to see some better kinds of improvements based on logic rather then premiss. Macrocompassion ( talk) 14:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
As part of a course project for the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities class offered at Rice University, I intend to revise and expand the entry titled "Social Risk Management (SRM)". The Social Risk Management page is a short entry regarding a World Bank conceptual framework for efficient risk management. This is a crucial application of economics in the field of international development. Revision and expansion of this entry page to include background that led to the creation of this conceptual framework, detailed strategies and terminology proposed and defined by the World Bank and the current and future implications of the approach can make this entry a resourceful for economists in general and development economists in particular. I would like to request the members of WikiProject Economics for suggestions to improve the page through reorganization and addition of content. Please feel free to propose changes in addition to the ones mentioned above that you would like to see on the page and any questions you would like to have answered by the entry. Thank you. Kjhooda ( talk) 06:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I am working on a draft article to explain the concept of the helicopter drop. You can find it here - User:Remember/Helicopter drop. Please help me make it better. Remember ( talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Economic history of Argentina was nominated for Good Article status in late January, however it's still waiting for a review. Can someone from the WikiProject take a look at it and help in the decision of whether it should, or should not, be recognized as a good article? Thank you.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a dilemma regarding some content in the Rule of 72 article. The article describes Felix's Corollary - from a web search, I've been unable to find a reference to Felix's Corollary that does not stem from the Wikipedia article. It seems that it came to be in an edit by an ip user back in 2007 ( here), but it has no references or other evidence that it is not WP:OR. Does anyone have any insights about this corollary that might merit its being kept as part of the article? If not, it seems it should be removed. — Zach425 talk/ contribs 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Economics |
---|
Thomas Meeks has proposed replacing
with
on the Template:Economics sidebar.
Please comment.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Leather currency as to what should happen to this tiny stub. There are several possible merge targets, such as banknote or history of money or Chinese currency. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This proposal is related to copyrights. Feel free to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks,
We're currently having a discussion on what should be the appropriate title for the article about the financial crisis, which is currently called 2007–2012 global financial crisis. To summarize the discussion till now, most of us agree that the "crisis" ended sometime between 2009 and 2011 - which should be reflected in the title. Our main problem seems to be gathering conclusive sources.
I was wondering if people here have any inputs regarding this. Kindly contribute your thoughts and suggestions to the discussion: here
Thanks, SPat talk 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm part of a project at MIT/Harvard that has created a product tree map generator found at the MIT/Harvard Observatory of Economic Complexity. These product treemaps communicate a lot of information quickly, and can be used in different ways to illustrate a nation's imports or exports, compare countries, see who imports or exports any product. We've been starting to place export treemaps on country pages or, if the country has one, "economy of x country". We're hoping that others might find them useful on different pages. The treemaps can be generated at MIT/Harvard Observatory of Economic Complexity.
Would appreciate any feedback as we're newbies on Wikipedia. What advice would you guys have for how to find people who might be into this sort of thing on Wikipedia? The Wikiproject Economics Page seemed a good place to start asking for help. Thanks! -- Doubleodd ( talk)
Here are a few examples of the treemaps:
I've nominated Michael Rowbotham, an article under the auspices of this Wikiproject, for deletion. Please comment here: WP:Articles for deletion/Michael Rowbotham (2nd nomination) Thanks, LK ( talk) 08:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 13:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject Economics members, A few of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have sent
Structural economic problems (current) to AfD. Your comments would be welcome.
bobrayner (
talk)
16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Economics members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee ( talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The page on this subject refers to "propaganda by Keynesian economists." I see no reason to connect internal devaluation to Keynes or his followers, who have no reason to promote internal devaluation. The term "Keynesian economist" is of doubtful value too, since most economists (including the Chicago school) agree with Keynes's main ideas, though not always with those of his self-identified followers. TonyWelsh ( talk) 18:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The page on this subject has large sections of uncited original research that, to my eyes, is heavily POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.175.219 ( talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There is edit warring at Econometrics. Second opinions are requested.
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 09:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think a small note in the criticism section of the econometrics' article of Austrian criticism of econometrics would be or is (depending on the state of the edit war) fine. I note Hayek talks about this in his nobel prize lecture and I think Frisch explicitly addressed this issue somewhere in the early days when econometrics proper was just starting. I think then the debate was more between those who wanted economic planning the economtrics people - and those like Keynes on the one hand and Austrians on the other wanted a bigger role for the market. (Anyway I have added notes on econometrics talk page too - and might be regarded as an interested party). ( Msrasnw ( talk) 11:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee ( talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this edit. I think I may have trouble being objective.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2007–2012 global financial crisis #How about "Global_financial_crisis_of_2008"?. This time we are considering multiple choices at the same time. We don't have to have a consensus right away but it will be good if we could drift towards one in finite time.
