Talk:Economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Godel

I really don't think Godel has much to do with economics. Did McClosky herself cite Godel? If not I really think it should be taken out as it just seems like more abuse of Godel by people who severely misunderstand his Incompletness Theorems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.57.18 (talk)

Point well taken. No one denies the importance of Gödel's theorems, but what's needed is a citation of theoretical or practical instances where Gõdel's theorem illuminates actual, not merely hypothetical, problems in economic analysis. Material not satisfying Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is subject to deletion. (Change of subject: please put new section to a Talk page at end of other sections per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#layout. That's where users are likely to look first.) --Thomasmeeks 11:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC) ("Verifiability" for "Attribution" above.)

Ok, well I'm going to delete it then. If you look at the page for Godel's theorems, it specifically discusses how people overuse it. NYU Physicist Alan Sokal also has some stuff on his webpage. McCloskey's critique has to do with the inability of econometric statistical significance testing to give insight into the real-world behavior of economic systems, it doesn't have anything to do with econometric methods being formally undecidable in the Godellian sense of the word. Hihihi2324 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall

This really is a dreadful introduction to the subject; it's confusing, jargon-laiden, and poorly laid out. Is there an earlier version we can revert to in order to start over or something? Jarretestin 12:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of having a photo of NYEx trading floor? It has nothing to do with economics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.143.169.49 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.

Possibly not the best image but…nothing? - Jmabel | Talk 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It frustrates me that most people equate Italic texteconomicsItalic text with Italic textstock marketItalic text, but that doesn't mean stock markets aren't examples of economic activity. I, too, would like to see a better picture, but what? --Danaidh 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture is just fine--it's supply and demand at work. and btw, I think that somewhere in the discussion of what economics is, perhaps: "...the dismal science." with an explanation, needs to be stated. STC

Economy

A bit strange that the word economy was censored from this page on economics, under the pretence that the meaning attributed to economy was not exactly right (which I doubt, by the way, economy is not only a system, or whatever other definition, it is also a set of human and social activities in such a system, and this is its most important aspect). It is as if an article on agronomy were not mentioning farming (which is the case by the way, but at least it says "agricultural" ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• The noun "economy" without the use of an article usually means thrift, etc. What might be the subject of economic analysis, a particular economy, is a collection of human activities and insititutional systems. It is not itself an activity. An activity is a specific pursuit in which people engage. Moreover, no reliable source defines "economics" in the way you did (that I know of), so we shouldn't make that the definition in the lead of the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will see how I can arrrange a mention in the article about the way economics can address "an" economy. --Pgreenfinch 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermoeconomics

Hi, I just started the thermoeconomics article. If anyone would like to contribute, please do so. Also if anyone has comments or suggestions or knows of related pages please leave a talk message. Lastly, if anyone has any tips as to who coined the term and when, your help would be appreciated. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment

in busniess what play a main role? consumers or managment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.165.180 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006. My comment is: unpleasant jobs are less tradeable. You can't exchange/switch them for other work as easily. For unpleasant jobs everyone does a little.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics

There is no Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics. Such broad topic as economics needs a wikiproject.--201 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just foung out that. Tahnks. The problem is that they don't seem to have a notice tag for articles like this one.--201 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's already a template from this project right at the top of the article. And the last thing we need is more crap clogging talk pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not a notice one. If so, this page would be already categorized as part of Business and Economics--201 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

ummmm... The criticism section is ridiculous!

Wikipedia is not an airing ground for the many potential, and I should mention marginal, arguments against economic theory in general. One goal of wikipedia is to maintain consistency. View other controversial sciences, such as psychology or sociology. This section reads like an agenda.

- We don't need to get rid of the entire criticism section! However, it can be summarized in a much more succinct way. We can use other fields of study as basic comparisons correct? In many, there is no criticism section at all, even though one certainly could exist (such as ecology or sociology). In others, where criticism sections are undoubtedly warranted, such as psychology, a small section is given to summarize the essential criticisms that the field has attracted.

Such a method is a good standard to follow. After all, this is an overview of the topic, NOT an analysis. The writing in this criticism section comes across as analyzing economics and bringing to light even the more specialized criticisms (mccloskey criticism). I am almost tempted to say that it crosses the line into original research / analysis.

Economics is one of the more controversial sciences. Like sociology and psychology, it has attracted its share of criticisms, perhaps more so than some sciences, and this is worth noting. However, devoting gigantic sections (they are gigantic - proportionally, the section was larger than many of the basic explanation sections) is unreasonable.

This consistency among other articles is important. If one article, say on economics, has a much larger criticism section than an article on other related sciences, then it gives the impression that economics is singled out for criticism, or that it is a particularly weak science. Perhaps these are the personal feelings of some people, but it is not a reflection of the standing of Economics in academia.

147.4.214.19 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Jmabel

I'm probably not going to plunge into this one, at least not now: I'm involved in quite enough controversial articles. But I do have some suggestions:

• "Interdisciplinary studies and cross-application" should not be the first section. We should give a lot more grounding in what economics is before we start looking at how it sometimes exceeds its usual frontiers.
• The section "Economic language and reasoning" assumes an econometric context. I'm not sure how deep this article should go into econometrics; the econometrics article is, in fact, extremely short, and should probably grow. At the very least, this section should be explicit about representing not all of economics, but simply the currently dominant school.
• There is a bit of a laundry list of minor criticisms, but utterly unmentioned here (unless it's here and I'm missing it) is a rather important current of critique from within: that the increasingly mathematical tendency of economics in the post-WWII era has caused most economists to lose sight of important issues that are harder to quantify. Among the more notable sources of this critique are the recently deceased Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith and the economist who have gathered under the banner of "post-autistic economics" (on which we have barely more than a stub). - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

return of the people who disagree with me

Yes, some more months have gone by, and some people who disagree with me who have never studied any economic theories other than neoclassical have put garbage like "Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources." as the second sentence. I am pushing this crap down to the neoclassical theory section where it belongs, once again. I advise the people who post this stuff to pick up Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, David Ricardo and whatnot. They might be shocked to learn that none of them believed this crap, I mean, theory. Regardless, it does not encompass all economics. Put it in the neoclassical section or the wiki page devoted to that theory. Ruy Lopez 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support that. The different fields of science should be primarily distinguished by their subject matter, not their method. Economics is about how human societies use their resources. It's not much more complicated than that. Whether we then choose to do that in a neoclassical manner (choice, incentives etc.) is secondary to what we are studying. Although to be fair certain leading economists have talked rubbish on this matter, notably Lionel Robbins and Stigler.--Nmcmurdo 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction won't do: "Economics is the study of how agents make choices in the face of constraints. In economics, an agent is an entity that has desires and is capable of making choices. Typically, economic agents are thought of as consumers, producers, and investors. However, economic principles can also describe the behavior of agents such as animals."

This confuses the subject of economics with the application of techniques used in economics to other scientific disciplines (whether that be jurisprudence, sociology, political science, or even biology). I reiterate that the appropriate (and mainstream) view is that the different sciences be delineated by their subject matter, not their method. That is the approach that, for example, major dictionaries take on this matter.

Further, the terms "agent" and "constraints" are too loosely defined.

I have proposed some text that tries to be more encompassing, whilst recognising the debate in the field. --Nmcmurdo 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I approve of various definitions, but the one's included range from 50 to 100 years old. The science has changed markedly in the past 30 years -- let alone the past 50. I suggest these be replaced with contemporary definitions. Wikiant 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Marx?

Is Marx mentioned in this article? He and his theory should be mentioned somewhere in this. As should Adam Smith. --Zhukov 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smith is mentioned quite a few times, Marx only indirectly (a link to Marxist economics, which is a redirect to the better title Marxian economics). I'm not sure whether or not there should be a lot more Marx here. He was certainly a notable sociologist, polemicist, and political figure, but in economics, Marx seems to stand up better as a critic than for his own positive views. The one major theoretical contribution of his that I think should clearly be added is the theory of surplus value, which goes a long way to explain capitalist accumulation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Marx was an economist. All the books that have been written in economics that look towards marx's theories weather positively or negatively would fill entirely many libraries. He was the first thinker to put economics in the chore of sociology, history and politics. Not only by bringing new concepts; foremost he was the one who entirely redefined the scope of economics and shaped a theory that articulates different social phenomena. It would be normal that a bigger part of the article be written on Marx economics theories. Furthermore, by reading the article, I have the strong feeling of a latent ethnocentrism. The definitions are given mainly from an idealistic standpoint. Here is lacking a prolific part of study which is about eco nomics anthropology. The objects (as basically as the concept of property, economic agent – what is economic agent? Is this a status? Is it an ess entialist definition?) which economics handle with, are not ex nihilo, hence the important issue of their origins, their evolution with time and civilization. As presented in this article, economics tend to be a mere paradigm, but not a science; a mere fight of interpretations. The paragraph which raises the question “is economics a science?” puts it as though science is one definition (with a battery of features), whereas science is more an attitude of thought. This article at least, fails to present economics as a science because it does not raise questions and does not put into perspective radically divergent points of view. It is a pity because I do believe that economics is an science. --82.226.125.93 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)NA

The comment that "science is more an attitude of thought" that lacks a single definition puts the entire previous commentary in question. Science is not just an attitude. I could copy and paste several sources for definitions that contradict that claim, but I'll let others do that if they really think its necessary to repeat the obvious. Marx was a social commentator. Nothing in his writings involved anything like empirical methods or mathematical models. The previous comment that Marx's surplus value theory "explains" capital accumulation is simply unfounded. When was an empirical study done that showed that Marx's calculation of surplus value in a nations economy actually correlates to his calculation of capital accumulation? The first problem you have when you try to answer this question is that you find Marx's definition of these concepts is too loose to lend itself to empirical observation and testing. Marx was certainly important in history. But he was as much an economist as he was a physicist.Hubbardaie 18:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the immediately previous statement. If someone is that far off on their understanding of the meaning of science, then certainly anything they say about science including which activity suffice as science lack credibility. It is also true that when anyone attempts to cite specific empirical or mathematical methods, they invariably mention (usually only) Marx's surplus value calculation. But that section is based on an entirely arbitrary set of distinctions about what is "surplus". I think all one needs to say about Marx is that the most quantitative part of his theory is the surplus value concept.BillGosset 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also. The disconnect here is that the nature of economics (as a discipline) has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Marx was considered an economist in his own time. But, economics in his time was art, not science. Advances in mathematical modeling, experimental economics, and econometrics have transformed economimcs into a science in the same way that similar advances transformed alchemy to the science of chemistry that we know today. Wikiant 13:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Credit as a Consequence

Classical economic theroy of economics hardly holds true when you allow credit. Consumers, who under the theory would buy according to need and income creating a demand, now buy without enough consideration to income. What is created is a false economy and an embalance of demand as a relationship to income. Consumers are constantly bombarded by the commercialization of credit creating a demand for credit and consequently a demand for goods or services. At some point the use of credit will outstrip the available income. During the recent past, home equity has salvaged the lack of income, but without inflation of house/land values, the consumer will be strapped. The banking system understands this and with the aid of our representatives, a new bankruptcy law has been passed to extend the solvency of the banking system. An expanding economy is nothing more than an expanding credit structure that can only be sustained by inflation - either in wages or property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkree (talk • contribs) 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Credit permits consumption to be timed in a different pattern to income. Widespread credit creation can be a factor in inflation. Both these topics have received a large literature in economics. --Nmcmurdo 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who told Dkree that "classical economic theory of economics hardly holds true when you allow credit"? I personally know economists who specialize in analyzing the credit system and its impact on consumption. Or is he/she assuming economics doesn't address this simply because he/she didn't know it did? Hubbardaie 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Intro says:

An economist is a person using economic concepts and data in the course of employment.

(My italics.) What's that supposed to mean? Should it read e.g. 'in the course of his/her employment'?? (I.e. professionally) Ben Finn 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it science?

Without getting into a discussion of what is science and so forth, most people would agree that a science is based on experiments and data. To what extent are the basic tenets of economics based on data ? For instance, in section 5.2 of the article, supply and demand, we see the classical "supply curve". It may sound like nonsense, but to what extent is the idea that people buy less if something is more expsensive validated by data ? Certainly people in advertising or marketing would argue that for many goods, sales go up as the price is raised (within of course, limits) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

• When consumption of a good/service rises after a price rise we call such a product as a Giffen good. I'm of the idea that economics is definately a science if such ideas have been so widely researched.. not all these economic theories are simply abstract reasonings (i'd go as far as saying most or almost all economic theories have data to back their ideas.. if they didnt, they'd be much easier throw onto the scrapheap after some peer review.. note the giffen good article has a section on empirical evidence too) - Dupz 13:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If there the wiki article on economics cannot ref broad empirical data to back up points, then it is not science, it is politics (imho, economics is about justifying the ruling class, but thats another can of worms)) To restate: no data, no science. show me the data show me the data

• "Certainly people in advertising or marketing would argue that for many goods, sales go up as the price is raise (within of course, limits)." You are confusing the word "sales" with the word "quantity." The law of demand pertains to quantity, not to sales. Of course economics is based on experiments and data -- the entire field of econometrics is concerned with verifying/refuting hypotheses via analysis of data. Experiments are harder to accomplish given moral issues of manipulating people, but not at all impossible. The fields of experimental economics and consumer behavior (in market research) involve conducting controlled experiments. Wikiant 14:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Show me the data. your argument that sales and qty are unlinked seems hyper theoretical - who cares what the qty it, if it is not relevant to sales. that is the diff between a politically driven theory (economics) and sience. more broadly, I bet there are nobel prize winners in economics who are WRONG (aka M Friedman and monetarism) - can you showm me a single science nobelist who was WRONG ?

I just updated the "criticisms" section to show two economic empirical studies that confirmed what were previously treated as axioms. Experimental economics has, of course, produced a much longer list than this but I think it refutes part of the discussion that maintains that there are no such empirical studies in economics.BillGosset 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

'Bold text'M&Ms Says: The assumptions can be tested mathematically using price elasticities. I do think they may have started out as educated guesses but these assumptions can be tested to determine what type of good a good is. For exampe s it a normal good, an inferior good or a luxury good etc......MR=MC

If economics is a science, then why do economists still believe in rational expectations even after it has been shown that real-world people don't have them (they rely on adaptive expectations instead), and they're impossible to boot (because full knowledge of the present state of the market would be required)?

Rational expectations is a simplifying assumption. In the same way that a physicist will assume a frictionless surface to simplify analysis, an economist will assume rational expectations for the same reason. Except in extreme cases, the assumption doesn't nullify results -- it merely trades off accuracy for cost of analysis. Wikiant 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps econometrics can be called a science, as it tries to apply scientific principles to economic theories; but will refutation of mainstream economic theories lead to mainstream economists discarding those theories, or will the two fields simply diverge, like astronomy and astrology?208.102.177.239 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This conversation reminds me of another one where I was trying to convince a creationist that evolutionary biology was a science. Their lack of understanding was, of course, a major obstacle in the conversation. Economics, as the article makes clear, has both an empirical side as well as a normative/optimal side. The later includes optimal methods for allocating limited resources and they are a matter of mathematical proof. On the empirical side, all of economics is a subset of any science of human behavior and it has just as much empirical data as any field of human behavior (more, I would argue). Whatever issues one takes with whether one can gather data on human behaviior must also be a limitation of any science of human behavior and if economics is not a science, then neither can sociology, behavioral psychology, or any other such discipline. Furthermore, if the person were to research the actual claims of "rational expectations" theory you will see they are talking about "bounded rational expectations" and how it actually correlates to observed reality. That's the danger of reading only the title of a theory and thinking one understands it. Finally, there was an implication that someone who won a Nobel in economics was later proven wrong. I believe they might be refering to the company Long Term Capital where Merton, who won the Nobel for Options Theory, lost a lot of money. Actually, the loss of money was entirely consistent with his theory when the inputs are interpreted literally. And, as all true scientists know, a single data point is not sufficient to reject or confirm a trend. Ironically, if economics weren't a science, then the idea that some claim in economics could be "disproven" would be irrational. How would a claim be "proven" or "disproven" if it was not at least falsifiable (ala Karl Popper)? And if claim X in some field is disproven, then there is another claim ~X that is proven. Again, only possible if you are talking about claims that can be examined empirically.Hubbardaie 18:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Economics is a broad term given to the social science of how choices are made in face of limited resources."

I reworded the first line to read:

Economics is a broad term given to the social science of how choices are made in face of limited resources.[1]

I feel this is clearer than the previous version - discussed here:

Economics is the study of how human society uses resources. [2]

This is because economics is more than merely about humans "using resources" -- it is about how CHOICES are made about using LIMITED resources - leaving "choice" and "limited" out of the discussion significantly weakens the discussion. Furthermore, the focus on "human SOCIETY" is wrong -- economics apply to individuals as well as (potentially) non-humans too. I also reorganised the first paragraph to look more like a paragraph than a series of sentences. I understand whether economics is as "social science" is perhaps more controversial. --mintchocicecream 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the above text is acceptable. There is a genuine, unresolved debate about the appropriate definition and Wikipedia should recognise that.

A few personal views. Most economics analyses 'choices' in one form or another. I agree with that. But the foundation of economic theory on individual choice is a neoclassical development - it describes a school with economics, not economics per se. It is debatable therefore whether choice is so central to economics that it deserves a mention in the first line. Large swathes of macroeconomics, Marxian and neo-Ricardian economics for example, whilst including elements that analyse choice behaviour in a general sense, are not pre-occupied with the notion of choice.

I'm with Samuelson - economics is about human society or it is not economics. Techniques from economics can be applied in other fields, such as biology. But the definition of almost every other science recognises the basic principle that the boundary of the science is described by its subject matter, not its technique or method. If I try to bake a cake with a spade, I'm engaged in cookery, not gardening.

The basic problem with defining economics with regard to non-empirical phenomena (such as 'agents' or 'constraints') is that in doing so we are in danger of losing the necessary connection with 'science' - in the sense of aiming to describe, explaining and categorising an empirical world. Mark Blaug has written extensively on this issue. --Nmcmurdo 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nmcmurdo, thank you for your reply. I agree with you that Wikipedia should reflect that there is an unresolved debate regarding the definition of economics. Of note, many dictionary definitions found on the web are rather weak too. (edit- I think the three definitions present do represent a good mix though.)

Re - 'choice' in Economics: I think this is also closely linked to the "limited/scarce resource" bit - i.e. making choice amongst alternatives. I am concerned taking out the idea of 'choice' completely weakens the definition. Perhaps could another word be used instead? I.e. Is there a word that better encompass the way 'choice' behaviour is analysed in Marxian/neo-Ricardian economics?

I agree with the need to set a boundary for the subject matter - perhaps reword to: Economics is a broad term given to the social science of how human society choose(?) between limited resources.? My concern, though, is that this seems to suggest "societies" as a whole making choices rather than individual actors when in fact it could be both (or neither). --mintchocicecream 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the first paragraph to the one that existed through most of 2006. The last word has alternated between commodities and resources, I prefer commodities so I made it that word, but anyone who wants to change it to products or resources will hear no argument from me.

What you are putting is not the definition of economics. It is a definition of the marginalist school of economics, or if you like, the neoclassical school. Under your definition of economics, Adam Smith and all of the early economists did not study economics, since the focus of Smith's studies were not "choices [that] are made in face of limited resources".

All of this is perfectly fine to put under the section on this page dealing with this type of economics, or on the separate web pages on marginal and neoclassical economics, what is not OK is to say that all of Economics is only the type of economics you believe in.

The fourth paragraph used to mention that neoclassical economics is the current mainstream theory in US business schools, but that there were other historical and non-mainstream fields as well. That was fine in my view, someone took it out, for whatever reason.

The opening of this page has come about via a long period of debate over consensus, it is not a wise idea to waltz in and rewrite everything, especially in such a narrow way. Ruy Lopez 02:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also find the current opening line acceptable(largely by being broad), except for the word "commodities". But it would be better if it reflected the debate within the subject over this issue (at least by refering to a later section). I thought the quotes from leading economists gave colour to the article.

