Talk:Subsistence economy

message: Is that the only definition of a subsistence economy, that there is no currency? A better definition is needed. Fresheneesz 01:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motives for changing definition: rely on an encyclopedic definition (perhaps not the best) to stress subsistence. The word 'basic' is used in that encyclopedia, perhaps because subsistency is ambiguous (basic or not). Reference to 'subsistence agriculture' was a circular definition. The possibility of trade ruled out the non-monetary character, which should not be part of the core definition. Please clarify what 'economic surplus' is and why it would be minimum: in hunting and gathering societies there often is an abundance of resources, which therefore would not count as economic surplus. Ramosama (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: No Currency?

message: To Whom it may concern:</br>
In the reference  cited the following can be found:  ..."In a subsistence economy, enough is grown, hunted and crafted to provide for the basic needs of the people. A surplus is only created if there is a need or a desire to trade with neighboring people...."
Would it therefor not be more accurate to define subsistence economy along the lines of:
"In a subsistence economy all production [of agricultural and of any other technological nature ( see above grown, hunted and crafted..)not just food]is for group consumption or needs.  Only surplus is created and used to trade with."
I believe broadening the definition would allow for moving away from the underlying inference that subsistence economy by necessity has to be primitive and poor. Altera vista (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More accurate definition

message: I propose deleting "is an economy which refers simply to the gathering or amassment of objects of value; the increase in wealth; or the creation of wealth. Capital can be generally defined as assets invested with the expectation that their value will increase, usually because there is the expectation of profit, rent, interest, royalties, capital gain or some other kind of return. However, this type of economy cannot usually become wealthy by virtue of the system, and instead requires further investments to stimulate economic growth. In other words, a subsistence economy",
and "to be used by a particular nation"
and "Therefore,"
"Capital can be generally defined as assets invested with the expectation that their value will increase , usually because there is the expectation of profit, rent, interest, royalties, capital gain or some other kind of return." may be true but why is capital being defined here when it is not mentioned beforehand?
and how can an economy refer to something? Does the writer mean "is a term which refers simply to ..."?
And what is the relevance of a nation to the explanation? Surely a subsistence economy could be operated by a community of any type or size.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.53.2 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed edit

message: Why does subsistence even redirect here ? The term is worth having its own page, it is extremely poorly defined here and put into an economical straightjacket. I ve tried working this out in a few edits here, but it clearly needs deep work and attention, as a salient term and topic. Wuerzele (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does subsistence redirect here ?