Yaniv256 (
talk)
23:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know something about about capital expenditure in order to improve articles, especially wife selling (English custom).
Inflation adjustments are applied to monetary amounts for English sales of wives of centuries ago. The Inflation template does not apply to capital expenses. Since these sales were often or typically functionally divorces, rather than sales of stock to pimps for prostitution, these appear to be capital expenses or capital purchases. However, a counterargument is that the prices were artificially depressed by the selling husbands to signify to their communities that they were divorcing women whom they considered almost or actually worthless (some so-called sales were for free or a glass of ale). Unfortunately, we can't know whether that counterargument applied in every case for which an inflation-adjusted equivalent value is being given in the article. Further, one could countercounterargue that the low value was not artificially low but accurately reflected the economic value to the selling husband of the wife, since she might have been unwilling to help him but glad to help another man whom she had in mind, and that would correlate with the divorce happening. Is the expense that is attached to a wife sale (even when not due to prostitution or pimping) sometimes not a capital expense?
I asked virtually the same question at the capital expenditure talk page July 23, 2012, but no reply has been posted yet.
Thank you. Nick Levinson ( talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Your coverage of of USA national debt to GDP ratio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio#cite_note-0 is alarmingly out of date when it could be so useful for warning our country that we are in serious financial trouble. Your last ratio for debt to GDP for the USA at 68% is so wrong as to be misleading. The numbers are approximately 15.5 trillion for the national debt and the same number for the current yearly GDP, giving a ratio of 100% and alarms should be going off in every corner of any government body charged with regulating government spending. If Wiki wants to play a useful role in informing citizens of serious economic problems it should put high priority on updating this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm32644 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#JEL classification categories. jonkerz ♠talk 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to try to open up the Austrian School Criticism discussion at the Keynesian Economics talk page to a larger audience since it seems to have stagnated and there has not been a real resolution to this issue. The discussion is specifically related to a section of the Keynesian economics page, but I felt it might get some more attention if it was mentioned here. Thanks. Wormbread ( talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Our article Distributism uses the term "Third Way", which I assume will be unfamiliar to many readers. There's a dispute about whether we should link to Third Way (centrism).
If interested, please discuss at Talk:Distributism#Re-added_link_for_.22Third_Way.22_which_was_inappropriately_removed.
-- 186.221.135.185 ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I am completely new to editing Wikipedia, so it was by accident that I signed my edit. The icon with the blue pen tip looked to me to be for a strike-through font, for a perceived error.
Anyway, the article originally defines the job vacancy rate as vacancies over the labor force. I checked with the European Commission ( http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Occupied_post), the Wall Street Journal ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577335944226268750.html), and EconGuru.com ( http://glossary.econguru.com/economic-term/job+vacancy+rate. All of them agree that the job vacancy, for a given population/industry is
job vacancies / (job vacancies + filled positions)
I'm sure my correction looks ugly, as I really don't know how to use the interface. But I stand by the substance of the correction, and only hope that one of you experienced editors will have time to clean it up.
-- Pastshelfdate ( talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Pastshelfdate
Hi, this bio contains a lot of unsourced statements and could use the attention of knowledgeable editors. The unsourced article on the New Austrian School of Economics seems to be part of this, as is Sandeep Jaitly (currently at AfD). This is not my field, so any input is welcome! -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've run across a couple blog posts ( [16] and [17]) which confirm the recently empirically validated idea that decreasing the effective corporate tax rate tends to suppress hiring because it puts the cost of paying taxes on profits below the expected risk of hiring and further production using pre-tax revenue, which also involves a feedback threshold effect in the macroeconomic situation when many businesses are facing the same changes in the effective tax rate (if they all aren't hiring, the risk of investing in further production increases because consumer spending is suppressed.) As we've seen, this is accompanied by a spike in profits and bank deposits. I've come across some very oblique references to this effect in old theory papers, and in one recent labor economics sourcebook, but I'm looking for more mainstream sources on it. Does anyone have any suggestions for where this particular situation might have been studied in academic journal papers? — Cupco 04:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am a student at Rice University in Houston, TX, and I'm planning to write an article entry about wealth distribution in Southeast Asia for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. This existing page on Southeast Asia is quite extensive in its depiction of the region’s history, political systems, geography, and culture, but lacks an analysis of development – an extremely relevant subject in a region with expanding economies. The Southeast Asia page does has an “Economy” section with a little over five hundred words, but lacks within that section any information about wealth on a non-macro level or about human capabilities. The word “poverty” is not mentioned once in the entire Southeast Asia Wikipedia page. There are also various pages on income-specific inequality in the United States, a short article on international inequality, and other related topics. They do not, however, adequately address the issue of wealth distribution and corresponding measurements of human capabilities in the region being examined. A region-specific article that focuses on macroeconomic development as well as individual wealth distribution could unite these issues into a more targeted analysis of wealth in that region, and