I have said earlier that I don't think "commodities" works well. You need only read the commodity article to see why. The common 'business' defintion of this word would rule much of the modern service sector as beyond the remit of economics! And even the broader 'Marxian' term would exclude analysis of things like subsistence farming or household allocation of resources - both important areas for certain sub-fields of economics. --Nmcmurdo 19:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right about the ambiguity of 'commodities' in commodities, but in Good (economics and accounting) there are clearer distinctions as to common usages in econ. An added Reference is there in response to your comment. -- Thomasmeeks 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My main goal here is to keep all of economics from being subsumed under neoclassical/marginal economics, by those who probably don't know any better. I draw a clear line with that, everything else, like this, I am very open to other ideas, consensus etc. As I said before, anyone who wants to change it to products or resources or whatnot should feel free. I would even change it myself if I understood everything.

As far as what I don't understand regarding resources - when I got to Resources I see Resource (economics) which redirects to Factors of production. To me this translates to things associated with production only.

On the other hand, I agree that a commodity does not apply to certain subsistence farming - which a lot of the world is still doing for a living! An economic study of feudal Europe, the corvée etc. would not encounter the commodity as much either. Insofar as the broad definition you are looking for, even commodity is too narrow. I just changed commodities to products on the main page, not sure if that solves the problem, we can continue to brainstorm.

Regarding reflecting the debate in the opening - as I said before it used to be there, not sure where it went. I can put back the old one that someone put in, it seemed to work well.

Insofar as the quotes - they are all from neo-classical sources! I used to have a good little book where Smith, Ricardo, Malthus etc. give a brief synopsis of what they are studying. Don't have it at hand unfortunately. My bête noire is making it all about neo-classicism/marginalism, and that's it. I will look up some good quotes, so the neo-classicals can sit aside quotes from Smith etc. Ruy Lopez 00:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed commodities to products, added Adam Smith's definition of political economy, and reintroduced the old paragraph on neoclassical and other economic systems. Ruy Lopez 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics as social science (in this & some other articles)?

Of course. That is an element in the standard dictionary definition of 'economics', accurately reflected in the lead sentence of this article. Yet, more than one of the above sections and many of the Edit summaries of the article (listed under the history tab for the article) reveal frustration at Edits that do not treat economics as a social science. Anything currently in the article that does not so treat the subject is open to revision or deletion as being in violation of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is not a call for indiscriminate revision. Nor is it incitement for Wikipedia:Edit wars, which would be against Wikipedia guidelines. But there is plenty of room for careful editing and pruning based on the above standards. And one Wiki guideline is to be bold in updating pages, always (one hopes) observing the principle of charity, if nothing else as a matter of expedience in recognizing a possible kernel of truth worth preserving, even if not originally well stated.

So far Economics has come. But it can still be improved. The example of math articles (like derivative, partial derivative, Maxima and minima), is instructive. There mathematicians regularly revert Edits that don't come up to standard (often with a helpful Edit summary or reference to the Talk page but often not too, presumably reflecting the value of the reverter's time). Yes, Economics is a general article. But that does not exempt it from the hope that it may reach the highest standards that the subject can exemplify (within the requirements of a general article and the limits of professional consensus). Possibly useful editing internal guidelines would be: What would economists agree on (indicating subsets therein where necessary -- e.g., outside mainstream economics etc.)? What would they reject? The latter might on occasion be worth mentioning to contrast folk wisdom and ecomomics ("What? No free lunch?"). Otherwise, probably not. Thomasmeeks 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You use the math articles as a model, however, as your title says, economics is a social science, not a hard science. It is not that difficult to get agreement on Pythagorean theorem or classical mechanics, it is another story with these types of articles. I agree that people can't just put junk here, on the other hand I don't like the idea of their being experts in a science, a social science, as fuzzy as economics. To me, an economist is about one notch below a literary theorist in terms of being a scientist. Ruy Lopez 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot in what you say. I do buy into the notion that no statement gets a free pass merely b/c of who said it, rather than than on its merits. The merits turn on publicly accessible qualities like coherence, simplicity, fruitfulness, taxomomic usefulness, theoretical and empirical explanatory power, etc. -- alluded to in the great works in economic methodology and well exemplified in scholarly journals in economics and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987, 4 fat vol. with an excellent Index and Subject Index at the end). That doesn't mean that the final word is ever in. So, does that make me a critical rationalist? I'd like to think so. My only quibble is with your last sentence. (How do you think literary theorists would feel about being classified as just a notch above economists?) Thx for comment. -- Thomasmeeks 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC) (Fixed omitted 'last' in next to final sentence.) Thomasmeeks 17:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) New Palgrave article-(prompted by this exchange)-link inserted. Thomasmeeks 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A science is a body of knowledge constructed via the scientific method. Economics poses hypotheses. Economics tests the hypotheses. Economics revises the hypotheses in light of data when rejected. How is this not a science? I'm also not sure what you mean by "fuzzy." Do you mean that there exist competing theories in economics? Yes, there are. So are there in physics. As in physics, the theories in economics compete only up to the point that data refute one or the other. Do you mean that economics studies humans and humans are unpredictable? Yes, it does, and no they aren't (at least not in the aggregate). Similarly, fluid dynamics is a science despite the fact that water molecules are only predictable in the aggregate. Wikiant 18:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Were it that that were the case, Wikiant! Economics isn't exactly littered with bad hypothesis and theories that have been rightly abandoned in the light of evidence. Usually they continue to limp on for decades, in spite of the evidence. Rational expectations is a pretty good example! --Nmcmurdo 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some things die hard, but they do die. Examples: Keynesianism, Marxism, Protectionism. I wonder how much of the persistence is due to the fact that the media and the public like to hold opinions despite a lack of knowledge. You don't find the man on the street arguing that relativity can't possibly be correct because he's never observed it. Wikiant 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics is a branch of knowledge, period. To define it as 80%, 60 %, 40 % or 20 % science is of no interest whatsoever, like this debate. --Pgreenfinch 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the debate I'm seeing here, so I thought I might raise two objections. Firstly, with regards to the status of economics as a science. You're right to say that whether or not economics really qualifies as a science is a matter of debate. But on wikipedia, we're not engaging in original research on the topic, we're merely reporting the criticisms made from outside wikipedia. Secondly, I noticed the treatment of Keynesianism as "non-mainstream" economics. During my economic studies (admitted at the bachelor level) and my professional dealings with economists, the basic ideas of Keynesian economics are very much alive today in *mainstream economic theory and practice*. I certainly don't see Marxism taught in many economic degrees (except as part of an economic history course), but I do see (for example) the five sector model being taught. I suppose also, lets exclude our personal views on whether it's accurate or not, but include what it is that "the mainstream" teaches and practices.

Jason 06:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this page might be confusing at points (given different views, sometimes expressed at cross-purposes), but, if the article is also confusing on these points, you might consider fixing the offending passages. Sect. 4.1 does say that mainstream economics also acknowledges insights from Keynesian economics (maybe the wording needs strengthening). Marxian econ. is classified as heterodox economics in sect. 4.2 of the article. Could it be that there is some selection bias as to topics discussed on this page? Naah! Well, this page is likely to attract comment of those who feel most deeply about the treatment of a particular subject in the article. And this is the right forum for attempting to bridge disagreement, It is, as you have suggested, appropriate to raise questions about the balance of the article. This is codified in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, including the sections on bias and undue weight. --Thomasmeeks 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The five sector model isn't "Keynesian economics." Keynesian economics is characterized by assumptions as to how the macroeconomy operates (e.g., that wages are quick to rise but very slow to fall resulting in the economy not attaining general equilibrium except in the very long run). The five sector model is accounting. Certainly Keynes contributed to modern economic thinking, but Keynesian economics has been largely discredited. Wikiant 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pushing the envelope & the principle of charity

Pushing the envelope is going too far. But Edits should go as far as well-defined use of language and concepts in the public domain can go, with appropriate references where necessary. That means not watering down to placate but tightening up for clarity, readability, and informative content with a collective purpose of improving the article. To that end, the principle of charity, referred to above, may be a useful device for constraining Edits (where there is any truth worth salvaging, of course). In some cases at least, its use may make it easier to see the possible reason for an earlier Edit, the better to improve on one's own Edit. -- Thomasmeeks 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Proofreading fix. Thomasmeeks 20:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit lede

The current Edit of the article is a response to an Edit last week. It is intended to be constructive, as indicated by changes from earlier Edits.

2nd sentence

The 2nd sentence expands briefly on terms in the definition of economics (including core concepts) from the preceding sentence used later in the article (which every economic system is confronted by):

Dimensions of production include measurement, including “how much” (such as of GDP components), “how efficiently,” and “for whom” (that is, 'distribution').

“Measurement” follows referring to economics as a social science, mentioned in the first sentence of the article.

2nd sentence deleted

The 2nd sentence in the article, slightly edited from above, was deleted:

Dimensions of production include measurement, such as “how much,” “how efficiently,” and “for whom” (that is, 'distribution').

with this explanation in Edit summary:

The second sentence was confusing, out of place, and interrupted the flow. Production is only one part of (production, consumption, distribution), let's be general up front and specific later.

That Edit summary does not explain what is confusing about the sentence immediately following terms that are themselves unexplained & that invite elaboration, nor what is overly specific about the 2-word explications of 'measurement' (variations of which are well-attested in principles texts as to terms in the definition of 'economics' to avert confusion), nor the links that elaborate. On 2nd sentence of above Edit summary, production is necessary for consumption and distribution, & in that sense prior to them. Comments welcome from that writer or anyone else. --Thomasmeeks 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC) New next to last sentence inserted. --Thomasmeeks 01:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article (in older versions last month) started out very nicely defining economics as, the science of production, consumption and distribution, then went on to define the origin of the word. Someone had added in that second sentence which immediately started talking about production specifically, and measurement specifically. Sure, production and measurement of it are important to economics, just like measuring distance is important to physics, but I don't think that should be in the second sentence. I really liked the way the article (without this sentence) gave a nice careful overview of economics and what it is. The sentence just seemed completely and entirely out of place. What was the point of the sentence, and what is the meaning of the word "Dimensions" in this context? If the sentence read

A focus in economics is measuring and understanding the quantity of goods and services production, the efficiency and trade-offs in this production, and the distribution and allocation of goods and services to the benefit of society.

Then it would be less jargon-laden, more understandable to the layman, clearer overall, and it would point out that although this is a focus of economics, it is not the entire science. Even rewritten like this, I still don't think it should be the second sentence in the article.

Jabraham 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the above comment as to the sentence at the top of this section deleted from the article, first, some preliminaries. Surely "dimensions" is not obscure in that sentence, given 3 examples referred to there. And surely "jargon-laden" does not refer to "measurement," "production," or “how much, ”etc. Those terms make up most of the sentence. So, what remains? The comment suggests that the sentence implies that most of the subject comes down studying the "measurement of production" (including some dimensions of it). That is a quite unwarranted inference from the sentence but one that I agree future Edits could take care to avoid suggesting. --Thomasmeeks 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

2nd para., 2nd sentence

There Smith defines the subject in practical terms:

Political economy, considered as a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to supply a plentiful revenue or product for the people, or, more properly, to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign.

What is striking about that quotation is not its historical value but its present value. It reflects a continuity through today as to practical use of the subject in a wide range of economic settings, whatever the differences in means and objectives therein. Even if many would skip over the quotation, the article I believe would be strengthened by giving readers the choice of reading it or skipping it, which is easy enough to do. If there is a consensus for removing the quote, I hope that it would be evident by the end of a calendar week. If there is a dispute, this is an appropriate place to resolve it, removing it from the discretion of any one person. In the alternatives below, reasons are welcome, esp. ones that address the points above. Alternatives include:

Keeping quotation in lede:

Deleting:

Moving it to a footnote:

Moving it to another section:

Edited last para. swapped with previous para.

The 3rd para.: substitutes “modern” for “mainstream.” “Mainstream economics” is unnecessary (and arguably question-begging) here and is instead discussed in the paragraph on heterodox economics, which follows the para. on other divisions of economics and includes a cited example of a heterodox perspective:

Another division is between mainstream economics, used to distinguish economics in general from heterodox approaches and schools, for example, Austrian economics, Marxian economics and institutional economics, which proceed from their own perspectives. Thus, in Marx’s labour theory of value, in a capitalist system value is considered as a measure of labor exploitation* rather than of price.

*J.E. Roemer (1987), "Marxian value analysis," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, p. 383. (Typo fix.) Thomasmeeks 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Structure

I'm puzzled by the contents of section 5 (Economic assumptions) of the economics article. As far as I can tell, save 5.4 Scarcity, all of the sub-headings in that section describe economic concepts or models and not assumptions. I'm not convinced that the inclusion of an assumptions section in a main article page is particulary useful, given that each school of thought (and indeed many sub-fields within a school) make different assumptions.

I think an "assumptions" section should be reserved for school or discipline specific pages. On the main page there could be links to detailed pages and a brief summary of the article lead on the main page. Indeed that seems to be the spirit of the text as it currently stands. Price and Value seem to me to best classified as "core concepts". Supply and Demand are examples of models, and scarcity I suppose could be classified as an assumption.

If others feel that this is a problem (or at least an inelegant exposition), the fix would require some consensus and concerted effort to create an alternative structure. I.e. linked pages would need to be examined and maintained in a way that is consistent with the main page, structural changes made to this article, etc. Being new I'm not sure of the process involved in addressing this concern. Suggestions and comments are welcome. Joel Kincaid 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Anyone commenting only on above may might prefer not to indent.) And that brings up a another consideration evident from studying the subsection headings: (1) Value, (2) Supply and demand, (3) Price, (4) Scarcity, (5) Marginalism. Clearly "cost" is in (1) and probably should be in that section heading (with a rewrite in the subsection to indicate their integral relation). Price is also there. (2) is an example of a Model (economics). If (2) stays, possibly it should be should be with a retitled "Economic models," with a segue Edit. (3) is a clear example of model-specific assumptions. Some of it might be moved to (1), which already discusses Price. The rest of (3), well, see above. (4) is covered neatly in the lede. If it stays, it might be clarified and slimmed down to the more pointed examples. It is certainly a core concept, but whether its worth keeping is another matter. (5) ia totally derivative from the preceding. It might be worked in there to illustrate for example the use of a model. I hope that there is an effective consensus that can improve the section and the article. It is hard to generalize without knowing what the final product would look like. That's the advantage of not ruling out continuing piecemeal or bold (though not reckless) revisions. If mistakes are made they can always by reverted or fixed. --Thomasmeeks 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Call to Delete "Effect on Society Section"

I'm trying to do the right thing here. This section is a bit of a jumble. There are no cites -- it seems that the whole section has been set up to house a group of people that would rather muse or speculate about *something*. It really needs to go....I'll leave this comment here for a few and then delete if there is no discussion. There is no way this article will make FA status with stuff like that thrown in to spice things up. Joel Kincaid 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Positive/Normative/the Art of Economics

I think this article puts too much focus on when economics is positive and when it is normative, and not enough (well, none) on the 'art of economics'. The positive/normative division is attributed to John Neville Keynes in 'The Scope and Method of Political Economy', but he actually uses a three-part distinction, between positive, normative, and the art of economics. Neither positive (the study of what is - pure science) nor normative economics (what should be) are applied economics. Applied economics is the art of economics, relating the lessons learned in positive economics to the normative goals determined in normative economics. In the same way that positive and normative use different methodologies, so too does the art of economics. This makes pigeonholing the entire subject as either positive or normative counter-constructive. With this in mind, I think that the intro needs an extra sentence, or a re-wording, also probably the 'areas of study' section, butmost of all the 'effect on society' section (which I am in favour of deleting, in response to Joel). The sentence that particularly grates:

• • Why call Applied Economics an "art"? My managerial and applied economics course was mostly math.BillGosset 12:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Political economy explicitly brings political considerations into economic analysis and is therefore openly normative, although this can be said of many economic recommendations as well, despite claims to being positive." Any thoughts? Wilston 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 2. Let allow me first acknowledge the seriousness of the above. I'd like to suggest that:

1. The topic be presented as an article or relevant section elsewhere in Wiki, complete with references.
2. (1) be completed (preferably beyond econ-stub adequacy) before consideration into a general article such as the present one.

These would be worthwhile independently of referencing the subject in the Economics article. The suggestions may have a special urgency if many of the preceding sections are an indication. These are consistent with a desire to achieve a Featured-Article grade status again (see templates at top), or move closer to it.

For anyone seriously interested in pursuing the subject, some straightforward (but terminologically less obvious) initial leads are Social choice theory (last paragraphs), Social welfare function (last section esp.), and the section on applied welfare economics in "welfare economics," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987), v. 4, p. 892. Thomasmeeks 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Economic languages and reasoning

I think that here could be a place to differ between several approaches, schools and styles of economic languages and reasoning. The current article only mentions econometric thinking and perhaps enters too deep in this special area. I'm not ready yet in rethinking the subject, but it might be like that (proposal):

Economic reasoning happens - as in other sciences as well - by the use of quantitative analysis, by the use of qualitative research and of course by philosophical reflection.

Quantitative research

The collection of economic data and the formulation of economic models are part of an econometric approach to economy. The Austrian School and the Chikago School were focused on these aspects with a strong impact on mathematics. Economists as Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman and Irving Fisher are recommended for econometric research. Quantitative methods are used in many fields of economics: in entrepreneurship, macroeconomics,political economy, game theory and financial theory and many others.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is published in often popular books and essays. In Universities as Columbia, Berkeley and Yale, The London School of Economics, in Munich and in Zurich the focus is more on qualitative research. Richard Layard (London) researches in luck and happiness, Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia) investigates the consequences of globalization. Game theorists as Ernst Fehr (Zurich) and Klaus Schmidt (Munich) are desproving the self interest hypothesis.

Philosophical Research

The question What is economy? is the issue of a philosophical approach to economy. Economists like Peter Barnes (Capitalism 3.0), Alexander Dill (Towards a Global Freeware Index) and Peter Sloterdijk (Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals) define economy in completely new categories as the commons, public goods, wellness and freeware.

I would be glad to hear your opinion to this approach.--Jörg Sutter 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A Class?

With all the edit templates, "citation needed" notes, and esoteric language towards the end, I don't believe this article deserves an "A Class" rating.DMCer 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

opening

There seems to be a constant push to put neoclassical economics in the opening and make it seem like this covers all economic theory. I don't know if this is due to ignorance or design or both. At least this time it's in the fifth paragraph in stead of the first.

Calling neoclassical economics modern economics is hopelessly POV. People who agree with the theory are "modern", what are people who don't, antiquated? This was called mainstream economics, and it was changed to modern economics. Since the person who changed it complained they did not like the phrase mainstream economics, I am changing it to neoclassical economics. It is fine if you don't like the phrase mainstream economics, whoever called it that in the first place, but dividing economic theories into modern and implictly antiquated for the rest is POV.

Then there are the three sentences following that which detail neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economics is one theory, your favorite, among other theories, and putting it at this point means to me that the paragraph describing the difference between these theories must proceed it ("Another division is between mainstream economics, used to distinguish economics in general, and heterodox approaches...") so people understand they are reading one approach to economics, not *all* approaches.

Someone wanted to put this neoclassical stuff in the opening and use 75 words for it. I think it is better to not go into it in the opening, but whatever. But if it is put up there, the alternative, original theory of value deserves more space up top as well.

Then we have the modification of "that economics primarily deals with the exchange of value, and that labour (human effort) is the source of all value." to the ridiculous "Thus, in Marx’s labour theory of value, value is considered as a measure of labor exploitation, rather than of price." This makes no sense on many levels - does this mean Marx thought an object produced without labor exploitation would have no value? The idea that labor is the source of all value was not an innovation by Marx - Adam Smith, David Ricardo and all the early economists agreed on this and Marx simply accepted it. Ruy Lopez 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, neoclassical economics should not be equated with "modern economics" or "mainstream economics." One advantage of "modern economics," as distinct from neoclassical (or mainstream) economics vs. selected schools of economic thought is that it avoids pigeonholing the subject into neoclassical (or mainstream) vs. heterodox, classical, etc. Such pigeonholing is unnecessary and arguably violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. "Modern" suggests the subject as practiced today, which includes all of the above and everything else in economics as practiced today.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 above apparently refer to para. 3 (on the Robbins definition) in the article before it was edited, added to, and moved to paragraph 4, minutes after this section was created. The article Edit summary did say "see discussion" (that is, this section of the Talk Page).

