Talk:Economic anthropology

message: "Underlying individuals' pursuit of utility maximisation is the principle of diminishing marginal value, meaning that obtaining more of a particular good or service only increases the utility (or value) derived from it up to a certain point. When this point is reached, the overall utility gained will actually diminish. A certain amount chocolate makes a good dessert, but too much will hurt the stomach. The right quantity of water can ensure a good crop, while having too much will drown it. "
This is not the definition of diminishing marginal value. In reality increases in utility become smaller with every extra unit of a good, but they are still generally positive. In general utility isn't reduced by acquiring extra units.
From the Wikipedia article on marginalism: "The law of diminishing marginal utility refers to the marginal utility of each additional unit of a good having less value than the previous unit. For example, the marginal utility of an additional slice of bread to a person with few slices will be great. But the marginal utility of an extra slice of bread to a person with many slices will be small."
This doesn't imply decreases to utility after a point. So, for very large values, the added value of another slice of bread would tend to be zero, but still in general be positive.
Actions have costs. In this case, the psychological profit goes negative. 187.74.251.141 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: diminishing marginal value

message: There are not enough reference citations to know. The article is written as if it represents a particular viewpoint. Does it? Mattisse 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No! Fails to note that the formalist model can explain many 'irrational' behaviors through the concept of bounded rationality. Also fails to emphasise that formalists understand that many goals can be culturally set- but people act in rational ways to achieve them  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.3.31 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It leaves a few things out, granted, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that those who notice that something is left out are given the opportunity to put that material in.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article neutral? 

message: Anthropologists in the US look largely to Marx when analyzing economics and people.  This article completely ignores this, and would get a grade of anywhere between a C and an F (depending on the charity of the instructor) in any Anthropology classroom.
By ignoring Marx, who Anthropologists NEVER ignore, this article is completely worthless at describing Economic Anthropology.
Until this article mentions Marx, White, Gould, Childe, etc., this article borders on being not only useless but detrimental towards the reader's understanding of the field.
72.177.34.13 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh--this is Wikipedia, companero, where anyone can edit, even you. So rather than shouting at us, just put the Marx material in yourself. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Marx? 

message: Please go through my work on Anthropological Economics
Sujay Rao Mandavilli  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandavilli Sujay Rao (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropological Economics