Talk:Veblen good

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the importance scale

very nicely written..

The above added by anon 140.247.23.94 in November 2005.

I have reverted the edit on the definition of the counter-Veblen effect. In the counter-Veblen effect, preference increases as price FALLS. This has to be true since the counter-Veblen effect has to be the opposite of the Veblen effect. And, if it isn't pulling rank unfairly, could I point out that I am one third of Lea, Tarpy & Webley (1987), who coined the term, and I do know what we said! seglea 22:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Invented?

Is it reasonable to say that Veblen "invented the concepts of conspicuous consumption and status-seeking."? It seems that such concepts have existed for about as long as economies have, so perhaps "recognized" would be a better term? - Flooey 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"the counter-Veblen effect, in which preference for a good increases as its price falls."

Yeah. That "counter-Veblen effect" is pretty much econ 101. Price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. Let's not attribute too much genius to the guy.

Read the article! The counter-Veblen effect is NOT econ101. Like all the other "interaction" effects, it's an effect over and above what you'd expect from the simple effects of price on demand. seglea 17:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veblen goods

The collective noun goods is never used in the singular. This article should be renamed to Veblen goods. RichBerry 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My econ dictionary has "economic good", so you are wrong that it is never singular, plus all our other articles use the singular. Martin 09:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
When I wrote "the collective noun goods is never used in the singular" I was quoting the Wiktionary definition found here. I have also referenced the Oxford English dictionary's definition of good which is too long and comprehensive to be quoted directly. Suffice to say that I could find no definition of "good" as an item of merchandise.
Perhaps I can garner support for my position by way of example. If I were to phone in response to a car boot sale classified advertisement in the newspaper, I would not be surprised if the organiser would wish to know what type of goods I have for sale. My response could be either in the plural or the singular.
In the plural I would use a term like "general household goods".
In the singular I would say something like "I only have one item for sale, a sewing machine".
RichBerry 11:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
RichBerry is right about everyday speech, but wrong about technical economic discourse, where it would be normal to say something like, "a solid gold Cadillac would be a Veblen good". Since this article has technical economic content, the singular title is appropriate. seglea 17:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to be argumentative for the sake of it, but why should it be accepted in technical conversation and documentation when there are better alternatives? An alternative I would prefer is "A solid gold Cadillac can be classified as Veblen goods".
I prefer the second example because it is both logical and descriptive:
  • Logical in that a solid gold cadillac remains a solid gold Cadillac, no matter how you classify it. The first example implies that the Cadillac undergoes a change.
  • Descriptive in that the process is stated. I am classifying this product, not modifying it.
Regards RichBerry 12:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns says In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). Martin 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Martin. That is exactly the position I am taking. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the word "goods", used on its own, does not fall into the same category as scissors or trousers. The problem is that there is the opinion that when goods has an adjective, as in Giffen goods or durable goods, that somehow the rule no longer applies. My position is that the word should always be used in the plural, even when used in conjunction with an adjective.
I am aware that using goods in the singular is common, however, this does not mean that it is correct. The word "your" is commonly used incorrectly too, (as in "Your going to be sorry") but that does not mean that we use it this way in our articles. In fact, I have seen instances of it being corrected where it has been used incorrectly. RichBerry 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