A reader of the above 5th and final para. who had not been closely following recent article Edits might guess that the only change in the article at that point was the substitution of one quoted phrase for another quoted phrase. But that is not the case. The previous article paragraph in question was edited well beyond those quotes, citing an entry from a standard source relative to a specific school of thought. "The" labor theory of value was of course not original to Marx, but he did bring a specific perspective to it, referenced in the cite.

A final comment, which might avert misunderstanding. I do think that vigorous discussion, such as on this page is a good way to work out differences and learn from them, constrained of course by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and leavened by the principle of charity for good, practical reasons. --Thomasmeeks 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You said modern economics encompasses heterodox views, however in the opening modern economics is linked directly in the same sentence to the idea that value is derived from marginal utility (as opposed to labor). That sentence, linking the word modern to that value theory, is what seems POV, not the phrase modern economics if "modern economics" also includes those theories that embrace the LTV (labor theory of value). But the sentence that was in the article doesn't.

You are correct that there was a citation, one reason I did not mention it is I had no access to what was cited so there was no reason to mention it, as what was said was illogical, cite or no cite. With regards to what is being discussed - we can discuss what is POV and not POV, what belongs where and so forth, and compromise and whatnot, but this sentence was so illogical and so out of wack it seems to demand change. I looked up the cite and now understand the problem. Let us compare what was said in the old opening to the opening of what J.E. Roemer said in the cite.

Old opening - Thus, in Marx’s labour theory of value, value is considered as a measure of labor exploitation,[1] rather than of price.

The first sentence of the work cited - For Marx, the labour theory of value was not a theory of price, but a method for measuring the exploitation of labour.

Roemer says that for Marx the labor theory of value is a method for measuring the exploitation of labour, and is not a theory of price. Which may be correct or incorrect, which may be phrased well or phrased confusingly, but at least it makes sense as an argument. Roemer does not say value is considered a measure of labor exploitation. There is a big difference between "labor theory of value...method" and value itself. Whether or not one agrees with Roemer, or thinks his sentence is well-written or not, he is not saying what he is cited in the article as saying. Ruy Lopez 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the reply above:

Para. 1: The only mention of marginal utility in the current Edit lead is para. 4, 3rd sentence from bottom. There the term used is not "modern" but "neoclassical."

The rest: Reproducing the quotations in question above is commendable in allowing all to judge the significance of the difference for themselves. --Thomasmeeks 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The current Economics version with the Edit summary "Edit of lead: see Talk:Economics#Lead" under the history tab is an attempt reconcile the discussion in the section immediately above this one. The previous article Edit from Feb. 21 edited, rearranged, and introduced new material. I am sympathetic to motivation for those changes. But I believe that they can be accomplished in another way without raising contentious issues that can be dealt with in other sections. On that objective, it will be noticed, we are agreed.

I believe that the lead for this article should have an analytical cast. The WP:LEAD should also motivate the reader to read beyond the lead of the article. If there is going to be a reference to the history of the subject it should then be included only insofar as it sheds some light on the subject today in an interesting way. I hope that others might be sympathetic to that approach as part of this collective effort to improve the article.

The current Robbins paragraph has no mention of neoclassical economics. It's unnecessary there. And Robbins's analytical points go well beyond the confines of neoclassical economics. No one seriously believes that neoclassical economics has a copyright on the notions of econonmic scarcity and the necessity for choice.

Remaining in the current article is only minimal mention of neoclassical economics. IMHO, even that could go. It may be a source of confusion in the lead. Or it may be perceived as an attempt to use persuasive terminology, which is what I think is what my fellow colloquist in the previous section was getting at. That's an argument for taking it out, with which I would not disagree. --Thomasmeeks 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Typo fixed. --Thomasmeeks 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead: shortened restore with sect. 1

The current Economics version with the Edit summary

See Talk:Economics#Lead: shortened restore with sect. 1:

1. restores para. 2 & an abbreviated para. 3 to the lead from a 3/17/07 Edit
2. edits the last sentence of the lead with a broader link for social institutions
3. retitles section 1 to: In the beginning . . .

(1) is intended to better satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines & suggestions as to providing an accessible overview for the article as a whole. It is also within length guidelines for the lead, despite the article itself being very long with many sections.

(3) Is not just about a historical definition. It is a thumbnail history of its modern "origin" (with motivation thrown in from an influential source -- Adam Smith himself). The title is intended to be descriptive (and not overly heavy). The slight Edit at the end of the section may (correctly) suggest current uses of 'political economy'. --Thomasmeeks 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Modern mainstream economics

The modern mainstream economics section repeats itself a lot.

It opens with "Mainstream economics begins with the premise that resources are scarce and that it is necessary to choose between competing alternatives." this is a reiteration of something found in the opening of the article - "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Someone must really like repeating that though because later on in this section we see

"Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources."

Then later in this section we see

"neoclassical economics, which began to develop in the late 1800s and models choices made in the allocation of scarce resources."

Then later in this section

"It is sometimes referred to as the study of choice under conditions of scarcity."

Then later in this section

"Economics is a broad term given to the social science of how choices are made in face of limited resources."

Then later in this section a word for word repetition of what was said in the opening -

"the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses"

Reading all of this I conclude that mainstream economics studies the relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses. But I do not need to be told this six times (seven, if you count the opening). This section also repeats itself in other ways. I am removing redundancy from it. Ruy Lopez 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• An improvement --Nmcmurdo 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No-references tag?

Why is there a no-references tag on this article? There's a long list of references under "Notes", and I've just added some more (to clarify the introduction and first section). Is it OK if I remove the no-refs tag? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible perception of Edits as post-modernist ironic deconstruction

Concerning the recent 2nd paragraph add to the lead (since deleted) of Economics by the user listed immediately above (User:Walton monarchist89):

Many different definitions have been applied to economics: one source describes it as "the study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources." [3] Professor Victor Lima of the University of Chicago, on the other hand, used the more concise statement "economics is what economists do." [4].

The Edit summary for deletion of this paragraph was: "Definitions not well attested, esp. ones that may be challenged as question begging, do not belong in Lead section." There is the further problem that such an Edit might be perceived as frivolous or an effort at post-modernist ironic deconstruction. In other contexts, such efforts might be entertaining, but in an open-source encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, intentional efforts along those lines might be seen as a subtle kind of vandalism. I attribute no such intent to the above user, but perceptions matter. --Thomasmeeks 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mesoeconomics

Is it really important enough to be included? It just seems like one guy's particular idea that nobody else has paid any attention to. It hasn't caught on. I haven't heard of it before, any other economist I know hasn't heard of it. It just like someone's pet theory/idea which in the end just clutters up the article. I'm not removing it. Yet. Will soon unless a compelling argument is given on the other side.radek 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It was already in the article; I expanded it and sourced it, as it had a "citation needed" tag. I'm not an economist and don't know whether it's notable, but I felt that if it was going to be in the article, then it needed to be sourced and clearly explained. Ideally don't remove it, but if you don't think it's important then reduce that section to a single sentence, or whatever. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to User talk:Walton_monarchist89 (immediately above) for seeing the need to buttress the inclusion of Economics#Mesoeconomics. Problems in the current Edit include suggesting in the first sentence that 'microeconomics' refers only to analysis of a firm, individual, or other recognizable agent. By that suggested usage, partial equlibrium via supply and demand analysis for an industry is mesoeconomics but not microeconomics. Then of course mesoeconomics is important. It's what most others would classify within 'microeconomics'. --Thomasmeeks 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The following recent article history may be helpful to indicate further that the paragraph on mesonomics is an ongoing subject of contention as to inclusion in the present article:

08:52, 6 March 2007 Stirling Newberry (restoring text, agree that headers are inappropriate, but the material both notes scale and reasons)

06:46, 6 March 2007 Cyde (→Areas of study in economics - Undue weight - these two terms basically aren't discussed at all in the field, and certainly don't deserve the leading two sections. Someone is advancing a pet theory)

I believe that this section is an appropriate place to allow the discussion to continue. IMHO appropriate standards for trying to determine whether the paragraph should be shortened, lengthened, or deleted are suggested above: value added and impact within the discipline of economics & validity of the current (or improved) Edit. If it got to a Wikipedia:Edit war, my suspicion is that that paragraph would be deleted. Even so, that's a war that the article could do without. There are other sections on this page where big seeming differences were greatly narrowed. One hopes that such could be the case here. (There is an argument that the Mesoeconomics article itsself whould be strengthened as well to put the subject in its best light. If that article is not strong enough, why should readers here be expected to take note?) That might take time and great patience. --Thomasmeeks 14:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (proofed again) Thomasmeeks 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it absolutely clear to User:Cyde and other users that in creating a header for Mesoeconomics and expanding its section, I was not "advancing a pet theory", as alleged in the edit summary. I am not an economist of any kind and, prior to reading this article, had never, ever heard of mesoeconomics. However, seeing that this part of the article was at the time completely unsourced, I did a Google search for Mesoeconomics and added some references, in compliance with WP:ATT. This was part of my ongoing quest to improve the sourcing of this article; not long ago the whole thing was virtually unsourced. (As no one seems to have objected to the sources I've added elsewhere, I presume no one has a problem with them.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mesoeconomics and picoeconomics

Meso first. A Google Scholar papers search of the 3 people listed in Economics on mesoeconomics yields the following for:

Holland mesoeconomics: 35 hits, a few of them with more than a tiny number cites or in a prestigious journal; very diffuse in subject matter (accurately reflected in mesoeconomics)

Dopfer mesoeconomics: 6 hits of which 2 are listed below. (Of the remaining, 2 are primarily linked to Schumpeterian economics & 1 goes to dissertation abstracts, & the other does not mention meso)

proofs of a nice survey chapter on Evolutionary Economics, with the next hit even better in its narrower subject.

2004 Micro-meso-macro article, Journal of Evolutionary Economics.

Mamalakis mesoeconomics: 2 journal hits, one in a regional world affairs journal (3 cites), the other in an economics journal (0 cites). (Markos Mamalakis is a distinguished scholar. That's not at issue.)

If this paragraph stays, I think the authors and references should be in a footnote only. And what remains should be greatly condensed, as micro and macro are. What's presently there suggests that relabelling standard microeconomics + focus on institutional economics (already mentioned twice in the lead) is sufficient to make meso worth mentioning in the this section.

In its present form, meso coverage impresses me as disproportionately long relative to micro and macro and misleading to boot. If mentioned at all in this section, it needs to be done better and much more concisely.

As for picoeconomics it is not obvious that it should be lumped in one paragraph with meso. Further I don't see taxonomy as a good enough reason for inclusion of picoeconomics in this general article, especially in the absence of an existing substantial Wiki article on the subject. --Thomasmeeks 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (corrected Edit summmart section number) Thomasmeeks 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mesoeconomics paragraph revisited

That (first part of the) paragraph, at the current sect. 4, top (Economics#Economic fields), is copied below:

The vast majority of economic theory is in terms of either macro or micro economics. However, a few authors (for example, Kurt Dopfer, Stuart Holland and Markos Mamalakis) also argue that 'mesoeconomics', which considers the intermediate level of economic organization such as markets and other institutional arrangements, should be considered an additional branch of economic study. Mamalakis claims that mesoeconomics "unifies and reconciles the macro and micro approaches and is a "richer" way of studying the dynamics of economics than the two traditional models.[footnote: Markos Mamalakis: The man behind 'mesoeconomics', accessdate=2007-03-University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,1999-04-27], Walz-Chojnacki, Greg Faculty/Staff Newsletter.]

I do not see any substantive consensus in the above discussion for its retention. Quite the contrary. Problems include, but are not limited to, the following:

• 'Mesoeconomics' as described above is already covered through:

1. aggregation at the level of a market (or markets) referred to in in Economics#Microeconomics
2. micro-macro modelling referred to much more precisely in Economics#Macroeconomics, 3rd sent. from bottom (with the footnoted reference on mesoeonomics in connection with imperfect competition)
3. institutions in the lead, later in the paragraph in question with discussion of heterodox economics, and in the "Other fields" subsection

• A scholarly 3-volume Handbook of Macroeconomics (Taylor and Woodfor, ed., 1999) about 4000 pages), surveying not only "received results" but "newer developments" in its 26 chapters, did not list 'mesoeconomics' in subject indexes or in the relevant chapters. The JEL classification codes#Microeconomics and JEL classification codes#JEL: D Subcategories Macroeconomics and monetary economics do not list 'mesoeconomics' as a category.
• The value added by the Mamalakis quote is an interested party's claim and need be given little weight without more substantive content there.

Informed readers would be warranted in challenging retention of the paragraph in question there or expanding it. Discussion is covered in substance elsewhere in the article but is not specific enough there to avoid appearing as special pleading or redundancy. --Thomasmeeks 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Minor ed. Thomasmeeks 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Meso and Pico enconomics.

Um, what the heck are these and why do they matter. Should we just break things into macro and micro? JoshuaZ 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous cleanups

Listed below are various miscellaneous cleanups in the article done today with corresponding Edit summaries. (1) If anyone believes that more explanation is required, please place an X (or other statement) in front of your user signature under the respective Edit summary. (2) Similarly if anyone disagrees with a change, I'd be grateful if you would indicate why after the Edit summary. Anyone who agrees with the changes is also of course very welcome to indicate so. I'll attempt to elaborate if necessary. Thomasmeeks 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

++++

21:48, 8 March 2007 Thomasmeeks ((→Areas of study in economics -para. 6, 2nd sentence on evolutionary economics: deleted (no context); see Talk:Economics#Miscellaneous cleanups, sect. 28 for this & other Edits today)

[The deleted sentence in referred to was:

Evolutionary economics often deals with the otherwise difficult questions related to the role of 'routines' and 'capabilities' in explaining heterogeneity in firm outcomes.] [The word 'firm' is restored.]

The problem here is that the sentence lacks sufficient context to make sense of [it] without reading the relevant portion Evolutionary economics. Would additional discussion bw worth it in the article? Not, I believe, in a general article such as this relative to other fields discussed. Thomasmeeks 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (format fix) 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

++++

15:56, 8 March 2007 Thomasmeeks m (→Economic language and reasoning -4th asterisked paragraph. 3rd sentence: "A good example of this type of reasoning in Keynesian macroeconomics is the still commonly-used IS/LM model") Thomasmeeks 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

++++

10:03, 8 March 2007 Thomasmeeks (Lead: last line,alphabetized order; section 2: moved up IS/LM model (still used macro), deleted "There's Something About Macro" (good for its target audience & looks fun but a dead end here)) --Thomasmeeks 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An argument for the Robbins paragraph in the lead

The current Robbins paragraph in the lead (mostly uninterrupted for some time) has advantages in being placed there. To tie it to "mainstream economics" is arguably a non-Wikipedia:Neutral point of view anachronism, as though scarcity requiring choice is controversial among those knowledgeable about economics. No one who advocates one policy over another on economic-welfare considerations can believe that. Moreover, it satisfies WP:LEAD guidelines providing context and an overview for many aspects of economics discussed in later sections. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (minor edit) Thomasmeeks 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from above Talk:Economics#Lead, sect. 24, 3rd para. because of its relevance in this section:

The current Robbins paragraph has no mention of neoclassical economics. It's unnecessary there. And Robbins's analytical points go well beyond the confines of neoclassical economics. No one seriously believes that neoclassical economics has a copyright on the notions of econonmic scarcity and the necessity for choice.

--Thomasmeeks 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Intro

Just thought the introduction needed a little bit of work. Asarko U.S.Eastern 00:58, 29 March 2007

Unfortunately your efforts build on the Edits of the previous unregistered user. Those Edits exported paragraph 2 & the last part of the last paragraph and replaced the first paragraph. All are now restored. (See preceding section for more on para. 2.) The restored materials arguably satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines as to providing an accessible overview and context on later sections of the article.

The previous Edit included a new first and 3rd paragraph (available through the history tab of the previous article Edit). The first paragraph included an opaque definition which no standard dictionary supports. The 3rd paragraph did not satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines as to context or overview as to what follows in the article, so I believe. --Thomasmeeks 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Previous Edit "got away" -- sorry.) 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fisher identity

Shouldn't the M.V = P.Q be an identity (≡) rather than an equation (=)? I'd do it myself but not sure how.

Vandalism and reverts in this article

A tally of about 100 Editors (where consecutive Edits by the same Editor count as a single Editor) since March 29, 2007 broken dowm by registered and unregistered Wiki users reveals that about:

• 32 of 34 reverts were of Edits by unregistered users.
• 30 of the reverts were by registered users.

Most of the reverts were of vandalism. Of the remaining 28 Editors that were neither reverted nor reverters (= 100-36*2),

• 22 were by registered usere
• 6 were by unregistered users.

Thus, most unregistered Editors are reverted (32/(32+6)).

The predominance of unregistered users as the overwhelming source of vandalism for this article is in line with other articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1#Conclusions). The large percentage of Edits that are vandalous is unusual. That is not surprising,Economics is a high-traffic article, Presumably vandals like their handiwork to be noticed. --Thomasmeeks 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Economics article

As of today Economics has semi-protection, which disables editing by anonymous users and newly registered accounts. This is indicated by the lock icon in the top right corner of the article, which is a link to Wikipedia:Protection policy. This follows a heavy volume of vandalism before and after semiprotect from Feb. 13 to March 24, 2007. Anyone can request removal of semiprotect through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. But there has been persistence of a high volume of vandalism without semiprotect. This is disruptive and a waste of time both for readers and editors. In light of history, prior consultation on this page to establish consensus would seem to be a prudent course before any request for removal of semi-protection. --Thomasmeeks 12:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Two recent Edit summaries of the article by a registered user removed the semiprotect template (lock). The explanations were as follows:

• • 15:40, 23 May 2007 (rm protected template, not currently a target)
  • 15:39, 23 May 2007 (Protected Economics: doesn't seem to still be target of massive vandalism [move=sysop] (expires 01:51, June 21, 2007 (UTC)))

True, the article has not been recently vandalized in the last couple of weeks. But the reason for that is that semiprotect went into effect then. Virtually all the vandalism (& most other Edits that were reverted) preceding semi-protect was by unregistered users (see above). Moreover the vandalism & questionable Edits were frequent (see above). Comments are welcome below. --Thomasmeeks 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FOR removal of semiprotection:

AGAINST removal of semiprotection.

How "Economics" lost its Featured Article status

According to the upper righthand template on this page, Economics lost its Wikipedia:Featured articles status on April 21, 2006 (click [show] Article milestones in that template). Reasons for the demotion are at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Economics (with a Sept. 11, 2006 addendum). Much has happened in the article since then. You can judge for yourself what still needs to be fixed. New material may remedy earlier deficiencies or add new ones. Happily, the latter may provide still further opportunities for improvement. --Thomasmeeks 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't return to FA status without some serious research to back up the material in the article, particularly the history and Development of economic thought sections (the latter of which needs to be moved into the history section). The best sources need to be consulted and cited to be sure the article accords with the current state of knowledge. That was the most damning criticism, that there were errors and misinterpretations. - Taxman ^Talk 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Study Links and Miscellaneous

I'm proposing a change here rather than implementing it myself because I'm not an experienced user of WP and I have a conflict of interest (I work for economicsnetwork.ac.uk). The list of study links is long and arbitrary, with some resources that seem too specific to be cited in an encyclopedia introduction to the topic of Economics. There are three links to the Library of Economics and Liberty: once we have one link to the home page, why two more links to specific pages on that site? Agent-based modelling seems a very specific link to have under study resources for Economics: better to highlight portal sites through which one can find hundreds of these specific resources, such as MERLOT, Bized and the Economics Network. The Capitalism Magazine article that's linked is not really a study resource or an academic work: it's an opinion column pushing one point of view. The Miscellaneous section appears to be just a list of some arbitrary pages on the web that have some relevance to economics. I don't think they belong in this encyclopedia entry. If it's a good idea to point to journals, then point to a list of economics journals (e.g. http://www.helsinki.fi/WebEc/journal1.html), not just to one. MartinPoulter 10:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with all the specific changes you recommended (and thank you for being honest and disclosing your association), but what portal sites do you have in mind? The agent based modelling would be better at Model (economics). - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're not all "portal" sites in the proper sense of the word, but in the existing list of study resources, I'd count the following: MERLOT, Economics Network, MIT OpenCourseWare, the Oswego.edu guide to textbooks, Bized, econlib, about.com and maybe some of the dictionary and encyclopedia sites. Portals not mentioned so far include Resources for Economists (long established and now the official portal of the American Economic Association); Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) (massive gateway to economics research, maintained by volunteer academic economists) and Intute Social Sciences (Searchable human catalogue of the best links for teaching and research in Economics). Maybe also very useful to have Economics Departments, Institutes and Research Centers in the World, again a long-established academic site. MartinPoulter 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I say your suggestions all sound good. Start weeding away and if anyone thinks you go overboard then we can discuss it. But it's easier to discuss improvements after you've made the first round. I say reduce to the minimum number of links you can that are the highest quality. - Taxman ^Talk 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a first pass, but I'll make another pass tomorrow. Given that there are so many other pages about Economics, I think more links can be moved off this page. MartinPoulter 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I think this article should heed the work done on Law. It has most of the key information, however it isn't really set out in a clear and logical enough way. Furthermore, it seems to get bogged down in certain areas which aren't really appropriate for such a 'top level' introductory sort of article. What i'm proposing is similar to what is the case now, except MUCH more simplified in terms of headings etc, and MUCH more focused in terms of what should/shouldn't be included.