perhaps encourage future work on other regions. Therefore, I plan to write a new, comprehensive article with information regarding and various analyses of wealth distribution and poverty in Southeast Asia, with a link to this new page as a subsection under “Southeast Asia / Economy”. As previously discussed, my article will focus on wealth distribution on Southeast Asia, the various forces acting on said distribution (tax policy, globalization, market forces, socio-economic relationships, etc.), and effects of various levels of wealth throughout the region on human capabilities and overall economic development in Southeast Asian countries. I believe this is a better course of action than to simply revise and expand upon the “Economy” section of the Southeast Asia Wikipedia page, as an expansion of a topic such as this one might lead to an unreasonably lengthy addition to an already lengthy article. An extensive focus on individual capabilities through wealth distribution analysis may overshadow the section’s (and article’s for that matter) focus on macro-economic policy, history, and indices. Note, however, that I do support the overall expansion of the "Economy" section of this page as it is an extremely important aspect of this developing region. With a new article clearly linked (probably as a subsection of “Economy”), I will be able to more easily connect with and build upon scattered and often inadequate pages on poverty and human development in various countries in Southeast Asia. As a highly interconnected region through ASEAN, trade, social exchange, and many other mediums, the region as a whole warrants a more cohesive and comprehensive analysis regarding poverty and human development. By looking at wealth distribution in the region (among and within different countries) with a new Wikipedia article, we can more effectively examine these issues pertinent to the shaping of policies in those countries. I'm expecting to encounter some problems along the way, the most difficult of which is probably the scope of the region as a whole with regard to development on the individual level. I welcome constructive criticism and ideas to overcome these problems, so please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my planned contribution. Thanks,
Reillysolis ( talk) 20:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
There is interest to expand the article. Anyone interested in sharing that project? -- Pass3456 ( talk) 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The term "fractional reserve banking" relates to a period in history when the role of the banking institution shifted from that of a depository institution to a lending institution. The first modern depository institution was the Bank of Amsterdam, a good description of which is found in the book "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (1776). This bank accepted deposits of gold and coinage then in circulation and minted coinage of a standard gold content and weight, held on deposit for bank customers, who were issued what amounted to a certificate of deposit that was accepted in the commercial world as currency. As Smith describes, the bank's directors eventually committed fraud on the public by issuing bank notes not fully backed by gold owned by the bank. They operated on the observation that with the increase in circulation of the certificates of deposit, only a small percentage of depositors came to the bank to withdraw their "money" at any given time. Thus, the bank directors adopted a practice of keeping only fractional reserves of specie (i.e., hard money) in the vault.
The Bank of England was later chartered from the first as a fractional reserve bank, its depositors protected (or, insured) by the revenue raising capacity of the British Crown. From this point onward, the distinction between depository banks and fractional reserve lending institutions ended.
Present-day regulation over banking institutions (at least in most countries) imposes no requirement on all that the bank holds specie in reserve against outstanding loans. In the United States, notes issued by the Federal Reserve System (which is owned by the nation's nationally-chartered commercial banks and is not an agency of the national government) are by law legal tender currency. However, the exchange value of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) is governed not by reserves of precious metals or any basket of goods or commodities but by public confidence in the strength of the nation's economy. In essence, the FRNs could be described as "promises to pay nothing in particular," as demonstrated by the almost continuous decline in the quantity or quality of goods or services one can obtain with a fixed unit of currency.
ACTUAL BANK RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
Central banks in most countries have some degree of regulatory oversight over the investment and lending activity of financial institutions. The central bank may or may not set a reserve requirement for banks to keep a level of currency balance on deposit with the central bank as a protection against depositor runs on the banks as has periodically occurred in every country. The establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the United States in 1933 (to which banks pay an insurance premium) ostensibly protected deposits from loss of deposit balances in the event a bank becomes insolvent and is closed by regulators. EdwardJDodson ( talk) 22:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC) EdwardJDodson
Althought this article should be quite central, I just observed that its twin macroeconomics is much better written mainly because: 1.It ilustrates basics concepts of the field (in micreconomics the only basic concept explained is opportunity cost) 2.It's entirely lacking a development of the field part, which I think its important to someone trying to gain insight on the matter. -- Lbertolotti ( talk) 22:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is the subject of an
educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the
Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available
on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
by
PrimeBOT (
talk) on
16:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
money multiplier, as an introduction to the theory of fractional reserve banking. I suppose students have to learn that, and it is easy to teach, but most practitioners find it to be a pretty unsatisfactory description of how the monetary and credit system actually works. In large part, this is because it ignores the role of financial prices in the process.
The base-multiplier model of money supply determination (which lies behind the exogenously determined money stock of the LM curve) was condemned years ago as 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction ...'(Goodhart 1984. Page 188)