Talk:Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic economics topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Former featured article Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.


Contents

[edit] GA Fail

[edit] PPF and World GDP per capita figures/charts

Both these figures/charts look problematic to me.

  • The PPF slopes upwards for a short section. I think this might have damaging implications for standard analysis.
  • The chart for Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD doesn't show anything clearly except that GDP per capita has gone up and that we don't have lots of data for most of human history.

In my view both these figures would seem to be bringing our article and economics into disrepute and the article would be improved by their removal. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

  • The PPF is now fine but I still think the Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD shows little useful information and is more of a graph because "we should" have graphs rather than to help. I suspect this view might be just my own mad thoughts. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
I certainly doubt the last few words of the above. On the chart for Per Capita GDP, is the above objection that the chart is too small to see clearly? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

Occasionally I look back here, and unfortunately find that (a) the page remains a bit of a mess (b) this article has failed GA.

Reading the page from top to bottom you find a an odd structure, though anecdotally referenced in places. There is a lot of valuable information here, but the organisation is extremely poor. But I think it can be improved. I'll be happy to provide suggestions. Wikidea 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: the above has a time stamp for when the 1st version appeared, but it was significantly edited (including a commendable Edit summary) shortly after the Edit immediately below. The latter was a response to the earlier Edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Wikidea.
The above might have been improved by observing the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages guideline "Keep headings neutral." I have not come across the "various authors' snippets of anecdotes" (referred to above) in the article.
I regret that anyone would believe the article is a mess & that my Edits have been unavailing. I'm fine with anyone examining my Edits using WP:DIFF to try to assess the quality of one or more of my Edits. I believe that most would see a point of most of the Edits.
To summarize from Talk:Economics/Archive 10#Failed "good article" nomination), the reviewer said on 9/22/07 that the article was quick-failed because of the (refimprove) template at the top of the article ("This article needs additional citations for verification"). The template had been there since May 14, 2007 when there were 21 reference notes. Both before and after the "good article" nomination , I contributed a lot of reference notes through section 5 where there are currently 101 reference notes. It's hard to see how I could be faulted for what I helped remedy. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Organization includes the order and placement of topics presented. One recent discussion is above at Talk:Economics#Sect. 2 moved to follow sect. 3 (renamed to "Basic concepts") & 4. Earlier detailed discussions are in sections 35, 37, 44, & 55 at Talk:Economics/Archive 10. Each presents arguments for reodering of 2 or more sections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Is economics a science?" melded to "Economic reasoning" sect.

The Economics subsection "Is economics a science?" (previously under section 6 "Criticism") was recently

  • moved to section 3 "Economic reasoning"
  • then melded in substance or detail there but with the subsection intact
  • then deleted as a separate subsection
    • A comparison with Wiki markup of "Economic reasoning" before and with the meld is here.
    • A comparison without Wiki markup and before the meld is here.
    • A comparison without Wiki markup and with the meld is here.

Arguments for the melded section include these:

  1. A lot of the discussion in "Is economics a science?" was already covered in a more economics-specific way in "Economic reasoning," resulting in substantive redundancy in "Is economics a science?" Melding allows covering the same topic in a more concise, focused way.
  2. The melding in the current "Economic reasoning" section adds substantive content from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources bearing on the scientific status of economics. It builds on the significant strengths of the earlier subsection by adding content and addressing the question of economics as a science. The meld makes clear that criticism is an ongoing aspect of economics as a subject.
  3. The melded version either cites page-specific sources or refers to the whole cited article because the whole subject of the article is referred to in the text. Most of the discussion in the now deleted "Is economics a science?" section was either unreferenced or self-published online (contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) policy), referenced by non-page-specific sources, or unrelated to the discussion where the reference occurs.
  4. Aside from the last-mentioned problem, paragraph 4 of "Is economics a science?" reads something like a very vigorous exchange in a journal (stated in gross terms}. Whether it warrants the space in the body of an analytical survey article of "Economics" is very questionable. Unfortunately, I believe that leaving it in would invite readers to pick sides and makes it harder to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy as to the article. Still, the meld did include in the middle set of footnotes of paragraph 2 what, it happens, are references exhibiting spirited difference in views on methods. I doubt that anyone would object to the footnotes.
  5. "Econometrics" is not mentioned in the meld, since that has its own subsection later in the article. Instead, "statistical methods" etc. are discussed.

Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] strange thing

Perhaps it is the perfectionist in me, but I find the reverse references to "demand and supply" in the article to be strange and a bit jarring. could we list them as the more typical "Supply and Demand"? Mrtmat (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing, but I've almost always seen listed order as "demand and supply." Wikiant (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm an American and have always seen "supply and demand" as the norm. On the other hand, does it really make a difference? Smallbones (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Same here I live in New Jersey and I have always heard it as "Supply and Demand" too. Do other countries have different ways of saying it? I think our way makes more sense though. it has a better flow of the words and a good operational order of the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuhmz (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, for what it's worth Google Scholar has about twice as many hits for "supply and demand" economics as for "demand and supply" economics, not an enormous disparity but enough to suggest correctly that S&D is the more common usage. Nothing wrong with D&S of course. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What ought to be?

  • positive economics ("what is") and normative economics ("what ought to be")

'What ought to be' is not science. IMHO the article should reflect that economics is not only a science, but has a different meaning as well, perfectly put at [1]: the means by which society uses human and natural resources in the pursuit of human welfare. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is a science, it may be not only a science. So, there's is no necessary incompatability. That's reflected in the positive/normative distinction. The 2nd paragraph of section 4 and sect. 4.3.14 do pick up on that again. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing common problems

  • Common problems among different types of economies include: what goods to produce and in what quantities (consumption or investment, private goods or public goods, meat or potatoes, etc.), how to produce them (coal or nuclear power, how much and what kind of machinery, who farms or teaches, etc.), for whom to produce them, reflecting the distribution of income from output.

Sorely missing seem: when to produce them, where to produce them, and why to produce them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. For reference purposes, the quoted passage is at the top of sect. 2, "Basic concepts." Substantive comment: 'When' is picked it to some excent by 'what': conumption (for prsent use), investment (to enable more future consumption) 'Where' is picked up to some extent by 'what' goods are produced as to different geographic areas or for public production vs. household production and by whom. 'Why' is pikcked up by differret types of economies & political systems in different ways. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The model of supply and demand

  • The model of supply and demand predicts that for a given supply and demand curve, price and quantity will stabilize at the price that makes quantity supplied equal to quantity demanded.

Actually, it does no such thing. The model merely indicates that there is a point where demand and supply are equal, and that's it. Only if price and allocation models are added, do we get predictions of what will happen, and this can vary. The price that is formed can bounce around, converge to a non-equilibrium point, be sticky, etc. The allocation can be imperfect, as on the house market or the labour market, which in turn can influence how prices are formed, just as non-equilibruium price can influence the rate by which allocation is imperfect. And both of them can affect the supply and demand curves themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the model does standardly include quantity or price terms, and a hypothesis or argument of stable equilibrium. Whether the model yields useful, correct, or appliicable predictions is another matter. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A little citation note here. Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis and Lazear's article cite the centrality of stable equiibrium in modeling as a source of operationally meaningful theorems. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, mathematics and disequilibrium theory say different. ;) Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


On a separate note:


The subsection titled “Supply and demand” is well written, overall. However, when it enters into a discussion regarding shortages and surpluses, it explains what price changes result, but it does not justify why these happen. This may seem like common sense to those of us familiar with the topic, but readers with no background in Economics may not understand this right away. Even if it is explained further on a separate link, I think it would be a good idea to explain it on this main page, as well, to avoid potentially confusing the reader.

It would be helpful to accompany these explanations with graphs that depict a shortage or surplus and to use those graphs to further explain the price changes. My graphs would look very juvenile in comparison to the one already posted, but a professional graph would certainly help the reader understand what is being discussed. It would also be good to explain these phenomena by referring to the actual supply and demand curves.