Something like:
Economic Subjects
Major:

• Micro
• Macro

Minor:

• Information Economics
• Industrial Organisation
• Game theory etc

Economic Thought
Theory:

• History of Economics/Economic Thought
• Classical
• Keynesian
• Neoclassical etc

Systems:

• Capitalism
• Communism etc

Key Concepts

• Value and Price
• Supply and Demand
• Scarcity and Marginalism

See Also

• list of economics topics

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have quotations from famous thinkers like Smith and Keynes interspersed throughout the article, like Law does it. Finally, the intro paragraph needs to be a summary of the article, much like the law one is. Right now, the intro is a sort of mish mash with not much relevance to the article itself. Thanks Suicup 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some very useful aspects in the above, esp. as to simplifying, streamlining ect. (The Law article referred to above, including the lead, looks like a gem.) The devil is in the details as to what is already in the article and how it might be reorganized, simplified etc. On the details, to quote from the "Lead" section above:

[The] article should have an analytical cast. The WP:LEAD should also motivate the reader to read beyond the lead of the article. If there is going to be a reference to the history of the subject it should then be included only insofar as it sheds some light on the subject today in an interesting way.

I believe the current lead, while not perfect, does provide background, context, & an accessible overview as specified in WP:LEAD. It also implicates many of the following sections. On quotations, if there is something sparkling or that fits, that ought to be considered but as to content, not just for the sake of quoting of course. --Thomasmeeks 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicup, this might be an appropriate time to acknowledge further the positive effect your contributions have had on the Economics article, which I think is a significant improvement from the time of your 1st Edit above as to layout and content 2 months ago. You have raised appropriate questions and made Edits that I believe have improved the article. I say this despite sharp awareness that we may not always agree particular points, which is what the Talk page allows for ironing out as to article Edits. --Thomasmeeks 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. On your latest Edit below, I hope that you might allow suitable time for comment.

Once again, the opening

• Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

This Princeton definition seems to be unjustly limited. Economics also studies the transporation, the storage, the use, and the quality of goods and services, to name but a few, and is furthermore not limited to goods and services.

• The word 'economics' is from the Greek for οἶκος (oikos: house) and νόμος (nomos: custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."

And here the present text does not follow Princeton, where home economics does not always mean science but can also denote practice. In general, does economics always mean economic science, or can it also mean economic behaviour?

• A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."

The alternative uses clause is also a restriction that seems to make little sense. Surely multiple ends and scarcity together already induce the applicability of economic principles. I also fail to understand what is so modern about (the rest of) this definition.

• Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs.

Only if it is at all possible to satisfy all wants and needs regardless of resources. Which is not the case, I fear, so 'certain wants and needs' may be a better description.

• Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.

Again, this seems to be too narrow. Choices are also affected by expectations, by competition, by restrictions.

• Areas of economics may be divided or classified in various ways, including: microeconomics and macroeconomics

(Overlooking mesoeconomics, but hey ...)

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

Never heard of either as a field of economic science. Certainly 'what ought to be' is not science. One can study human thought on 'what ought to be', but that's it, and that's not economics. Economics can only study how 'what ought to be' (whatever that may be) can be accomplished: political economics. The study of 'what is' is not science either, it is data collection. It only becomes science when we study how it comes to be what it is.

• mainstream economics and heterodox economics

You can have heterodox views, but not heterodox sience.

• fields and broader categories within economics.

Stating the obvious.

• One of the uses of economics is to explain how economies work and what the relations are between economic players (agents) in the larger society.

That's two uses, not one. The second sounds dubious. Relations between agents? What is 'the larger society' and why is it mentioned in this context?

• Methods of economic analysis have been increasingly applied to fields that involve people (officials included) making choices in a social context, such as crime [2], education [3], the family, health, law, politics, religion [4], social institutions, and war [5].

All choices are made in a social context, and none of the references shows in increase in their field. Economic analysis has, to my knowledge, always been applied to all areas of society. And what's so special about officials?

Well, that's it for now. :-) Guido den Broeder 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On some of the above points.

• The 1st cited quote is close to one or more standard dictionary definitions. There is a field called transportation economics. Location of a good, which may entail transportation, is an aspect of a good (economics). Quality of an economic good, insofar as it is behaviorally inferable or otherwise measurable, is also a dimension of a good.

• The Greek origin of 'economics' does reflect early usage, which many dictionaries standardly include with a def. But, yes, etymology may not reflect current usage.

• Robbins's definition has proved influential & is reflected in such commonplaces as the production possibility frontier. Movement from one point on the PPF to another is commonly explained by reference to a shift of productive resources toward one good, which implies alternative uses of resources. Robbins's definition is arguably modern by virtue of contemporary influence, on which see the link.

On some other points, I believe that the principle of charity, can illuminate the uses of statement (or consecutive statements to determine whether they fit together) and temper edits as to whether they are improvements. Of course we're all free to make edits in the hope of improving the article. --Thomasmeeks 11:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

structure changes

I've just made a few changes to the overall layout, first putting the development section together with the history section because they were both the same (can't believe nobody noticed this!) and moving up the core concepts material. On another note, it's a bit sad that this article cannot be better organised. It's a bit difficult to know where to begin really. The stuff I've mentioned really should be the core of the article. "Criticisms" sections ought to be integrated with the rest of the text. Wikidea 00:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And cheers for the comments on the law article!Wikidea 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made more changes, which might seem at first dramatic. They're not. What I've done is merge sections, and changed headings. I've introduced new sub sections under "economic fields" which have especially good articles; ie labour economics and game theory. I've only deleted little parts on the mainstream/heterodox distinction, which is still referred to under the fields section, only because it isn't useful in itself, and equates with some other stuff there already.

More generally, this article has a LOT of good material in it, but it's just confusingly ordered. The changes I made are purely cosmetic and real substantial work by experts is needed within a better structure that I hope is emerging. One thing I'm not sure of is this separate chunk for "definitions" which is an interesting part, but I think it could be merged into the discussion on schools of thought, or history, because it deals with the evolution of how specific people have termed the goals of economic enquiry. Anyway, more referenced, more succintity is all that's needed. Wikidea 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the 16 consecutive Edits of User:Wikidea on 24 June 2007 referred to above, the history log of those edits of the Economics article is listed below (with deletion of repeated log material after the latest edit) for ease of reference:

(cur) (last) 01:59 Wikidea (69,700 bytes) (→Economic analysis of law - erred on section heading weight again, sorry)

01:57 (69,699 bytes) (→Economic fields - added economic analysis of law)

01:53 (66,566 bytes) (→Econometrics)

01:44 (66,566 bytes) (changed more headings - now they're just a bit more uniform, and presentable)

01:42 (66,573 bytes) (→Language and reasoning - got rid of superfluous box)

01:41 (66,664 bytes) (→Criticism and contrarian perspectives - changed headings slightly)

01:38 (66,679 bytes) (→Criticisms of economic theory and practice - deleted sub sub headings)

01:34 (66,894 bytes) (→See also - reordered with multicol templates, and deleted some of the links that already appear in article body)

01:30 (67,233 bytes) (Changed substantially areas of study; proper sub headings; only deletion was the extra text on heterodox economics. Copy added labour and game theory. Please see talk.)

01:11 (65,790 bytes) (sorry, didn't do sub-headings correctly, fixed that. On principle, all sections and subsections should have main article links.)

01:09 (65,780 bytes) (→Schools of thought - reordered according to chronology; merged "mainstream" with neo-classical and deleted section on heterodoxy. These two are useful categories, but don't go into enough depth)

00:51 (66,161 bytes) (→Core concepts - cleaned section with pictures on right and main article links at top)

00:47 (66,235 bytes) (removed wikimedia links from top, because they belong at bottom and are there already; portal too)

00:30 Wikidea (66,308 bytes) (Moved core concepts up page, because this is material which readers need to be introduced to at the start)

00:24 (66,327 bytes) (moved schools of thought up the page to go next to history)

00:13 (66,454 bytes) (merged development of idea section with history of economics because both main pages are the same)

Please permit some initial reactions. The Edit summaries and the discussion above by User:Wikidea are commendable in stating what the objectives of the Edits were. I do agree that the order of sections could be improved. I believe, however, that some of the section moves & Edits within have reduced readability. Of course, sustaining that should proceed by proposing alternatives and supporting them by reasoned analysis (though not necessarily immedatiately). We each make our case & hope that the process improves the article. --Thomasmeeks 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me. I was being bold! Thanks for copying that stuff out, which is useful, and I should've thought of it. As I said above, I didn't actually DELETE much at all - at most a paragraph or two, which were about the mainstream/heterodox distinctions that someone introduced, because that was able to be integrated under other headings. Comparing edits in the history unfortunately won't look as if that's the case, because I've been copying and pasting parts of the page up and down, which unfortunately doesn't reflect that the material is all retained. Please feel free to leave criticisms or, more hopefully, build upon what I began! I actually have followed a lot of the suggestions that were made in the above proposed structure outline by Suicup (e.g. including game theory). A comment on the lead, which you mentioned Thomas, as I understand, the lead should really try to be a summary, or 'tantaliser' on what'll follow in the main article. It's always the bit that people want to argue over most, esp. in an important article like Economics, and it's always being done, redone, done over, done again, done and done and so on; but actually it's in some ways the last thing that ought to be written, because you don't know what you're summarising until it's written! Wikidea 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your reply. I'm for boldness too but not boldness only, as stated many times on this page. I'm sure that you agree in principle. I have perused your Edits & will try to be constructive (although see creative destruction). One hopes that the process will produce a good result, reflecting the current state of the subject at issue. I hope that no one will mistake vigorous discussion on disputed points or acts as violations of Wiki etiquette. --Thomasmeeks 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

structure changes: 2nd para.

Concerning the 01:30 Edit above, the current Lead restores the previous para. 2 Edit & separation of para. 1 & 2. Para. 1 is close to a dictionary definition (complete with etymology). Para. 2 presents Robbins's analytical argument, which includes his definition. The difference warrants a separate paragraph. Differences from the 01:30 Edit are indicated here. In particular the first sentence is different:

01:30 Edit: Lionel Robbins in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science defined economics as:

current Edit: A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay:

The current Edit trades a long essay title for:

1. a more concise identification of the essay, including the year
2. a more specific portion of the 1932 essay link, which identifies the historical influence of Robbins's definition
3. an explicit expression that Robbin's definition continues to be important.

I believe that much of the problem with the 01:30 Edit on this point might have been avoided by noting the last starred point in the preceding section ("Talk:Economics#Once again, the opening") or verification of Robbins's influence in the link. --Thomasmeeks 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

structure changes: placement of History and Schools sections at top?

Allow me to say that Wikidea had the guts to tackle a difficult problem. Any person with an orderly mind looking at the earlier outline could see difficulties as to organization. Moreover many experts in the subject might have been discouraged by the tall order of bringing the article up to standards of say a professionally published survey article. So, we have to settle for trying to attain the piddling consolation prize of improving on what may be the best such free article on the Web but still with great room for improvement. If some remarks seem critical below, it is for the constructive purpose of trying to improve on earlier efforts, which the Edits referenced above have highlighted.

Edit 00:13 above merged "In the beginning" (section 1). and "Development of economic thought" (section 7) by moving the latter up to section 1 and relabelling it "History of economics" with this Edit summary:

merged development of idea section with history of economics because both main pages are the same

that is, both had at the top: "Main article: History of economics." But "In the beginning" on Adam Smith's definition and motivation for the subject need not be construed as primarily historical. Rather, as suggested above at (3), it is a thumbnail account of the modern origin of economics as a way of thinking. It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought. From that perspective, "In the begining" perhaps should not have had "Main article: History of economics" at all. It is not history as a chronicle over time. It is rather Adam Smith speaking to us today as a fellow modern. In that light, the function of the section is quite different from the earlier section 7 & there is no presumption for merger or moving up section 7 to section 1. Moreover, there is an argument for postponing "History of economics" until an account of the subject today is more complete. One way to kill interest in the history may be to present the subject as history prematurely. "In the beginning" appropriately does not call the section history.

There is much to be said for the 00:24 Edit referenced above moving "Schools of Thought" to immediately after "History of economics." There is a parallel of the 2 sections. It is also similar to the analytical Subject Index order of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, p. 960, and Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories of the JEL classification codes. Again lumping the "History of economics" and "Schools of economic thought" together in the first 2 sections of Economics postpones presenting the subject as it exists today. Placement too early tends to treat economics as a historical or sociological phenomenon, which is not how it is usually is described in scholarly publications. Nor is law or physics so treated in Wiki. On these articles, notice the placement or space given to history of the subject. It is either minimal or deferred. I mention these areas, because Wikidea lists "main interests as history, law and physics..." I doubt that Wikidea would urge placement of history of the latter subjects at the top of those articles. Besides killing interest in reading further, placement of those sections at the top is likely, I'd guess, to discourage careful Edits by those esp. knowledgeable in the subject. Most such, the Mainstream economics article accurately states, do not consider themselves as belonging to a "school of economics" as that term is used in commonly defined. Why try to improve on later sections that fewer people are likely to read? And why edit if the subject is so misleadingly presented?

To sum up, there are reasons deferring those two sections until substantive discussion on economics as a subject today makes it more meaningful. We try to entice readers into history and schools of thought by describing the subject as it exists today (which may include reference to standard works that illuminate contemporary treatment). The same reasoning works for enticing more knowledgeable readers to improve on Edits. Comments welcome below whether against or for. --Thomasmeeks 01:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Against:

For:

Just a comment: I commend the work User:Wikidea (and Thomasmeeks??) have done with the restructuring of the article. It is much clearer than before. IMO, following Laws lead as I proposed above is a good course of action. Also, what is the purpose of the Economics Definitions section? It just seems unnecessary, and IMO should either be chopped or incorporated into Economic Concepts.

Another thing, Economic Fields could be a little tighter. eg why does Labour Economics get its own section, as opposed to being put into Other Fields? While I would prefer each got its own section, it seems a little strange. eg Why is Game theory an economic field? surely it is a tool to be used to study economics, rather than a field in itself? Economics of the Law has triple the content of Macro and Micro. Why?

I put those two in of themselves because they both have very good main articles - I can see what you mean about game theory though. Wikidea 10:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have: Micro, Macro, Econometrics, Labour, Industrial, Information, Financial, Trade, Development. And then others in an Other category. Suicup 09:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "Econ. fields" section needs to be reworked along with several others). On the Definitions section, if stays, I think that there is a case for it being a subsection of the History section, after the scarcity para. is exported to the criticism section, if the latter is improved enough (including with cited substantial sources) that make it more plausible than it is now. I believe that there is an advantage having most heterodox critical material together, esp. if the different pieces fit. But to your original point questioning whether Definitions section should be there, it would be more convincing to keep it there if it were compellingly presented. I do think it drags in this long article and that there is a case for exporting it to History of economic thought, with a reference to it in this article or even having a separate article on the subject with its sibling term 'political economy'. There is a neat 5-column article on use of the 2 terms over time in The New Palgrave, v. 3, pp. 904-07. User:Wikidea, I don't wish to be a scold, but it's better not to insert your comment ahead of someone else's signature. In the above, the slightly inattentive reader might think that you were congratulating yourself;) --Thomasmeeks 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, i have been bold and done a bit of reorganisation in Economic Fields. IMO, game theory should be either incorporated into the entire section, or should go under a 'Tools' subsection, along with Mathematics. I'm not sure whether it fits into Micro, but i'm uneasy about Economics and the Law having its own section, rather than just slotting into 'Other Fields'. Suicup 10:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On placement of game theory discussion, it's interesting that the New Palgrave's subject index (v. 4, p, 582) classifies game theory under Economic Organization, after Conflict and War and before Risk and Uncertainty while it appears under JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories. If I had to choose between your 2 options, it would be under Tools. But it can so come to life, that it's hard to think of the subject as just a tool. P.S. I haven't given up on the above subsection head question but am still trying to come up with something that is readable, comprehensive accurate, well-sourced, etc. --Thomasmeeks 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably tools is a better place than any on the page. It's really a rival thought model to the rational man I would say. I'm just not sure about breaking different fields into micro or macro, because some things don't fit so easily, e.g. economic analysis of law. Wikidea 19:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Game theory is not a rival to rational man - actors in strategic games are by definition rational. The point is that game theory is a framework which allows us to examine things like imperfect competition, much like calculus is a framework which allows us to be much more precise in finding things like equilibriums. For this reason, i would prefer if game theory is incorporated into other sections, by referring to it, rather than it having a section in its own right. The fact that game theory is used in other fields pretty much proves it is not an explicit field of economics.

Economic analysis of law is necessarily a 'micro' analysis. That is, it applies micro concepts to the legal field. I agree its hard though, because really EVERYTHING is just a subset of Micro - even Macro. All the Macro models are based on Micro fundamentals. So perhaps we should have Macro, Micro and Other as 'main' sections. Then ALL the other sub fields as 'subsections' of 'Other'. Suicup 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose Game Theory is moved to the Economic Reasoning section below, and that section be renamed, Economic Reasoning and Tools (or something to that effect). Additionally, mathematics can be given a mention in that section. Suicup 05:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I was rv'ing vandalism, and I was too late. Sorry. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past 8 article Edits today, most obvious is the rearrangement of sections + a number of new subsections. This completes an effort begun a week ago. The easy thing would have been to have inserted a complete copy of the User:Thomasmeeks/Rough drafts subpage, which I have worked on for the past week. But that would not have allowed other readers to compare easilyly the history page for the article as to edits for each section or successive movements of related sections around. Then the only (unwelcome) choice would be to work through the entire article to track downwg what the changes were from previous edit. It would be like trying to figure out a jigsaw puzzle by looking at the individual pieces rather than putting it together.

Here is the current order of Contents for the article: Contents

Lead

1 In the beginning (argued for in the 2nd para. of this subsection)

2 Areas of economics

2.1 Microeconomics

2.2 Macroeconomics

2.3 Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications

2.4 Mathematical and quantitative methods

2.4.1 Mathematical economics

2.4.2 Game theory

2.4.3 Econometrics

2.4.4 Computational economics

2.4.5 National accounting

2.5 Selected fields

2.5.1 Industrial organization

2.5.2 Information economics

2.5.3 Labour economics

2.5.4 Public finance

2.5.5 International economics

2.5.6 Financial economics

2.5.7 Economic analysis of law

2.5.8 Development economics

2.5.9 Environmental economics

2.5.10 Welfare economics

3 Economic concepts

3.1 Supply and demand

3.2 Price

3.3 Marginalism

4 Economic reasoning

5 History of economics (placement of this & sect. 6 discussed below)

5.1 Classical economics

5.1.1 Theories of value: classical and Marxist

5.2 Neoclassical economics

5.3 Other schools and approaches

5.4 Historic definitions of economics

5.4.1 Wealth definition

5.4.2 Welfare definition

6 Schools of thought

6.1 Classical economics

6.2 Marxian economics

6.3 Keynesian economics

6.4 Neoclassical economics

6.5 Other schools

7 Economic theory criticisms

7.1 Criticisms of welfare and scarcity definitions of economics

7.2 Is economics a science?

7.3 Criticism of assumptions

7.3.1 "Assumptions" and Observations

7.4 Criticism of contradictions

7.5 Criticism in other topics

7.6 Economics and politics

7.6.1 Ethics and economics

7.6.2 Effect on society

Here is the history of July 11 Edits (most recent first on 24-hr. time):

22:58, 11 July (Neoclassical economics -Rm stuff duplicated in Lead section or unelated to neoclassical econ.; see Talk:Economics#structure changes)

21:15, 11 July (Interim ed.: sects. 2 (History of economics) & 3 (Schools of thought) moved to sects. 5 & 6; see Talk:Economics#structure changes: placement of History and Schools sections at top? to follow)

20:40, 11 July (Interim edit: next to last section relabelled as "Historic definitions of economics" & moved to subsections @ end of History of economics section (near top of article))

20:02, 11 July criticisms parts of welfare & scarcity defin. moved to form top subsection of last section (Economic theory criticisms))

18:59, 11 July (Interim ed.: Restored from 24 June edit: sect.1 sects:1 (wout

Main article: History of economics

) & 2 ;see Talk:Economics#structure changes: placement of History and Schools sections at top?,para. 1-2)

18:18, 11 July (→History of economics -Interim ed.: Top: indent restored for Smith direct quote; subsectioning for ease of reference; chronological after 1st para.;some > content;) (undo)

17:28, 11 July(Interim Ed.: Rm Value subsection (prev. 4.1) by moving 1st para. to "History of economics" at top; 2nd para.--> next bottom of next subsect.'Supply and demand" (new 4.1)) 16:58, 11 July 2007 (→Value -Interim Ed. to allow direct comparison: 1st para.: more detail & 2nd para. minor ed.)

