Talk:Economic efficiency

message: The introduction needs work, as it appears below, it does not concur with the standard use of the term efficiency in economics.  --lk (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro needs to be changed

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: "No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off" 
Opportunity cost makes this a universal rule.  When you use a resource for one thing, you cannot use it for another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.73.68 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a comment from someone who either never took a principles of econ course, or took a very inadequate one. I recommend that this article be edited primarily by people with PhDs in the subject. Hermitage (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Assumption Is Either Trivial or Inane 

message: This article started with the following sentence:
"Economic efficiency is the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services."
With a reference to some book by Arthur O' Sullivan -- perhaps a lesser-known textbook for econ principles courses?
Anyway, this is really not correct. I teach economics at the college level, and I don't like the idea of my students reading this definition. For example, it is possible for an increase in leisure time to cause a decrease in the production of goods and services, but still increase efficiency. For example, if I voluntarily cut back my work hours from 40 to 35, and accept a pay cut from my employer that leaves their profit unchanged overall, this can be a Pareto improvement because I am made better off and no one is made worse off. 
Better is probably to just start with the definition of Pareto efficiency and go from there. I'd look at how efficiency is defined in one of the more mainstream principles texts, like Krugman, or Mankiw, or Frank. I can come back to this at some point, but I don't have time to re-write the article at the moment. For now I just wanted to delete the opening sentence which was very wrong and misleading. Hermitage (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening sentence still really wrong; I deleted it 

message: Dr. Molyneux has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Molyneux has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : John Goddard & Phil Molyneux & Jonathan Williams, 2013. "Dealing with Cross-Firm Heterogeneity in Bank Efficiency Estimates: Some evidence from Latin America," Working Papers 13011, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Molyneux's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Dai has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Dai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Dai, Meixing & Sidiropoulos, Moise, 2010. "Monetary and fiscal policy interactions with central bank transparency and public investment," MPRA Paper 23704, University Library of Munich, Germany.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Dai's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Farsi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Farsi has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Medhi Farsi & Massimo Filippini & Diego Lunati, 2008. "Economies of scale and efficiency measurement in Switzerland's Nursing homes," Quaderni della facolta di Scienze economiche dell'Universita di Lugano 0801, USI Universita della Svizzera italiana.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Farsi's comment on this article 

message: = увеличению "коэффициента полезного действия". 
P.S. "Послесловие". 
Я придумал двухцилиндровый двухтактный паровой двигатель. Во время обратного хода поршня в первом цилиндре к началу следующего такта открываетца "перепускной клапан" обьединящий рабочие объёмы цилиндра над поршнем и под поршнем. И таким образом становитца "паровым котлом" для второго "парового мотора". 
Когда поршень в первом цилиндре начинает повторять очередной цикл вращения вала "мотора" - тогда открываетца выпуской клапан для пара находящегося ПОД ПОРШНЕМ в первом цилиндре и для пара находящегося НАД ПОРШНЕМ во втором цилиндре.
Весь объём "отработавшего" пара  оба поршня выталкивают в охладитель пара. Например до 98°С. Штобы потом затолкать поршнем ""водяного компрессора" в "испаритель". В нагревательный радиатор. Например горящщими углями. Может и древесными. 
К.П.Д. дакого двигателя сравним с коэффициентами, например,  "бензиновых двигателей". Такой двигатель двинет "К.П.Т ;) !! .. 
P.P.S. И ещё раз написал ! 
176.59.211.23 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely how this helped the article but here is the translation of the comments. Thank you Google.
== "Increasing labor productivity." == increase in "efficiency".
P.S. "Afterword".
I came up with a two-cylinder two-stroke steam engine. During the return stroke of the piston in the first cylinder to the beginning of the next stroke of the opener "bypass valve" uniting the working volume of the cylinder above the piston and under the piston. And thus becoming a "steam boiler" for the second "steam engine".
When the piston in the first cylinder begins to repeat the next cycle of rotation of the “motor” shaft, then the opener will release a valve for the pair located UNDER PISTON in the first cylinder and for the pair located OVER PISTON in the second cylinder.
The entire volume of the "exhaust" steam, both pistons are pushed into the steam cooler. For example, up to 98 ° C. Then to push the "water compressor" into the "evaporator" with a piston. In a heating radiator. For example, burning coals. Maybe wood.
K.P.D. This engine is comparable with the coefficients of, for example, "gasoline engines". Such an engine will move "KPT;) !! ..
P.P.S. And I wrote again!
Cheers! Risk Engineer (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Увеличение производительности труда." 

message: The section mentions 'standards of thought". Is this an error? Madyno (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked and there are over 120 articles that have "strands of thought" in the body of the text but no definitions. I think it was meant to say "schools of thought" and there is an article on the subject. (think Platonic school, etc.) I propose to rename the section "school of thought" Cheers. Risk Engineer (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strands of thought