"I don't think that anyone is arguing that the word "goods", used on its own, does not fall into the same category as scissors or trousers.", well, actually it doesn't, that is exactly the point, the word "good" is perfectly common, the wiktionary is incorrect to say it is not (my economics dictionary defines the term "good"). The example of "Your" is an example of incorrect English, using "Veblen good" is not incorrect at all. The guideline clearly says "unless that noun is always in a plural form", the is most definately not the case. Martin 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I used the example of "your" because I would equate the way goods is used in the singular with the way your is used to mean "you're". They are both confusion between similar words with different meanings. The Wiktionary and the Oxford English dictionary state that goods is always plural, the one is explicit and the other states it by omission. Martin, would you mind posting the ISBN reference of your economics dictionary, I'd be interested in trying to find a copy in the library?
Allow me to attempt a different approach. I feel so strongly that the use of "good" to describe an item (unless referring to its condition) is incorrect English that I am moved to edit out the word used in this way in the relevant articles. Does anyone object to me doing so if I can make the changes without altering the content or meaning? I will also leave the article name and the first reference as is for now.
If anyone objects, please state the basis for your objection. If anyone feels the need for mediation then I am happy to comply.
I have already started with the Common good article because of the confusion with the philanthropical meaning. I intend to continue tomorrow, since it is nearly the end of my Irish day, but I will check this discussion before I proceed.
By the way. I am also LittleOldMe. This is not a sock puppet attempt. I have requested a name change to LittleOldMe. I am using RichBerry in this conversation for consistency. All other edits will be under my new name.RichBerry 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Penguin Dictionary of Economics, ISBN 0140513760. Please do not go changing the plurals until the matter is resolved. thanks Martin 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, a google of "Economic good" returns 259,000 results and "Economic goods" 172,000. Martin 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, RichBerry, do not go changing these articles. Singular "good" simply is not wrong in technical writing about economics; in fact, using the plural form to mean the singular, in the way we do in everyday speech, often would be wrong in the technical context.
  • OED does not say by omission that "goods" is always plural; in the online edition, meaning C8a reads "8. spec. a. (Now only as a countable noun, chiefly pl., but occas. in sing.) Saleable commodities, merchandise, wares (now chiefly applied to manufactured articles)." (emphasis added).
  • To Martin's Google search, I add one in Web of Knowledge, all the sources picked up being technical economics articles. "economic good": 45 occurrences (this is in titles or abstracts of articles). "economic goods": 32 occurrences; I checked the first five and all had clearly plural meaning and syntax.
  • If you have access to a university library, look at any technical economics article about Veblen goods - for example Bagwell & Bernheim (1996), American Economic Review 86:349-373 (Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption). This is in a "diamond list" learned journal with notoriously fussy copy-editing, which would never tolerate grammatical error. Throughout, the authors talk about "a good" when they are referring to a single example; "goods" is only used when talking about a class of objects. For example:
"The household is endowed with resources, R, which it allocates to the consumption of the conspicuous and inconspicuous goods. Let x(q) denote the quantity purchased of the conspicuous good with quality q...
and so on throughout. This is simply the first article I picked out about Veblen goods; you would have got the same result with any other.

I'm not saying Wikipedia should be a tyranny of the experts. Much of the good work that is done on the project is done by amateurs (including almost all the editing I do, incidentally - I edit on Wikipedia for fun, and I try to keep away from the topics I work on all day). But if we want to be respected, we really mustn't violate the conventions of technical discourse in the fields we are writing about. seglea 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Part of the reason I became a Wikipedian is that I learn new things. So, thanks, to all, for the replies. Up until this last reply, I remained skeptical. However, you have presented a convincing argument in favour of the status quo.
For the record, I had no intention of violating conventions, I was convinced that I was upholding them. Also for the record, I cannot imagine that I will ever be comfortable with using "good". Fortunately, the subjects I write about professionally only touch superficially on economics.
Regards RichBerry 10:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that "good" is really being used to justify someone's own personal eccentric usage. Thank god for traditional grammar books (yes, I meant "god" to be singular; no, "grammar" does not have an 'E'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.126.20 (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Counter-Veblen effect"

The "counter-Veblen effect" mentioned in this article seems to be either a protologism or a neologism. According to WP:NEO we should avoid them if there's no reliable secondary sources about them. None are cited, a Google search doesn't give any mentions of the term outside Wikipedia mirrors, and the term is not even defined. I can imagine how pleased the anti-Wikipedia lobby would become if they found out that something like this has survived here for, oh, three years? - ulayiti (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Google is not a useful tool for technical terms, there are plenty of things it will not define, yet are key concepts in economics and science in general. The fact is that a reference is cited for a book that does exist. Martin 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, google does find a mention of it, here. Martin 09:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It does seems strange to raise counter-Veblen:

* the counter-Veblen effect, in which preference for goods increases as their price falls. The first two of these, and the Veblen effect, are discussed in a classic article by Leibenstein (1950). The concept of the counter-Veblen effect is less well known, although it logically completes the family; it was introduced by Lea et al (1987).

I mean, that's just describing the normal operation of the elasticity of demand. To refer to a property that will apply to almost any normal commodity by noting that it is counter to a small group of commodities that behave strangely seems perverse in the extreme. Ordinary Person 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example

A nice example can be found in the article Cult wine:

"on several occasions we have had difficulty selling wines at $75, but as soon as we raise the price to $125 they sell out and get put on allocation"

Cape crusaders. Decanter, June, 2006, pages 90 & 92. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.185.229.58 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Theoretically Possible in Micro-Economics?

It may well be the case that Veblen Goods are only a theoretical proposition in Economics but they are well attested in sociology generally (see La Distinction / Pierre Bourdieu) so perhaps a little re-wording is in order. Rykalski 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also known as...

I remember hearing them refered to as snob goods or luxury goods before, but this may have been dumbed down in an introductory texxtbook.--AleXd (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)