Little substantive material was deleted (although a fair amount was edited), except for the last Edit, on 6.4 Neoclassical economics, which duplicated material elsewhere in the article or had material unrelated to the section title).

The most obvious change is restoring sect. 1 ("In the beginning", arguably of contemporary interest per para. 2 above in this subsection) & moving the "History of Econ." sect. and "Schools of tnought" to just before the last section. This is on the theory that reader is esp. interested in the subject as it mostly exists today. Most of the disciplines in econ. are not, as you can see for yourself in "Schools of economic thought" after 1925 but in fields of economics comprising the other JEL classification codes. To give History of econ. and Schools of thought priority of placement misleads as to how the subject of economics is commonly presented. What the article should do is present the subject in contemporary terms. If that is sufficiently compelling, readers are likely to have motivation for reading about its history and current schools. --Thomasmeeks 01:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

structure changes: Areas of economics and after

What follows refers to the 17:55, 7 July 2007 Economics Edit. Here are the current (sub)section headings with parenthetical comments:

4 Areas of economics (with explanatory segue to Micro-Macro subsections, replacing mesoeconomics [part of 1st] para. that was deleted for reasons discussed above at Talk:Economics#Mesoeconomics paragraph revisited) [and other material in 1st para. moved to section 4.3])

4.1 Microeconomics

4.2 Macroeconomics

4.3 Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications (new section heading with material previously [in 1st para. of sect. 4, following mesoeconomics material, & at end of subsect. 4.1] + some fields previously in the "Other fields" section, which subsection is now deleted, b/c all those fields were exported to this section or the current "Selected fields" section)

4.4 Mathematical and quantitative methods (new section heading gathering scattered matherial; the first 4 headings below fall under same JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories. The last, National accounting, can also be construed as a "quantitative method": in the New Palgrave it is classified under "Techniques" with the Math econ, Econometrics, etc.)

4.4.1 Mathematical economics (much expanded)

4.4.2 Econometrics (2nd & 3rd sent. added, last sent. edited)

4.4.3 Computational economics (new section)

4.4.4 Game theory

4.4.5 National accounting (new section)

4.5 Selected fields

4.5.1 Industrial organization

4.5.2 Information economics

4.5.3 Labour economics

4.5.4 Public finance (new section)

4.5.5 International economics

4.5.6 Financial economics

4.5.7 Economic analysis of law

4.5.8 Development economics (new section)

4.5.9 Environmental economics (new section)

The point of micro-macro at the top is that it comprises the economy. Other fields do not (have to) fall into micro or macro. Rather, they may instead be about economics. Hence, use of the more general term "Areas" for the heading of this section and the more specific "Selected fields" below, comparable in indention within the Contents box at the top of the article to Micro and Macro. I believe that resectioning will allow the brave reader to see how the different sections fit together within the subject of economics. --Thomasmeeks 19:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Minor corrections above. 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, well done! I like you edits to this section. IMO it is much easier to 'fill' the content of each area now that the structure has been fixed up. Personally, I think Micro should either be expanded, or Macro shortened (prob both) so that they are at least the same length, with perhaps Micro slightly longer. Given these are the key areas, it doesn't make sense for their entries to be so short. Cheers Suicup 08:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It took long enough! Yes, the brevity of the Micro & Macro sections is striking. More could be said. One bold restructuring would be to weave the preceding section on core econ concepts into the Micro or Macro subsections. The concepts sections may look forbidding to the interested but unitiated reader. Flow of subject and accessibility to the reader I believe are key. It is conceivable that having the Concepts section follow the Area section (as earlier) would work better. I don't know how to resolve this beforehand without trying to come up with the goods (a better alternative). I hope that nothing precipitous is done but that progress continues. --Thomasmeeks 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I switched Concepts to below Areas because I think the article flows better this way. Another thing, this article is missing two key sections. Firstly, a discussion of Economic Systems - there is a lot of material on different schools of thought etc, however this is a different yet highly important area which needs to be mentioned eg capitalist vs communist, 'primitive' economies etc. Secondly, Economic Institutions. eg What is an economist? eg mention banks, reserve bank, govt etc, relationship to the financial system. Suicup 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the Concepts section to follow Areas, which got in the way of what now precedes it. There was, I believe, the added problem that the Concepts section needs serious work.

A simple way to address Economic Systems is with Economic systems. (I do agree with you that there is a lot about schools of thought etc in the article.) On Economic Institutions, there are at least 6 distinct references (most with links) in the erticle to institutions, including an External links section devoted to just that. You do mention: banks, reserve bank, govt etc, relationship to the financial system. It is far from clear that in a general article on economics (a social science), those would be worth getting into more than is already there.

On "What is an economist?", why not just add Economist to the "See also" section? In the encyclopedic New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, the closest entry to 'economist' was the following, which I quote in its entirety:

Economistes. See PHYSIOCRATS.

Nor is the term in the 39-page general Index of that work. (Plenty of entries on particular economists of course, but that is a different matter.) I believe that this was not an oversight of The New Palgrave. Its subject is economics. I believe that there should be a similar focus in this article. --Thomasmeeks 16:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (minor edit) Thomasmeeks 23:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My view is that this sort of article should encompass a broad idea of economics and its role in society, not just theory. Thus following on from law, it makes sense to have an 'institutions' section which briefly talks about economic entities as well as things like economists etc. Furthermore, the fact that economic systems has a (fairly large) article of its own reinforces why it should have a section here. Remember economics should be a summary article, linking to as many important/major areas as possible, as it is probably going to be the first point of call. Suicup 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Talk page is certainly a good place to discuss such matters, as distinct from Edit summaries, which are a bit more confining, esp. where there may be an absence of consensus. As to Law, the first line reads:

Law[1] is a system of rules usually enforced through a set of institutions.

It is easy to see why there would be a section on legal institutions and even on the legal profession, given the definition of the subject. I don't see any direct application of that as to 'economics' without redefining 'economics' except through through fields of economics. I agree that that is a big exception when one considers the macroeconomics of central banking, monetary policy, money ahd banking, and financial markets, all standard topics in macroeconomics, therefore in respectable textbooks, New Palgrave and The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, etc. If that's what you had in mind, there might be little on which to differ.

There is in the last section of the article a subsection "Effect on society." I take it that you are talking about something different: the role (effect?) of economic institutions (rather than economics) on society. I could be wrong about this, but what you are proposing sounds descriptive of economic institutions rather than a description of economics.

In my previous comment I said that a simple way to address Economic Systems would be with Economic systems. My intent was to agree with you that a field section might be appropriate. Pity that that the article lacks references. It did look like standard fare though.

One hopes that the object will not be to push the quantity envelope at the expense of quality, as I'm sure you'd agree. I hope that there will be some continued movement in the quality direction, partly by reducing duplication and prudent pruning. Right now, quality is more on my mind than quantity. but maybe that's just me. --Thomasmeeks 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying there. I suppose when you see a hook like "One of the uses of economics is to explain how economies work and what the relations are between economic players (agents) in the larger society." it would make sense to have some sort of "Institutional/Systems" section. Personally (and this isn't reflected on you), I think the intro needs a lot of work. Although perhaps this is something which needs to be done after the article has progressed a little more. Suicup 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So, you saw the hook & liked what you saw (; ). There are different JEL classification codes as linked respectively for an Institutional approach and Economic Systems. I believe that that there would be a loss in analytical clarity by treating them in an "Institutional/Systems" section. Rather, 2 field subsections on Institutional economics and Economic systems would preserve the distinction. In light of your interests as expressed above, I'm slightly surprised at your statement that the lead needs a lot of work. Your interests arguably dovetail with the statement in the lead to which you referred. --Thomasmeeks 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging (1) sect. 5 & 6 (2) Reasoning & Concepts sect.; Economic systems?

This is a new subsection for ease of reference. It continues discussion from immediately above. --Thomasmeeks 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I switched around one of the areas as I think it works better this way. Also, I think sections 5 and 6 should be merged as there is a significant overlap of their content. Either 5 is incorporated into 6, or 6 becomes a subsection of 5 (with polishing after). I think Reasoning should be merged with concepts, and the concepts perhaps shortened slightly. On the other hand, I agree with your suggestion above that Concepts could feasibly (and successfully) be merged into Micro and Macro. Finally, I think a new section, Economic Systems should be added (as I have already stated here.) When I get more time, I will try to address a few of the things i've mentioned, however I thought I'd air them here first before I dived into the article. Cheers Suicup 09:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On (1) merging, sect. 5 & 6 History & Schools of economic thought, I believe that we should move in that direction but with care, not say "dump now, clean up later" as has sometimes happened with this article, to its detriment. The moves ought to be done by those knowledgeable enough to make it no less readable than before. There is at least some coherence in the present structure. Dumping would remove that. A suggested template for accmplishing this is JEL classification codes#Schools of economic thought and methodology JEL: B Subcategories. There "schools" mostly drop out after 1925, largely replaced by fields or areas. Before then "schools" need not be mentioned. I believe history as chronology or at least then-now may be useful for (a) Marx & Marxian econ and (b) neoclassical econ. with one subsection for (a) and for (b) but after propsr editing to make them flow. An intermediate step would be to make later versions of the school be written as history, rather than as "schools," which is not a term of choice for neoclassical econ. today (no such "school"). The merger suggestion is now on the Talk page. I strongly suspect that it will be acted on at least in a matter of months, if not sooner. It need not take a long time to do it right. I just hope that it would be done right or not at all until then.

On (2) merging the Reasoning & Concepts section, they are conceptually distinct. I don't see how 'Reasoning' could be merged into concepts. Rewriting, replacing, shortening, or retiring the Reasoning section are different matters from merger & can be discussed without regard to merger.

(3) On paper, merger of the some Econ concepts with micro/macro looks easy, but in their current form, I believe that wholesale merger of "concepts" subsections would interrupt the fast flow of the earlier subsections. The details of these concepts can wait. A careful reworking of some subsections of Concepts is in order, but that's a different matter from merger.

(4) On "economic systems," that may be good candidate for inclusion in the "Selected fields" subsection. There is of course the "main article" Economic systems. There are long-standing Brittanica articles, "Economic system" in the Micropaedia, "Economic systems" in the Macropaedia, that cover the same subject. A template for what the field includes is at JEL classification codes#Economic systems JEL: P Subcategories. Beefing up Economic systems might be a good idea. I can't see what the justification for something other than as subsection "Selected fields" would be for "Economic systems." --Thomasmeeks 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Placement of "Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications" section

The Economics section titled above was moved from before "Selected fields" in section 2 to after it in the 09:35, 18 July 2007 Edit by Suicup. The Edit summary for the move was as follows:

Areas of economics - moved section

elaborated on in the above preceding section at the 09:44, 18 July Edit:

I switched around one of the areas as I think it works better this way.

Some comments:

1. The section is clearly an overview ("forest") description of economics as a subject, rather than a specialized ("trees") description through selected fields, just as micro & macro, which precedes it, is an overview as to ways of studying the economy. Arguably, broad distinctions should be discussed first, since they may apply to each field.

2. "Related fields" in the title does not refer to fields related to "Selected fields" but to border areas of economics. Later placement would misleadingly suggests otherwise.

3. "Other distinctions" in the title apply across selected fields, so why not discuss them first?

4. "Classifications" in the title apply to selected fields, so why not mention linked classification sources first?

The "trees" (selected fields) may be very interesting individually, but why not first place them in the context of the "forest": neighboring areas, characteristics of each tree, and a map of the forest? --Thomasmeeks 21:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, I see what you're saying, however I disagree. Personally, I think the 'selected fields' section is 'more important' (ie more relevant to the average reader) than 'Related fields', and hence it makes sense that it should be displayed beforehand. Secondly, it flows better my way. Having micro/macro, then having an arbitrary jump into another section, before going back into the sub areas of micro/macro just reads badly. I would like to move it, as I really do think it sits better in that way. Suicup 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, on your second point, I do not how you say that you see what I am saying (on (1-4) above) and then say that it flows better your way. However, let me amplify on some of the above and attempt to address your points. along the way. Analogies are never perfect but let me try one for the purpose of suggesting. Micro and Macro are like The Cosmos considered from 2 ways, bottom up (quantum physics) or top down (general relativity, etc.). The economy is "the economic system" (whether regional, national, or world). It's all there is as to data for the subject of econ as an empirical science, just as the cosmos is for physics. So, it makes sense to have economy first, including the 2 major ways of approaching it. There is an disciplinary ecology into which some subjects of econ fit (including relation to micro or macro) and in which the subject of econ itself fits. That's picked up by "Related fields." There are, however, other ways of approaching dividing the subject of econ that cut across fields. it makes sense to state those up front ("other distinctions"). Finally, the "classifications" part of the section places all the subjects in econ. within an orderly framework, including the ordering of selected fields. All of these advantages would be lost by moving the section to follow "Selected fields" Then it would flow worse, relative to micro, macro, and the economy that immediately precedes it and the selected fields that follow it.

On your first point, even if someone is primarily interested in some or even all of the selected fields, she or he might want to know how those fields fit into the wider scheme of things, including what immediately precedes it and across field. The in question complements both what precedes and follows it. I believe that this advantage would be lost by placing the section after the long "Selected fields" section. --Thomasmeeks 11:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (signature reinserted)

I disagree that micro/macro is on the 'same level' as 'Related Fields'. It makes sense to read about micro, macro and other fields, and then move on if required to other less common or more cutting edge areas at the end. Another thing I forgot to add, for this same reason, I think it would be prudent to shift "Mathematical and quantitative methods" to after Selected Fields, as it is 'separate' from the others in the sense that many of the areas (eg game theory) are tools rather than outright economic fields. Selected Fields relates directly to micro/macro, thus it makes sense to directly follow them. Furthermore, Related Fields contains other areas which could have been included in Selected Fields (but for whatever reason were not), which is why it should follow it. Finally Mathematical methods should be after Selected Fields because people first and foremost are interested in the economics, followed by the tools.

Thus the format i propose is:

2 Areas of economics

2.1 Microeconomics

2.2 Macroeconomics

2.5 Selected fields

2.4 Mathematical and quantitative methods

2.3 Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications

Thanks Suicup 11:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] No one has asserted that "micro/macro is on the 'same level' as 'Related Fields'." Reasons given above for placement of the correctly titled subsection after micro/macro and before "Selected fields" are not that they are on the 'same level'. Forgive the following analogy. If I like bread and jam more than peanut butter, it does not follow that I like peanut butter on top of my bread and jam.

[2] Restating a preference for moving down placement of the "Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications" section without addressing the disadvantages stated above (twice in complementary ways) is not a formula for fruitful discussion. Rather, deploying new arguments without attempting to save old ones that are challenged suggests that the challenged old arguments are defective.

[3] Suicup's "less common and cutting edge" fields includes "related fields" in the "Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications" section. But that's not why those fields were included in the section. So, it's is not a good reason for taking them out of that section or moving the section. Other reasons for inclusion were stated or implied by context.

[4] Suicup's preceding Edit, 1st para., 3rd sent. from the end, states that "Selected Fields relates directly to micro/macro, thus it makes sense to directly follow them." But only a minority of the the "selected fields" in both the JEL classification codes and The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics Subject Index fall under micro or macro. So, that is not argument for "Selected fields" following micro/macro immediately.

[5] Including one or more "related fields" in "Selected fields" would certainly make inclusion less urgent in this section. But that is not by itself an argument for including them in "Selected fields." P.S. I'm forming a new subsection below that addresses an issue raised above different from the subject title of this subsection. This allows distinct (even if arguably related) issues to be discussed separately. --Thomasmeeks 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to rebut your original points: 2) I'm not saying that 'Related Fields' is related to "Selected Fields", it would still have its own section, and not simply be a subsection (ie ====) of Selected Fields. The different header size would clearly not cause any confusion - the font would be the same size as "Selected Fields". 3) we don't discuss them before hand, because we want to ease the reader into the mainstream approach first, and then after they have read about the different areas they can contemplate other approaches (like positive/heterodox etc). Secondly things like "Behavioural Economics" could have been included in "Selected" but weren't (eg too cutting edge) so it doesn't make sense to list them before. Finally, the areas in "Selected" (though not the "selected" heading) are a subset of Macro/Micro so it makes sense for them to directly follow it. Any other way would be information overload and it just wouldn't flow well. By definition, the ideas in this section are not the most important thing we are worrying about , and hence it is logically better to put the section at the end. Suicup 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Suicup. (2) "Related fields" could easily be misconstrued as indicated in my 2. above if the subsection were moved down. The "relation" is to micro and macro (preceding the subsection) and econ fields related to fields outside econ. (placing boundaries of econ. in a larger context). Moving the section down breaks that flow and overview. (3) "other distinctions, and classifications" is also an overview of econ. Why should an overview come later? A different,, later section is an afterview, not the way the section was written. "other distinctions, and classifications" would not be illumiated by "Selected fiels" coming before it. "Behavioral economics" was included b/c of its relation to micro, illustrating an application. And, yes, it might be interest to readers. That's not a reason for excluding it or necessarily expanding it. Micro gives mainstream/hetero context, "Selected fields" does not. Finally, the set of fields in "Selected fields" is not a "subset of Macro/Micro," at least according to standard classifications (see [4] above). --Thomasmeeks 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mathematical and quantitative methods" section after "Selected fields"?

In the preceding subsection Suicup 11:56, 22 July 2007 suggests moving the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section from before the "Selected fields" to after with the following statement:

.... I think it would be prudent to shift "Mathematical and quantitative methods" to after Selected Fields, as it is 'separate' from the others in the sense that many of the areas (eg game theory) are tools rather than outright economic fields. [The subjects in that section are described earlier by Suicup as "less common or more cutting edge areas," which should thus follow "Selected fields."] Finally Mathematical methods should be after Selected Fields because people first and foremost are interested in the economics, followed by the tools. (adapted by Thomasmeeks from preceding section, Suicup 11:56, 22 July 2007 Edit)

--Thomasmeeks 23:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) (strikethrough above: 01:47, 24 July 2007 Tm edit)

I think you are a little confused. I said some of the subjects in "Related Fields" could be described as 'cutting edge' (eg behavioural eco). I think the "Mathematical" should follow the "Areas" section, because it makes sense to talk about the economics first, rather than get bogged down in the tools (like maths, game theory, modelling) too early. Remember, you have to be mindful of placement of material, and how advanced the readers knowledge is. Suicup 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the strikethrough in the quotation above, thank you for clarifying, Suicup. This paragraph is on your 1st 2 sentences (presumably related). For your quotation at the top of this subsection, I omitted the following quotation immediately preceding it:

It makes sense to read about micro, macro and other fields, and then move on if required to other less common or more cutting edge areas at the end. Another thing I forgot to add, for this same reason, ... (italics added)

It looked to me like the italicized phrase referred "to other less common or more cutting edge areas" in the preceding sentence. It is the italicized phrase that I relied on for the square-brackets interpolation in the quotation above, which, however, I'm hearing did not refer to the preceding sentence.