For example, it would be good to explain that in the case of a surplus quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded (quantity corresponding to supply is farther to the right on the x-axis than is quantity corresponding to demand). In order to get rid of the surplus, producers drop prices that induce people to purchase. When price falls, people will demand more, while producers will supply less. This has the end result of shrinking the surplus. Baniera (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize with the above concern. The text and accompanying graph-with-text should be able to stand on their own if read independently, but they should reinforce each other if they are both read. Also, one previously unfamiliar with the topic should be able follow the subject as presented. I agree that something could be added on supply-&-demand adjustment to equilibrium (best done in a clear and concise fashion of course). Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (Fixed typos. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
Added point: I'll look into the possibility of vertical carroted brackets labelled 'surplus' and 'shortage' being added to the current graph to go with added discussion of supply-&-demand adjustment to disequilibrium. Meanwhile, anyone could add to Economics#Supply and demand as per the above discussion. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism of assumptions" sect. melded to "Economic reasoning" sect.

Sect. 6.1 ("Criticism of assumptions"), including subsect. 6.1.1 ("Assumptions and observations") were recently melded to sect. 3 ("Economic reasoning"). To facilitate before-and-after comparisions, here is a listing of steps that were taken for the meld: The Economics subsections "Criticism of assumptions") & "Assumptions and observations"

  • moved to section 3 "Economic reasoning"
  • then melded in substance at the top of the section but with the moved subsections intact
  • then deleted as a separate subsections;.
    • A comparison with Wiki markup of "Economic reasoning" before and with the meld is here.
    • A comparison without Wiki markup and before the meld is here.
    • A comparison without Wiki markup and with the meld is here.

Arguments for the melded section include these:

  1. A lot of the discussion on assumptions in the moved subsections can be conveniently included in "Economic reasoning," not as a prelude to criticism but as a statement of how economic reasoning makes or uses such assumptions.
  2. More econ.-specific examples of assumptions were provided for concreteness.
  3. Supportive references were provided for WP:VER
  4. The following starred subejcts from the "Assumptions and observations" subsection were omitted:
  • Well-Being = Consumption: The earlier Edit ended up granting that which was criticized. All that remained was a criticism of an overstatement for which there was no evidence on prevalence.
  • Atomism: No citation is given as to prevalence of alleged belief on independence of preferences. Argualby, taking preferences as given is arguably a mere convenience, not some deep misunderstanding warranting criticism in this survey article. Empirical work often does account preference-dependence with socio-economic variables for example. Related problems of externalities, economic bubbles, etc. are examined when they is the subject of interest.
5. Major points of the melded subsections are preserved or expanded in 40% less space and with greater specificity.

Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with "Criticisms of welfare and scarcity definitions of economics" sect.

Templates were recently added to the Economics#Criticisms of welfare and scarcity definitions of economics subsection challenging its compatibility with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the lack of cited sources and with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

If the above problems could be fixed, there would remain the Wikipedia:Cleanup problems, including those below.

The first paragraph starts with the 1st sentence (unsourced):

"The definition of economics in terms of material being is criticized as too narrowly materialistic."

If a definiton includes X in it, how can the definition be "too X"? It simply is. What follows the first sentence about the different marginal significances of $100 to the rich and the poor comes across as a point-of-view straw man, in that the standard definitions of the subject, including at the top of the article, include reference to distribution. Still later in the paragraph, the criticism about a definition of economics that is neutral about wants (liquor, cigarettes, etc.) does not require that we need be neutral about those subjects. But bringing up our possible non-neutrality is just changing the subject, like criticizing a definition of physics because it is unconcerned about a person being crushed by falling rock.

The 2nd paragraph refers to Marxist economics (commonly described as 'materialist') apparently agreeing with Marshall's definition at the end of the preceding subsection, which refers to "well-being," or anyhow not making clear how it differs from his definition. (Marshall there by the way explicitly allows for non-material sources of "well-being.") So, what is the point of the alleged Marxist criticism? The same paragrapn mentions the measurement problem of goods, but that's different from the definition of the subject. So, why take it up in this section?

The 3rd (& last) paragraph talks about approaches to economics that deemphasize scarcity. How does that constitute a criticism of a definiton? Isn't it more like changing the subject?

I propose to delete the above-mentioned section 2 weeks from today if the above-mentioned problems are not remedied. This is not to discourage anyone from attempting to improve the article elsewhere on a related subject. Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)