On the substance of your suggestion to place the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" (MQM) section after "Selected fields," you make interesting points. Let me make a defense for keeping the subsection to follow micro/macro and before "Selected fields."

1. MQM apply very well to micro or macro, which MQM follow, and "Selected fields," which MQM precede. So, it is well-placed in the club sandwich comprising the "Areas" section.
2. MQM are qualitatively different from the current "Selected fields," as noted by Suicup. Why not make that point up front? Placing them after "Selected fields" would raise this valid question: "You mean they're not "selected fields"? But of course they are "selected fields," just of a different kind. Putting them in "Selected fields" would also blur the distinction. Why blur the difference unnecessarily?
3. MQM in tandem with the fields in which they are used arguably represent the most important advance in the content of econ compared to the same subject say 80 years ago when (with the very partial exception of math econ) those subjects were mostly glimmers in the eyes of a few people. There's no good reason to make MQM a postscript, esp. after the (appropriately) longish 10-part "Selected fields" subsection, which MQM feeds into.
4. JEL classification codes JEL: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods come before even micro/macro and all the "Selected fields." That's a pretty powerful statement of their, anyhow methodological, priority. Why disguise that?
5. The MQM topics might not be fun for a general audience to wade into, but that's not the issue. They're written in a very general, non-technical way, even though on "technical" subjects. The subsections of MQM look clearly written and interesting, even if doubtless they could be improved. It's not obvious that current placement of MQM is a problem. Couldn't most prospective readers be expected to follow those one-para. subject descriptions, given the general but informative level at which they are written? Maybe the general readers like substantive, accessible MQM where it "fits," not where it is (incorrectly) presumed they would prefer it. --Thomasmeeks 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I do wish to respond elsewhere on this page, but time constraints have slowed me.

Game theory subsection placement

The recently edited lead of [the "Game theory" subsection for Economics] was intended to state more explicitly the relation of the subsection to what precedes and follows it:

Mathematical and quantitative methods [M&QM]

Certain mathematical and quantitative methods may be used in analysis of problems and data on the economy or areas within economics. General methods include the following.

The Game theory subsection was also moved to "Selected fields," since it is at a lesser level of generality than the other subsections and less essential as to flow of the section. I believe that these changes address concerns expressed [in the previous subsection of getting "bogged down in the tools (like maths, game theory, modelling") by Suicup] and that the article has been improved as a result. Thank you for comments, Suicup. --Thomasmeeks 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC) [Bracketed terms] above added for clarification. Thomasmeeks 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

Thomasmeeks, I disagree, however i have neither the time nor the energy to debate this. My position is thus: at the end of the day, this is an introductory article about economics. Hence, rather than providing ALL the information possible up front, we should be selective about the order we choose - subjective importance IS a good thing in this sort of setting. This means that things like 'Related Fields' belong at the end of the section because they are a 'next level' sort of topic. It also means that things like Maths etc, while very important, should be discussed after the economics. The idea is you read about the economics, and then if you are interested you can read about the tools used to study these fields, as well as other related areas. Putting everything up front in the name of 'correctness' or 'thoroughness' misses the point IMO. Clearly this is a different philosophy and paradigm to the one you are taking, however I cannot be bothered pushing it.

However, I'm going to put Game Theory back in the Mathmatical section, because it makes no sense where it is now (which is where it was originally (!) ). Suicup 11:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised, Suicup. Nothing in your comments disputes my 10:28, 25 July explanation above following the new lead quotation for the subsection. The new lead quotation provided context for not necessarily including game theory in M&QM section. Yet you conclude that it "belongs" in the M&QM section. The question is not one of "belonging" but of convenience for the reader. I thought that the move addressed your concerns in a practical way. And to that extent I thought that you had a point. You say that game theory "makes no sense" in the "Selected fields" section. Well, of course it would in that case be a "selected field." It also makes sense in light of the new lead quotation and my explanation above.

As I have expressed repeatedly on this page, I believe there are merits in your paradigm. These have borne fruit and in the end substantially improved the article IMO. Others have tried to adapt elements of that paradigm to improve the article. And your ideas have still not run their course as to improving the article, so I predict. --Thomasmeeks 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A new Edit of the lead for the Economics section 2.4 "Mathematical and quantitative methods" of the article follows:

Economics as a academic subject often uses geometric methods, in addition to literary methods. Other methods are also often used for rigorous analysis of the economy or areas within economics. Such general mathematical and quantitative methods include the following.

It has a new first sentence and edited 2nd sentence. It further distinguishes subsections included in the section from the "Game theory" subsection. The latter is now in section 2.5 "Selected fields". The rationale for the move is stated fully above in this subsection at the 10:28 25 July & 12:29 25 July 2007 Edits. Briefly stated, game theory, although a branch of math econ, is less general than the remaining subsections in "Mathematical and quantitative methods." Its placement in the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section unnecessarily slows progress to the "Selected fields" subsection. It can wait till "Selected fields." As argued in the preceding subsection above, the rest of the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" subsection relates more generally to subsections that precede and follow that subsection. --Thomasmeeks 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, I completely disagree that Game Theory should be in Selected Fields. Why did you move it? 'Unnecessarily slows progress'?? Game theory is not a field of economics! is is a tool used in economic problems, much like calculus is! eg, industrial organisation uses game theory to work out equilibriums in oligopoly markets. Thus, how can it be considered a field in its own right?? In fact, game theory pretty much proves my point. I'm moving it back. Cheers Suicup 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you your for your comment, Suicup. After this para., I'll switch to the third-person grammatical form, rather than the second-person, because the discussion is for all readers (including you of course). Let me summarize the above and associated article Edits for the benefit of others. I moved the "Game theory" subsection to the "Selected Fields" section of Economics from the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section twice. And you have reverted the move twice. A response to your latest comment follows.

Concerning the Suicup 11:20, 1 August Edit above:

1. Suicup asks why I moved the "Game theory" subsection to "Selected fields" from "Mathematical and quantitative methods." The answer is to be found in each of my preceding 2 edits above, which attempted to clarify why that question was unnecessary. I have bolded the relevant parts of my Edits above pertinent to that question.

2. Suicup writes "'Unnecessarily slows progress'??" (concernning my moving the Game theory subsection down to "Selected fields"). Here are the complete sentence quoted in part by Suicup and the sentence following it:

[P]lacement [of the "Game theory subsection] in the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section unnecessarily slows progress to the "Selected fields" subsection. It can wait till "Selected fields."

A paraphrase would be:

"Game theory" is not essential to the M&QM section as written. So, it can be postponed until "Selected fields." Intent is to keep this section as short as possible relative to what precedes and follows it.

Context for this is in my first Edit above where I refer to Suicup's concern "of getting "bogged down in the tools (like maths, game theory, modelling)." One less unnecessary 'tool', one less thing to get bogged down in. Except that the remaining tools do not 'bog' down the M&QM section. They fit in with what precedes & follows it, as argued in detail in the previous subsection.

3. Suicup writes that:

Game theory is not a field of economics! is is a tool used in economic problems, much like calculus is! eg, industrial organisation uses game theory to work out equilibriums in oligopoly markets. Thus, how can it be considered a field in its own right??

This seems to assume that the only proper use of 'field' is as a non-'tool' or non-M&QM. It is certainly possible to use 'field' in that sense. But is it necessary to use it in that sense? Not according to the dictionary (def. 5). It is easy to find broader uses of 'field' in economics, for example the entry on "game theory" The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987, v. 2, p. 460), by Robert J. Aumann, where it is described as an "umbrella or 'unified-field' theory." There unified field theory is used as a pun. But the reason why it works is that 'field' as defined in the possible sense above fits. The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987) has a Suhject Index that lists broadest classification, subclasssifications, then the article for that subclassification. Thus, one of the broad classifications is 'Techniques', close to Suicup's use of 'tools' above. 'Mathematical economics' is both a subclassification and an entry under Techniques (v. 4, p. 982). The entry 'game theory' does not, however, fall under 'Techniques' but under 'Economic Organization' with a subclassification of 'Game Theory'. The entry 'industrial organization is also under 'Economic Organization' with a subclassification 'Industrial organization' (v. 4, p. 982). How could that be if industrial organization is a 'field' but game theory is not a 'field'? The answer is that The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics could not be correct if Suicup's theory of proper 'field' usage applies here. It does not apply, so the New Palgrave is not wrong.

4. Suicup writes above that:

game theory pretty much proves my point [that game theory is not a field]. I'm moving it back [to "Mathematical and quantitive methods" from "Selected fields"].

The first line of Game theory is:

Game theory is often described as a branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies situations where multiple players make decisions in an attempt to maximize their returns.

[As of 8/22/07, the first line now reads:

Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that is often used in the context of economics. Thomasmeeks 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)]

A 'branch' of economics? That sounds a lot like a 'field' of economics. Far from proving the necessity of placing the "Game theory" subsection in the "M&QM" section rather than "Selected fields," the Game theory quotation undermines it. --Thomasmeeks 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (Minor Edit. Thomasmeeks 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)) ((Minor Edit. Thomasmeeks 17:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

A bit more, not by trying to argue my way into a priori categorizations (tempted though I might be), but by addressing how the relevant subsections of Economics are currently written. The attempt here is to locate a reasonable consensus.

The present question is about placement of the "Game theory" subsection, whether in Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods or Economics#Selected fields. The other subsections in M&QM (math econ, econometrics, national accounting) apply as general tools for examination of the economy in the sections above it and to "selected fields" that follow M&QM, a kind of bridge between sections. The "Game theory" subsection is written as an approach in terms of strategizing interactions. It has a specificity lacking in the math econ and econometrics subsections. I believe that readers are more likely to get bogged down in the M&QM subsection than if it is in the “Selected fields” section. In “Selected fields,” “Game theory” can shine not merely as a very general tool but as a subject pursued for its own sake as a way to model certain pervasive aspects of behavior. --Thomasmeeks 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To make it quite clear, there is no disagreement above that game theory is an "applied mathematical method," & thus a "mathematical method." But, as stated at in my 17:42, 8 August edit above, 3., there are other ways of classifying it besides as a technique or method. Keeping only the most general tool-type subjects in the M&QM section & keeping discussion there short and simple is facilitated by placement of "Gama theory" later.

Arguably "Game theory" in "Selected fields" would not get bogged down there, because people are likely to pick & choose fields there anyhow, given wide differences of subject matter & interests. --Thomasmeeks 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that readers would get 'bogged down' by having to read game theory in M&QM. Furthermore, IMO while there may be other ways of defining it other than 'mathematical method', it is our job to choose the most appropriate classification for each particular case. In this situation, it is clearly a 'mathematical method'. Suicup 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Suicup.

[1T] On the first sentence above, I believe that an appropriate question is whether "Game theory" placement in the M&QM section would unnecessarily slow progress to the next subsection. There are reasons above why it would be unnecessary to place it there. Then the question becomes in which section it is more convenient to place it. There are also reasons above why it is more convenient to place it later.

[2T] On the 2nd sentence above, to paraphrase my response immediately above, it is not a matter of defining game theory so as to exclude 'mathematical method'. Nor, as in the 3rd sentence above, is it a matter of the "most appropriate classification." Again, it comes down to reasons given as to convenience of different placements. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, I am not going to deconstruct your response sentence by sentence - suffice to say that this is clearly a difference of opinion. I have already stated my position, namely that Game Theory is not a field of economics in its own right, but rather a tool used for analysis of strategic problems, some of which happen to do with the field of Economics. Hence, out of the three subsections (Macro/Micro, M&QM, and Selected) the one which makes the most sense is M&QM. Suicup 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, on no intentional obfuscation, Suicup, which I took to be the point of your forswearing deconstruction. On the other hand, critical analysis, which I have attempted, can seriously engage another person's argument (& one's own of course). The 2nd sentence above was answered by my (3) & (4) above, and the 2nd para. of my 14:02, 14 August Edit, with variations in each Edit thereafter. Within economics, of course, game theory is a field, unless context or a favored reading excludes that usage of 'field'. I have pointed to the anomalous specificity of "Game theory" in Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods in contrast to "Math econ" and "Econometrics" & its presence in M&QM unnecessarily slowing progress to the next section. By contrast, in "Selected fields," "Game theory" would nicely complement "Industrial organization" (unindented to save space):

"Game theory

"Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic interactions between agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies that will maximize their payoff, given the strategies the other agents choose. It provides a formal modeling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other agents. Game theory generalizes maximization approaches developed to analyze markets such as the supply and demand model. The field dates from the 1944 classic Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. It has found significant applications in many areas outside economics as usually construed, including formulation of nuclear strategies, ethics, political science, and evolutionary theory.

"Industrial organization

"Industrial organization studies the strategic behavior of firms, the structure of markets and their interactions. The common market structures studied include perfect competition, monopolistic competition, various forms of oligopoly, and monopoly." (End quotation.)

The trained or untrained eye can see the connection. Presumably, that complementarity is why The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics#Subject Index puts both under a common classification, "V. Economic Organization," rather than putting "Game theory" under "VI. Techniques" with mathematical economics, mathematical methods, social accounting, and econometrics.

The 2nd & 3rd sentences of the lead paragraph for Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods are:

Other general mathematical and quantitative methods are also often used for rigorous analysis of the economy or areas within economics. Such methods include the following.

These should fend off any inference that the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section is meant to be an exhaustive taxonomy or that another more specific method (such as "Game theory") could not come in a later section.

The last sentence of Suicup above refers to the the relevant subject areas under subsections and subjects therein (correctly stated as Micro, Macro, M&QM, and Selected Fields). These are matters of labelling convenience & convenience as to readability, not necessarily a unique taxonomic guide to classification. Thus, information economics, welfare economics, and large parts of industrial organization are all treated under microeconomics in JEL classification codes#Microeconomics JEL: D Subcategories and priciples textbooks, such as Samuelson & Nordhaus's Economics (textbook)). These, however, would not be prudently dumped into the "Microeconomics" subsection. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (minor Edit Thomasmeeks 13:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

"References needed" Tag

Isn't it about time to remove the references tag at the top of the page? This article is about as thoroughly referenced as any in Wikipedia. If there are specific reference challenges, they should be in specific sections, not the entire article.BillGosset 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be right. Yes, a specific section could get a template or a specific para. or sentence could get flagged as ((fact)) to target problem areas. In the meanwhile, the References template at the top of the article might have served its purpose well. --Thomasmeeks 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Information economics as broader term than Contract theory

The Economics article Edit for 23:49, 27 July 2007 had this (partial) Edit summary:

(Restores and edits "Information economics" (sect. 2.5.5) from "Contract theory."

The article Edit that preceded it was for 20:19, 27 July 2007 and had this Edit summary:

(→Information economics - change to contract theory; see talk:information economics).

So, which Edit is right? Wrong question. Arguably, the right question is this. Which has broader usage and is likely to be of interest to more readers? "Information economics" has about the same usage as "contract theory" in scholarly contexts. Thus, a Google Advanced Search of of scholarly papers (with "Google Scholar) for "information economics" yields 9600 hits vs. "contract theory" AND "economic" with about the same. So, "information economics" and "contract theory" both have wide scholarly attestation. However, the narrower focus of the Contract theory article compared to the Information economics article is evident. Information economics also better reflects the broader usage of "Information" at the top of JEL D8 in "Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty," which clearly refers to more "information" in the topics below it than the 'information' link at JEL: D82, which is (appropriately) linked to Contract theory. The latter usage applies uniquely to JEL: D82. So, Contract theory matters, but it's not the only thing that matters as to scholarly uses of the term 'information' in economics or, broadly speaking, information economics (alternatively, the economics of information). Moving from scholars talking to scholars, "information economics" has far wider currency and application in common discourse than "contract theory" as related to economics. Moreover, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article for "Economics," in describing contemporary fields of the subject discusses "information economics," not "contract theory." It should be acceptable for the present article to follow suit, including contract theory as an important application of the subject, but not the only important one. --Thomasmeeks 02:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, "information economics" and "contract theory" seem to refer to different things. The former is about information technology in business, and pertains to practical decision-making about IT. The latter is about the strategic interactions between principals and agents. (To the extent this distinction is not clear, I think we would be wise to sharpen it.) The Section D JEL codes don't fit with anything IT-specific, but I agree contract theory also isn't a perfect fit. Perhaps Expected utility would be better? Also, note that at google, google scholar, and ssrn, searches for "contract theory" all return more hits than searches for "information economics." Jeremy Tobacman 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up something, the use of the term "information economics" in the wikipedia article of the same name is a much broader topic than information technology in business, although that article is quite muddled and has probably caused a lot of confusion. There is one narrow use of the term that applies specifically to a weighted scoring method for IT developed by Parker, et. al. But the article talks about the developments in the economics of asymetric information in transactions and which became a Nobel Prize winning area of study. There is also applied information economics which was developed initially in IT but has been used outside of IT. I've been arguing in the information economics discussion page that these various topics need to be untangled. Some work has been done but it should still be split into different articles.Hubbardaie 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tangentially, I strongly agree that the article on contract theory needs work. Principal-agent problem is non-technical, but much more thorough. Jeremy Tobacman 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that contract theory appear under the heading of law and economics. Indeed on the contract theory page the lead places it (correctly IMHO) as a sub field of law and economics. In general the economics of information is a much broader field. The relationship between information and law and economics (and many other areas in economics) rests on the fact that contracts (and laws) only "matter" in a world where information is other than perfect. From this perspective the fields of information and law and economics have developed in a mutual way. My two cents. Corebreeches 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx, both. Jeremy, agreed as to your 1st sent., but on your 2nd sent. many of the Google Scholar hits seem to agree with my above-mentioned JEL D8 category link, which can include your usage. The question is the more informative term for the present article, and here I believe that the broader usage is more informative. Corebreeches, my above-mentioned JEL D8 category link does have 'contract law' as a subcategory. As to law and econ, there is separate litsting for 'Contract Law' at JEL classification codes#Law and economics JEL: K Subcategories, not the same usage (necessarily) as the Contract theory article or JEL D86 Contract Law usage. --Thomasmeeks 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (last line corrected to JEL D86 Thomasmeeks 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Please see my additional comments at Talk:Information_economics#Contract_theory.2C_asymmetric_information.2C_and_this_article. Jeremy Tobacman 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Selected fields?

How about doing the selected fields stuff - which is really just a list, and doesn't seem to deserve the separate headings - like the Further disciplines section on the Law page? Would everyone be happy with that?Wikidea 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting readers of this page with the above comment, Wikidea. For the benefit of other readers, article Edits related to the above are now found at "Economics#Further fields", renamed from "Selected fields." Associated article Edit summaries done several days ago are:

[1) (→Selected fields - changed style of headings to not clog the contents part, as suggested per talk page)

[2] (→Selected fields - changed "Selected" to "Further fields" because that seems to fit a bit better - or maybe "specialist" could work too? ([1] & [2] labelling added, lower case to upper case for 'S' & 'F' in [2])

Above are rationales for [1] elimination of the subsections within "Further fields" corresponding &o the respective fields & [2] changing the section heading from "Selected" fields" to "Further fields".

For ease of reference below, the haadings of successive article sections & subsections and portions therein follow They are unindented.

Beginning of article quotation:

"Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications

Recent developments closer to microeconomics include behavioral economics and experimental economics. Fields bordering on other social sciences include economic geography, economic history, public choice, cultural economics, and institutional economics.

. . .

"Mathematical and quantitative methods

. . . Such general mathematical and quantitative methods include the following:

"Mathematical economics

Main article: Mathematical economics

Mathematical economics refers to application of mathematical methods to represent economic theory or analyze problems posed in economics. It uses such methods as calculus and matrix algebra. Expositors cite its advantage in allowing formulation and derivation of key relationships in an economic model with clarity, generality, rigor, and simplicity. For example, Paul Samuelson's book Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947) identifies a common mathematical structure across multiple fields in the subject.

. . .

"National accounting

{main|National accounts}} National accounting is a method for summarizing economic activity of a nation. The national accounts are double-entry accounting systems that provide detailed underlying measures of such information. National accounting includes measurement of national income and product. This allows tracking the performance of an economy and its components through business cycles or over longer periods. It also includes measurement of the capital stock and wealth of a nation, and international capital flows.

"Further fields

• Development economics examines the economic aspects of the development process in developing countries with a focus on methods of promoting economic growth.

• Environmental economics is concerned with environmental issues, in particular the concept of externalities, which can lead to market failure.

• Financial economics, often simply referred to as finance, is concerned with the allocation of financial resources in an uncertain (or risky) environment. Thus, its focus is on the operation of financial markets, the pricing of financial instruments, and the financial structure of companies. While it has traditionally been considered a part of economics, today, finance has established itself as a separate discipline in its own right.

. . ." (End of quotation)

#####

A case in favor of restoring the earlier subsections & title is set out below, labelled for ease of reference if that is helpful.

In favor of restoring field-name subsections of "Further fields":

(1T) It is fair to acknowledge that [1] (elimination of subsections for "Further fields") brings out clearly that, by comparison with the previous section, some of the descriptions of different fields are too skimpy & could be supplemented to the benefit of the section. That may be an argument for supplementing the description rather than eliminating the subsections.

(2T) It is inaccurate to call the field paragraphs in "Further fields" a 'list', because each paragraph is a description that goes beyond naming each field. Agreed, subsectioning what is only a list would be questionable. But listing the specific fields as distinct subsections can be very useful. In particular, it allows the reader inspecting the Contents box at the beginning of Economics to identify contents of "Further fields." For many readers that might be the high point of the article, to which they could easily click to or at least eagerly anticipate. And from there the reader may go to the main article if desired. Why make the section mysterious as to contents by removing a list of its contents in the Contents box? The assumption that the reader will react with "Yikes!" rather than "Cool!" at the subjects is doubtful. Those put off by that section may be grateful to learn of its contents so as to skip over it. So, "clogging" section with field-name subsections arguably benefits most readers.

(3T) The beginning of the big "Social Sciences" article in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica has a table of contents for the article, including those for Economics. The section for "Fields of contemporary economics" lists 9 fields (a majority of them also in "Further fields"). If it is important enough for Britannica to list the 9 fields in its table of contents, it should arguably be important enough for Economics to list the 10 fields in the Contents box for that section.

[4T] Bolded hypertext links is an alternative to subsectioning with a main article under the subsection title, but it is arguably distracting ("busy") in short successive paragraphs, most with multiple other non-bolded Wiki links. It is not as though alphabetic succession of fields shows a logical relation of the different fields that might warrant the compression from eliminating subsections. The sharp transition of fields arguably warrants subsections to parallel them, not bolded hypertext.

[5T] There is an asymmetry between the listing of subjects in the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" and the non-listing of subjects in "Further fields," despite a structural similarity of the two sections. The reader may unfortunately conclude that the subjects in "Further fields" do no warrant separate listing. But the fields of the section are far from second-class in importance. Subsections can reflect their importance. Both should be subsectioned.

In favor of restoring the section heading back to "Selected fields" from "Further fields":

[6T] The "Further" may refer to either of the preceding sections:

"Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications" or "Mathematical and quantitative methods." But the relevant basic unit is 'related fields' in the first section, not 'fields'. The relevant unit in the second case is 'mathematical (or) quantitative) methods', not 'fields'. 'Further' as a modifier implicitly refers the reader back to earlier sections, when this is not necessary & not helpful. There is a different basis for inclusion in the preceding 2 sections. 'Selected' is non-commital but at least suggests that the fields in that section were selected for a reason, not necessarily the same as for the previous sections. 'Further' arguably obscures unnecessarily. (One suggested alternative 'select' may be read as possibly transgressing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by those doing the "selecting.")

Arguably the principle use of this section title is as a neutral placeholder for the listed subsections. Comments are welcome, whether pro or con or to add to any points so far made in this section. --Thomasmeeks 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) (proof-reading Edits Thomasmeeks 10:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Wow! I can't pretend I've read all of this. I made the changes so it just looked more presentable. But it's not really a big thing - a matter of preference, and I'm sure it won't matter to me to do anything different. Of course what really matters is a well written and well referenced page. Wikidea 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thx, & amen. I tried to fix a problem discussed above as to skimpy content of the first 2 subsections, which earlier Edits made more evident. --Thomasmeeks 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mathematical and quantitative methods" para. moved to Talk p.

The following long paragraph added recently was removed from the top of Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods:

An economic problem often involves so many variables that mathematics is the only practical way of handling it - "handling" in the sense of solving it. For many academics interested on the subject, like Alfred Marshall, every economic problem which can be quantified, analytically expressed and solved, should be treated by means of mathematical work. Economic analysis relies more and more on mathematical foundations. Economics has become increasingly dependent on mathematical methods, and the mathematical tools it employs have become more sophisticated. As a result, mathematically competent professionals are needed in industry and government for dealing with the subject. Graduate programs in economics and finance programs in graduate schools of management require strong undergraduate preparation in mathematics for admission and are attractive to an increasingly high number of mathematicians. Applied mathematicians apply mathematical principles to practical problems, such as economic analysis and other economics-related issues, in such a way that many economic problems are oftenly defined as being integrated into the scope of applied mathematics.

Problems with the paragraph arguably include these:

1. It is unnecessary for this section, given the subsections below it that make similar points more exactly, more generally, and more simply as to methods, including math econ, econometrics, and national accounting.
2. It sounds like a classroom lecture, rather than written in the more concise fashion standard for an encyclopedia.
3. It writes about economists and graduate students rather than economics as a subject.
4. It unneccessarily bogs this section down, rather than allowing a faster transition to the next "Selected fields" section of the aricle. Placement of the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section of the article is discussed above atTalk:Economics#"Mathematical and quantitative methods" section after "Selected fields"?. Why create a problem here where there arguably was none before? --Thomasmeeks 18:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Greek letters from 2nd sentence of "Economics"

The 2nd sentence of Economics for some time has included the Greek letters such as in the last edit before they were removed:

The term 'economics' is from the Greek oikos (οἶκος, house) and nomos (νόμος, custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."

The current edit reads:

The term 'economics' is from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)." (bolding of 'for' added)

The bolded 'for' above implies that 'oikos' (house) and 'nomos' are merely roman-letter transliterations from the Greek rather than the Greek itself. Reason for the omission of the Greek letters:

1. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Such "completeness" seems more appropriate for the etymology of a dictionary entry. (Even standard dictionaries not infrequently omit the Greek.)
2. There is redundancy in including both the roman and Greek letters when the roman letters are sufficient to get the point across.
3. Dropping the the Greek diacriticals (accents) makes the Greek letters even less urgent because of similarities to the Roman letters of what remain. (According to Diacritics (Greek alphabet)#Historical Development, the first diacriticals started appearing around 2nd century A.D. Purists might smile at these late additions for "authenticity.")
4. While the Greek letters might be fun to puzzle through for some, others, even knowledgeable others, might well ask of them, "What is the point?" --Thomasmeeks 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Schools : Austrian School

I must say that I am not at ease with this edit [5], although some work was required with regard to style and presentation. It seems to me that the Austrian School of economics is at least notable enough to deserve its own section, and certainly deserves a longer one than Marxian Economics, which are notable as well but no longer taken seriously since a long time. --Childhood's End 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge sect. 5 "History" & 6 "Schools"? Request for comment

It was proposed above at Talk:Economics#Merging (1) sect. 5 & 6 (2) Reasoning & Concepts sect.; Economic systems? to merge these article sections:

Economics#History of economics

Economics#Schools of thought

Inspection of the subsections reveals the overlap, which merger could eliminate with a gain of continuity:

5 History of economics [18th and 19th century]

5.1 Classical economics

5.1.1 Theories of value: classical and Marxist

5.2 Neoclassical economics

5.3 Other schools and approaches

5.4 Historic definitions of economics

5.4.1 Wealth definition

5.4.2 Welfare definition

6 Schools of thought [last 3 subsections more 20th-century]

6.1 Classical economics

6.2 Marxian economics

6.3 Keynesian economics

6.4 Neoclassical economics

6.5 Other schools

One provisional name of such a merged section would be "History and schools of economics." If there is no consensus against it, I'll proceed with a merger in a few days. Comments, pro or con, are requested below. Thx. --Thomasmeeks 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

Transfinancial Economics

There is a new paradigm known as Transfinancial Economics, or TFE. At the time of writing it is in the process of research, and development though the basic concepts will remain the same in all likelihood. See link for more information.

[6]  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

R.Searle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Robert Searle, Wikipedia is not the place for original works. Also, I don't mean to offend, but you need to learn more about global economics (concentrate on finance). In addition, you need to understand that computers do not solve everything and some things should still be left in the hands of humans. Good Luck! --EGeek (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. EGeek(!) Thank you for your comments. I agree that some things need to be left in the hands of humans but we must also remember that our present banking system is run largely by computer technology. Moreover, the present internet essay (to be updated with new ideas, and more research) is deliberately "simplistic" as so much economic academic research has become over complex to the point of idiocy! Good Luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Should "Experimental economics" be a separate subsection?

I believe that the answer to the above question is "No" for the "Economics" article as recently edited. The subsection in question was recently added and is reproduced below:

Experimental economics

Main article: Experimental economics

Experimental economics is a new field of economics developed by Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith, Professor at Chapman University [7], in order to examine the allocation mechanisms in markets. Also called "Economics Systems Design", Smith describes the origins of this new groundbreaking economic field:

"In the Autumn semester, 1955, I taught Principles of Economics, and found it a challenge to convey basic microeconomic theory to students. Why/how could any market approximate a competitive equilibrium? I resolved that on the first day of class the following semester, I would try running a market experiment that would give the students an opportunity to experience an actual market, and me the opportunity to observe one in which I knew, but they did not know what were the alleged driving conditions of supply and demand in that market." [8]

Allocation problems involve using a testbed, which is a platform for experimentation that allows for rigorous, transparent, and replicable testing of new and old allocation systems.

#####

Problems with retaining subsection include the following:

1. The 2nd paragraph seems contrary to the Please note point at the bottom of the Edit window:

• Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images.

The quoted material does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Public domain standards for quotation. In addition it is copywrited.

2. The subsection is written in a fashion drastically & inappropriately different from the other Economics#Selected fields in being biographical rather than subject-oriented. {This is not to deny Vernon Smith's central contribution of course.) Important though the subject is, it is significantly less so than any other field listed there (doubtless in part due to its recent vintage), as very roughly gauged by the following stats from an Advanced search using http://scholar.google.com/ (which limits searches to scholarly papers and some books).

"Experimental economics" 13,600 hits

"Mathematical economics" 23,000 hits

Econometrics 275,000 hits

"Selected fields" section: Google Scholar hits for most subsections

(inserted subsection heading for ease of reference --Thomasmeeks Oct. 7, 2007) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Development economics" 116,000 hits

"Environmental economics" 45,300 hits

Finance 2,070,000 hits

"Game theory"' 156,000 hits

"Industrial organization" 109,000 hits

"Information economics" OR "economics of information" 19,000 hits

"International economics" 264,000 hits

"Labor economics" 64,800 hits

"Law and economics" 103,000

"Public finance" 106,000 hits

"Welfare economics" 26,700 hits

Shouldn't the point of "Selected fields" be to be selective in covering major fields that best represent the subject & not adequately covered elsewhere in the article?

3. The subject is important for testing theories. But is that sufficient reason for most readers to include it in a separate subsection along with the other "selected fields"? Much more doubtful. Rather it arguably makes more sense to work in the appropriate discussion and references elsewhere, as has been done at:

• the top of Economics#Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications
• the end of the 3rd para. of Economics#Economic theory criticisms
• the end of the 1st para. of Economics#Economic reasoning, which I believe reduces further the need for a separate "Experimental economics" subsection by placing the subject in an appropriate context to make it meaningful, stating its importance but not overstating it.

The last, I admit, was stimulated by the subsection in question, not to knock it down but to make the article more readable by working the subject in by relevant context where it is more more likely to resonate rather than being skipped over or turning readers off prematurely. What would be lost from retaining the subsection is readability & undue length for the audience we are all trying to serve in this general survey article.

The most immediate reason for removal of the subsection is (1) above. Even if that point were met by revision, the remaining points would have to be addressed dispositively for any reasoned consensus to keep the subsection. Something very positive did come from introducing the subsection, but I believe that something would be lost by retaining it now. Comments, pro or con, are welcome. --Thomasmeeks 15:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (minor editing Thomasmeeks 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on September 21, 2007, this good article candidate was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CP. A bit of clarification might not hurt. None of the tags in the indented part above currently occur in the article, but there is the {{Refimprove}} template at the top of the article. I did a little digging on the latter. The first listing of the Categories:

Articles needing additional references

All articles with unsourced statements

at the bottom of the article were apparently triggered by {{fact}} insertions (of an admin as it happens) on April 13, 2006. At that time there were 6 footnotes with citations. The only changes in those Categories resulted from bot updates in Dec. 2006 and May 2007. There are currently 68 such footnotes. As to the quality & appropriatness of all of them, there is no need to generalize, but there does seem to have been a concerted effort to document.

There is plenty in the good-article-criteria link for consideration as to improving the article. If there are any specifics, I believe that these would be widely appreciated. --Thomasmeeks 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (minor proofreading fix Thomasmeeks 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

Well, as I said, I hadn't given this article a full review, but quick-failed it because of the banner (refimprove) and the fact that the banner had some merit (as in, it wasn't just added recently or for no reason). I'm not sure how that NPOV note got in there, but it wasn't my intention to do so, so I have removed it. I'm also a bit confused as why this was nominated for GA in the first place, since it's already passed the A-Class review department, which means (and I say this having not fully read the article, so don't submit it based on my statement alone!) that it's probably closer to the ideal of a FA than a GA. Having said that, that doesn't bar it from becoming a GA, but I'm not certain why an A-Class article would want or need GA status.

I haven't given it a full review yet, but if for whatever reason you'd like me too, I can look it over and give it a proper one. If you're thinking of nominating it for FA, I probably wouldn't be all that helpful, so you might want to do a peer review instead (normally I find this process useless unless you request the review within the domain of a certain Wikiprojects, but a topic as broad as Economics might garner more attention). If you'd still like to go for GA, however, I can look it over properly and give you a more detailed review before you resubmit it. Cheers, CP 16:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, CP. Whether the {{Refimprove}} template}} is still warranted is entirely doubtful for the article as a whole. But, as you suggest, its presence moots the question of reguesting a GA review, even if at least it has the advantage of discouraging junk edits (not a good enough reason to justify it, of course). A more interesting question would be might be what are the things in the article (or not) that might disqualify it from FA consideration. If you (or others) have thoughts on that, there is no doubt that they would be given serious consideration by those reading this page. Of course, improvement of the article, not long-term hopes has to be the first consideration. I believe that there is still a way to go. Within a few months, one hopes that more realistic consideration could be given to, yea, even FA article consideration. Then, either it would "succeed," or the process could result in its further improvement. --Thomasmeeks 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (minor edit of previous last sent. + added sent. Thomasmeeks 06:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

P.S. Here is the link to the Featured-article review of Economics for April 2006 (when it lost its Featured-article status, which I was able to find only after a Google search of: "Featured article review" economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Economics

(Note the addition of Sept. 11, 2006 comments, which supported but did not affect the result.)

Here is the link to what the article looked like at the time Economics became a former FA: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economics&oldid=49472920

The obvious differences are in the ordering of sections, the subsection break-out in "Areas of economics," the additional last section, & the additional references. Substantively, only a reading of the respective sections can reveal whether and where the article has improved since then, whether the criticisms made then have been met, whether new criticisms could be plausibly raised as to revisions since then, and whether unmentioned weaknesses (if any) in the earlier Edit persist. --Thomasmeeks 19:39, 24

Section 1: heading rationale & more

The section 1 heading was recently restored to "In the beginning" from "Definition." An argument for "In the beginning" is the following.

[1] It has the advantage of suggesting that Adam Smith's long quotation in that section describing the subject of econmics is not to be construed as merely another definition or a long early definition. Rather, the quotation may be taken as a modern genesis of economics as a program of analysis (suggested by the term 'proposes' in the quotation), including both its practical and scientific uses. It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought. From that perspective, the "In the beginning" section should not (and does not) have "Main article: History of economic thought" at all. It is not history in the common sense of a chronicle over time. It is rather Adam Smith speaking across time as a fellow modern. In that light, the function of the section is different from the later sect. 5 "History and schools of economics." The heading "Definition" (of economics) may elicit disinterest, since it follows the Lead with its 2 definitions, the 2nd of which has a discussion (1st & 2nd para.). "In the beginning" may have the effect of enticing perusal of the section, rather than skipping it as "just another definition." --Thomasmeeks 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Section 1 of Economics was recently restored to [A] the long-standing heading "In the beginning" from the recent "Introduction" and (B) deletion at the top of the section of

See also: History of economic thought and Ancient economic thought

.

An argument for (A) ("In the beginning" over "Introduction") is as follows. It is more suggestive and specific than "Introduction," which, as it stands, is generic with little content. The Edit summary for the heading was:

(→Introduction - as a seperate [sic] discipline)

with the last 4 words explaining use of "Introduction." Those words clarify the (non-generic) intent. But including those words would, I believe, come off as wordy and pedantic, whereas "In the beginning" accurately suggests its contents & invites by allusion (details in [1] at the top of this section).

An argument for (B) is given above as:

[The section] is not history in the common sense of a chronicle over time. It is rather Adam Smith speaking across time as a fellow modern. In that light, the function of the section is different from the later sect. 5 "History and schools of economics."

Including

See also: History of economic thought and Ancient economic thought

comes across as unnecessarily ponderous for this section but not for the later one. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Should "Political economics" be a separate subsection?

The following subsection was added in the last few days to the "Selected fields" section of Economics:

Political Economics

Political economics as a sub-field of economics, relates to the application of economic tools to the study of political systems, and the economic effects of different political systems. Political economics applies tools from such fields as game theory and public choice theory to incorporate political and economic choices into a coherent model.

It was more recently removed after addition of another subsection Economics#Economic systems intended to preserve the advantage of "Political economics" but without its drawbacks. Here are arguments for the swap of "Economic systems" for "Political economics."

1. "Political economics" is missing as an entry and in the subject indexes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics where one would expect to find it if it is important enough to appear in this general article with other "select fields." Neither is there a "Political economics" category in the very detailed JEL classification codes.
2. Political economics is appreciably less well-attested than other "selected fields" in its section by the approximate measure of a Google Scholar search yielding about 14,000+ hits. (See above for comparison.)
3. There is not even a Wiki article titled "Political economics.
4. There is a recently added discussion of public choice theory in Economics#Public finance. The "Public choice theory" article also mentions use of game theory. These make a "Political economics" subsection less pressing.
5. The one relatively new element of "Political economics" in the "Selected fields" section is mention of political systems. But for that purpose, the corresponding major branch of economics in both Encyclopaedia Britannica (cited in the footnotes for the "Economic systems" subsection), and the category for JEL codes is not "political economics" but "economic systems." Moreover, one of the subcategories of JEL classification codes#Economic systems JEL: P Subcategories is political economy, which can be construed as a more standard WP:VERIFY-able term in this context than 'political economics'.

Accordingly, the better-attested "Economic systems" has been added as a subsection of Economic#Selected fields and "Political economics" has been removed. Discussion, pro or con, is welcome below. P.S. It is only fair to acknowledge Suicup's priority in July 2007 on Economic systems on this page (archived at sect. 37.3.1 "Merging (1) sect. 5 & 6 (2) Reasoning & Concepts sect.; Economic systems?". --Thomasmeeks 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 'Economic Systems' should not go into 'Areas of Economics', but rather in its own major heading - perhaps titled 'Political Economy'. My reasoning is that the various areas of economics describe and explain phenomena within economic systems. Thus I think that the hierarchy should be as follows: Economic thought > Political Economy > Areas of Economics. That is, after describing the general schools of historical thought we then move towards categorizing economic systems within those thought paradigms. Finally, we can use the various Areas of Economics to understand how the Economic Systems operate. Suicup 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like the above as to history and schools of economics coming first was the case as to Economics for a time (the first part of Summer 2007). Whether many people would agree that the "Areas of economics" section was thereby clarified is an interesting question but not one that many economics textbook writers seem to have considered. If the proposed new section above would be, not on economic systems as such, but on "political economy" within economic systems as per JEL classification codes#Economic systems JEL: P Subcategories, it is not clear how the various areas of economics would be thereby clarified and how this would finally clarify the workings of economic systems, though it would unquestionably defer considertion of subject areas. --Thomasmeeks 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The other reason why economic systems does not belong in areas is because the former is generally a philosophical/political matter (hence 'political economy'), whereas the latter is obviously an economics matter. ie capitalism vs communism is predicated upon who you think should own the means of production, ie a philosophical question; however the various areas of economics merely explain the allocation of resources etc (ie an economic question) within those systems. Suicup 18:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Should "Business Economics" be a separate subsection?

The following subsection was added in the last week to the "Selected fields" section of Economics:

Business Economics

This field of economics focuses to the changing manpower requirements of the economy as it addresses the needs of its immediate environment. Its core courses are in research, industry, business analysis, development planning and investment undertakings.

It was more recently removed after addition of another subsection Economics#Managerial economics intended to preserve the advantage of "Business Economics" but without its drawbacks. Here are arguments for removing the "Business Economics" subsection.

1. "business economics" is missing as an entry and in the subject indexes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics where one would expect to find it if it is important enough to appear in this general article with other "select fields."
2. There is a "Business Economics" subcategory at JEL classification codes#Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting JEL: M Subcategories, namely at JEL: M2 and JEL: M21, and impressively there are Google Scholar 26,000+ hits for a search of: "business economics" JEL. But this declines to an unimpressive 300+ hits for a search of: "business econonomics" JEL M2 OR M21. Rather "business economics" gets largely picked up in other JEL categories for most Google Scholar hits such as as "Microeoonomics," "Industrial rganization," and "Financial Economics" (or Finance). These are included in Economics subsections. So, "Business economics" as a separate field is a largely redundant descriptive term rather than a separate "select field" in this part of the article.
3. Unlike the other subsections in "Select fields," there is not even a Wiki article titled "business economics."

A better place for working in discussion might be the last section, "Economics in practice," not as to "business economics" as such but as to "business economists."

Arguments for including a "Managerial economics" subsection in place of "Business economics" include these:

1. It is has an Encyclopaedia Britannica entry and a related New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics entry.
2. It can act as a better-attested surrogate for the subcategories included under JEL classification codes#Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting JEL: M Subcategories, including Business Economics. --Thomasmeeks 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Disambiguation of "Economics" & "Economy" necessary?

The following was recently added to the top of Economics:

This article is about the social science that studies the Economy. For other meanings see Economy (disambiguation).

I believe the following are sufficient reasons for replacememt of the above Disambiguation with a gloss of "economies" in last paragraph of the lead (namely, the much-briefer "as economic systems").

1. The Disambiguation is arguably unnecessary (esp. with the gloss). People who search for Economy would be taken to that article, & similarly for Economics. There is no reason to impute possible confusion requiring disambiguation. 'Economy' or 'economies' is referred to in the first sentence of the last lead paragraph and prominently in the lead of sect. 2 "Areas of economics." Why disambiguate when the context of 'economy' (complete with in-line link & current gloss) is prominent in Economics?

2. The first Disambiguation sentence may also mislead. The first sentence & last para. of the lead correctly do not confine "economics" to study of the economy. The Disambiguation (1st sentence reinforced by 2nd sentence) suggests otherwise. So, the Disambiguation quite possibly misleading and unnecessarily distracting. --Thomasmeeks 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Early economic thought" section

This article subsection combines the previous lead of the "History and schools of economics" section with 2 subsections recently formed: "Pre-modern period: Ancient economic thought" & "Early modern period". Why? Economics is widely considered to have become a separate subject only with the emergence of classical economics. The continuum & overlap of earlier thought is reflected in the current heading Economics#Early economic thought and the current transition between the 1st & 2nd paragraphs. It is a reasonable description of the contents. (It is also the title of a standard book of the subject, Early Economic Thought: Selections from Economic Literature Prior to Adam Smith by AE Monroe (1924, Harvard University Press).) The headings it replaces are question-begging as to content & do not capture the overlap/continuum as to history & schools. The current Edit of that section has corrected errors from the previous Edit and added relevant details based on new page-specific references citsd. There is no "Main article" template for this subsection, because in-line links are provided instead, making the "Main article" template redundant (added:) and therefore a distraction before they would most likely be used. The same subjects are also well-covered in the respective "Main articles" template for the section heading immediately above the subsection --Thomasmeeks 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Added sentence+ at end. 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

Should Henry George and Economic Rent be noted here?

I know Georgism is temporarily unfashionable, but should it go entirely unmentioned in an article on Economics? My preference is for comprehensiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.252.65 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A general reference to Henry George in now included in the 2nd to last sentence of Economics#Early economic thought in a broader context. --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Typo. Thomasmeeks 14:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Is the Citatations template at top of article still necessary?

Is the following template at the top of the article still necessary?

Arguably not. Since the template was added in 23:35, 14 May 2007, the number of footnotes has grown from 21 to 107. A check a few weeks ago suggests that some of the citations in the last section don't fit. But cleaning up citations is different from lack thereof for the entire article. If there are sections or passages that lack necessary citation, they can be singled out with a

template or

after the citation-challenged sentence or paragraph. Most of the article currently appears exceptionally well documented now, though bot necessarily for some of most recent additions. If there is no consensus otherwise, I'll remove the current Citations template in a week. --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (typo. Thomasmeeks 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Re-merged "Development and growth economics" from recent split

The "Economics#Development and growth economics" subsection was re-merged from a recent split into "Development economics" and "Growth economics." Below is a brief for re-merging.

For purposes of a course catalog and analytical distinction, a separate listing of Development Economics and Growth Economics makes good sense. That is not at issue. The question here is entirely one of convenience in this section of the article. And here the advantages of linking related subjects in exposition of their union are several, among them:

1. The definition & discussion of "growth economics" naturally precedes referring to it regarding "evelopment economics." Splitting and alphabetizing them puts the "cart before the horse" and separates them in a way that obscures their linkage.
2. The figure with "Growth economics" ties in very well with "Development economics" because of obvious temporal and geograpic differences in income levels. The vivid disparities are lost by separation into 2 subsections. Treating these as related subjects in the subsection generates another analytical synergy.
3. "Growth economics" as a subsection loses the very important linkage from juxtaposing the subsections "Economics#Game theory" and "Industrial organiation."
4. Oxford University Press in its catalogs and Encyclopaedia Britannica in its Macro article on Econ treats the two subjects together. These are sound scholarly precedents in this overview of the subject. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of "Development and growth economics" subsection

The long-standing sequence of the Economics#Development and growth economics waa restored -- with the discussion of growth economics first. (1) immediately above indicates the rationale for that sequence:

The definition & discussion of "growth economics" naturally precedes referring to it regarding "development economics."

Arguably that warrants the order of treatment in the subsection, even though it overrides the alphabetic order in the section title ("Development and growth"...).

In the previous Edit, that order was reversed with the connector of "In particular" preceding the growth-econ. part. The "In particular" phrase is a non sequitur in that growth economics can appy to a high- or low-income economies. Nor is growth economics simply an application of development economics. In a theoretical sense, it is more nearly the opposite with dev. econ. using growth econ. theory as an input.

Before there was a modern subject of "growth economics" there was economic growth, as illustrated by the figure of that section. This further warrants treating growth econ first. Thus, the alphabetized sequrnce of the subsection title is retained (parallel to the alphabetid sequence of the other subsections), but the order of discussion is determined by the above considerations. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This section Development and Growth economics seems to me problematic. I think the split I made between growth and development was a sensible one. The approach and literature of the two areas are, I think, significantly different. Those coming from a mainstream neoclassical approach seem often to think of development economics as a minor subsection of growth which in turn is part of macroeconomics. Those coming from the development economics side tend to think more in terms of the sectoral nature of the economy and development involving both growth and structural change. I think the growth section might better alone or perhaps merged with the macroeconomics section above. Another alternative might be for a title for this section like the economics of development, growth and structual change. Also the graph here doesn't seem to show anything much and is not refered to or used in the text. Is this the practice in wikipedia. I'm a new contributor I hope I've not done anything too wrong yet. (Msrasnw (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC))

I am in sympathy with the some of the above remarks. Your subsequent add of the last sentence to the Macroeconomics subsection, although overlapping with the Dev. and Growth subsection I hope meets your concern about the Macro section. As to a merger of "Growth econ" and "Macro," that would I believe lose the synergies of the current "Development and growth economics" subsection. My recent Edit, while modest, was intended to differentiate growth econ and development econ. in line with your criticism. I hopes that this brings out that development econ employing of the tools of growth econ in no way makes it an appendage or afterhthought of growth econ. If the subsection was for a college course catalog, different listings for growth econ and dev. econ might be appropriate. But the subsection is intended for no such purpose. For a reader trying to get an overview of econ, the subsection helps illuminate the interrelation, as elaborated in the 4 numbered reasons at the beginning of this section & my immediately previous comment above. Both are important as is their relation to each other. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of contradictions

I question the validity or proper application of this supposed proof of the unscientific status of economics. There exist varying schools of thought and contention between students of ALL sciences and as such, I see this as the pot calling the kettle black. Darrin

I agree. A science is simply a discipline that poses testable hypotheses. Economics does this therefore economics is a science. Case closed. The non-science folk are typically those who have mistaken writings in social philosophy for economics. The error is not dissimilar from mistaking creation stories for biology. Wikiant (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also challenge the reasoning that all knowledge can only be obtained through empirical study. Analytical study and Kants form of the pursuit of truths is no less scientific, nor more. All knowledge is based in some degree in logic and as such i find Mises contemplations on Praxeology particularly applicable to economics. This arguement presented against economics as non-science is specious.

Damn it, sorry about the double post, I do not know how to remove it :-/Darrin

In the beginning

I think the section should have other title. "In the beginning" is ok to start a novel, an author's preface, a tale, but this is supposed to be an article of Wikipedia, isn't it? Pularoid (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For defenses of that title relative to proposed alternatives, see Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more above. The intent is to entice and suggest without without coming across as too ponderous. The Smith quotation seems very ambitious. Did he succeed? At least the title suggests that something possibly portentous was afoot and may pique curiosity as to the section & what follows. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"In the beginning" again

The defense immediately above of the Section 1 heading "In the beginning" in Economics still applies relative to "History," the latest proposed alternative heading. A pertinent question should be "Which heading is likely to entice interest?" The one-paragraph section is a substantive segue to the rest of the article, rather than a "history," which implies chronology. Arguably, the point of the section is analytical (in revealiing a continuity of the subject), not "history" as such (elaborated at Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more). There is of course the later section, "Economics#History and schools of economics," for which the term 'history' applies along with

Main article: History of economic thought

under the heading. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Adam Smith

I have no problem with the title, but I certainly do with what's under it! This text would have you believe that Adam Smith made no difference between "economics" and "political economy" which I would be surprised to find a source for. I'll add a cn tag. I think this source[9] shows that Adam Smith actually talked about "economics" as we now know them (allocation of limited resources to unlimited ends).

This perhaps would be more in line : "Just how individuals can best apply their own labor or any other resource is a central subject in the first book of the series. Smith claimed that an individual would invest a resource, for example, land or labor, so as to earn the highest possible return on it. Consequently, all uses of the resource must yield an equal rate of return (adjusted for the relative riskiness of each enterprise). Otherwise reallocation would result. This idea, wrote George Stigler, is the central proposition of economic theory. (...) French economist Turgot had made the same point in 1766. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That text was a quote from Adam Smith out of his book The Wealth of Nations. The distinction between "political economy" and "economics" was stated directly below that:

Smith referred to the subject as 'political economy', but that term was gradually replaced in general usage by 'economics' after 1870.

Therefore I am putting this text back. --EGeek (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Smith referred to the subject as political economy" is 100% original research. Add a source quickly or this needs a complete review. You cannot put a quote from WoN then pretend that Adam Smith thought that his comments about political economy would now apply to what we call economics. Please re-read what I said above. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The source now provided [10] actually says that "political economy originally referred to classical economic theory as developped by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and (...)". Again, there is no ground to ascertain that Adam Smith referred to the subject as political economy (it even suggests that he did not). --Childhood's End (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This being said, I especially think that this quote is a poor choice and mostly irrelevant to Adam Smith's main ideas. It can certainly be replaced by a more telling quote, without need for an unsourced editorial comment. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The above editor criticizes the failure of Economics#In the beginning to distinguish the treatment of political economy in Adam Smith quotation there from the Smith's treatment of economics, both to be found in his (or her) reference source [1], that is, an online version of The Wealth of Nations. The alleged distinction is allegedly crucial, because any statement about 'political economy' in the Smith quotation may not or does not apply to 'economics'. Hence the "Misrepresentation" charge in the heading of this subsection concerning the Smith quotation, which refers to 'political economy' but (presumably) not to 'economics'.

Some points (numbered for covenience below) may be useful:

1. Reference source [1] allows a link to word-searchable engine to Wealth of Nations. A search of 'economics' (or 'oeconomics' or oeconomicks) reveals no occurrences of the term in Smith's text (as distinct from the Editor's Introduction & notes). This makes impossible establishing a linguistic difference between Smith's use of the 2 terms there.
2. The Smith quotation, far from being a "poor choice," is a clear explication of the practical uses of political economy. The Editor of source [1] describes Smith's use of 'political economy' as synonym for the title of the book (http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?query=political+economy&book=smWN&andor=and&sensitive=no&x=16&y=9, 1st para.).
3. 'Political economy', even as that term is commonly used today, includes economics among other areas ("political economy," Encyclopædia Britannica, v. 8).
4. The only logical way to maintain that Smith's reference to 'political economy' in the quotation does not include economics as an aspect of it is to maintain that Smith's description applies only to aspects of political economy other than economics. Few people knowledgeable in the subject would agree with that, given the virtually universal agreement on Smith's contribution to economics as a separate discipline,
5. Certainly one could talk about "pure economics" (devoid of public policy comsiderations) á la Walras and others. But that only says that non-comprehensive formulations of economics are possible.
6. If 'political economy' as used in the Smith quotation includes at least economics in it, then referring to 'economics' as though it is included in 'political economy' is unexceptionable. Rather, 'political economy' was as close a linguistic usage as Smith had to work with relative to the subject that came to be called and developed as economics, in no small part because of The Wealth of Nations. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what bugged me the most is the fact that this quote is not so central to Adam Smith's main contributions - it even intuitivevly looks to go against his view as far as Smith was essentially against mercantilism. But I guess what you look for is really something specific to the 'identification' of economics as a separate discipline rather than a 'description' of the early roots of what we call now economics in line with the George Stigler paragraph that I added to the text. So, if that must remain the objective, I'll go with the quote. I although still feel that the article would benefit from instead providing a quote that is more reflective of Adam Smith's economic thinking which evolved into nowadays economics. But that's only my two cents... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Well, to note above at Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more "the quotation may be taken as a modern genesis of economics as a program of analysis (suggested by the term 'proposes' in the quotation), including both its practical and scientific uses. It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought." The claims of the quotation are staggeringly bold, I think most would agree. It is about the promise of the subject as, to use Marshall's term, an engine of analysis. That's very contemporary. The quotation is about the subject of economics, not this or that allegedly key contribution to the subject. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. Since what you seem to look for is a quote that identifies the origin of economics as a separate discipline, well yes, it can do that. I do not challenge it on that ground. I more or less agree with its use there because it misrepresents the spirit of The WoN and Adam Smith's economic thinking; notably, it tends to suggest that Adam Smith supported mercantilism, whereas the book attempted to debunk it. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

8. The Smith quotation represents his view that careful economic analysis can help in avoiding ill-conceived policies, mercantilist or otherwise. He also proposes that study of the subject can aid in supplying the state with a "revenue sufficient for the public services." None of the above constitutes supporting mercantilism. Smith uses economic analysis to criticize mercantilist policies or doctrines that he argues would or could lower "wealth" (we might say income, output, economic efficiency, or revenue). For details on the Smithian role of government, see "Smith, Adam," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987), v. 4, pp. 370-1. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we have to agree to disagree :) As to the Smithian role of government, the best reference would rather be Adam Smith himself (see for instance Book IV, Chap.2, para.11 [11]) --Childhood's End (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Effect of Underground Economy

Should the effect of the underground economy on the greater economy be discussed? Brian Pearson (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, not here. There is an article called Economy - that's the right place for your suggestion, I think. Pularoid (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Should section 6.6.1 be slightly reworked?

First, should the first two words of the section really be "For example"? Shouldn't a claim be made first before one offers to provide an example for illustrative purposes? Second, in the first sentence, shouldn't there be a "to" between the words "possible" and "associate"? Third, wouldn't the word "regard" be more appropriate than the word "associate"? Compare: "It is possible to associate... as issues in economics" versus "It is possible to regard... as issues in economics"? Or, if "associate" is thought to be the superior word, might not it be better if "as" is replaced by "with", i.e. "...associate... with issues in economics"? Fourth, in the second sentence, isn't the word "such" in the phrase "no such value claims" misplaced? The first sentence, though it may have mentioned topics relating to values, did not make any specific value claims. Fifth, the second sentence seems awkward. In particular, the word "this" in the second clause seems poorly chosen since it can be read as referring to the claim made in the first clause (which it does not), or it can be read as referring to the observation in the first sentence (which it presumably does). Sixth, shouldn't the third sentence be reworked? Currently, it reads like two sentences have been squeezed into one. Asylumofignorance (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on February 16, 2008

No one managed to catch this obvious vandalism edit? "in the world of unlimited needs" Nice :p Gary King (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Improper Redirect

"Real Economy" redirects here, however there is no mention of that term in the article.76.85.197.151 (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the Table of Contents list fields other than Micro & Macro?

I believe that the answer to the above question should be "yes." An Edit restored the 3rd-level sections (that is, sub-sub-sections of a section) to the Table of Contents (TOC) of Economics. The reason given for an earlier recent removal of 3rd-level sections from the TOC was that the TOC had become very long. I sympathize with the objective of keeping things as simple as reasonable. The change did cut the length of the TOC in half, from about 2 full screens. But most of the cut came from eliminating all subsections for fields of econ under the "Areas of econ" (section 2) except Micro and Macro. Listing the specific fields in the TOC can be very useful and informative. In particular:

1. It allows the reader inspecting the TOC to identify contents of "Mathematical and quantitative methods" & "Selected fields" at a glance to see if there is anything of interest or not. For some readers, that might be the high point of the article, to which they could easily click or at least eagerly anticipate. If it is instead not of interest, at least the reader would be saved the trouble of looking at that section. Only the TOC allows such a quick overview. So, being able to see the subsections in the TOC arguably benefits most readers.
2. The beginning of the big "Social Sciences" article in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007, v. 27, p. 316) has a TOC for the article, including Economics. The section for "Fields of contemporary economics" lists, besides Micro & Macro subsections, subsections for 9 fields (all of them also in the 2 Economics saubsections). If it is important enough for Britannica to list the fields for which it has subsections, it should arguably be important enough for Economics to do likewise.
3. The subsections listed there fall under most of the JEL classification codes (not only the 2 respective classifications for Micro and Macro/Monetary). Including them in the TOC would arguably better convey the contemporary state of the subject than only the micro/macro distinction, however useful.
4. There is a parallel for such listing of fields in Psychology.

On independent grounds, I believe that the article would be improved by moving sect. 3 & 4 to sect. 2 b/c of their continuity with the lead and sect. 1. It is provides background helpful for the "Areas of economics" section. As a side effect, it would allow more of the article to precede the long listing in the TOC of the "Areas of economics" subsections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (3) 2nd sent. corrected. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sect. 2 moved to follow sect. 3 (renamed to "Basic concepts") & 4

An Edit moved Sect. 2 ("Areas of economics") to follow sect. 3 & 4. The move is intended to provide more continuity with what precedes it (for example as to the discussion of scarcity in the Lead). The move also provides background helpful for the "Areas of economics" section that now follows (for example the reference to 'efficiency' in the Microeconomics section). The newly-placed sect. 2 was renamed "Basic concepts" (from "Economic concepts"). The topics there are often covered in general terms at the beginning of a principles textbook, for example Samuelson and Nordhaus's Economics, ch. 1-3 on fundamenttals, markets and government, and basics of supply and demand. (I believe that a move like the one here was suggeted some time ago but that it was discouraged then pending improvement of the relevant section.) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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 [12]: 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

The preceding 2 sections are the complete contents of a (later) Archive 11 (requested for deletion because it now duplicates Archive 10). These sections complete the present Archive 10 by including all Edits of sections completed in May 2008. Reasons for the merger are discussed at User talk:Misza13#Talk:Economics/Archive. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)