Talk:Social cost

message: May I ask the neoclassical economists who keep deleting text on alternative theories of social costs to stop their censoring of other peoples views, please?! This is impolite and does not reflect the wider open debate that is visible on the page on externalities and external costs. As such the people who keep deleting the heterodox criticism and alternatives to the neoclassical theory of social costs are doing a disservice to users and the formation of wisdom and insight.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:877:AF00:70FA:E370:F8C:A1DD (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: Surely the author means that if social benefits exceed private benefits? Private costs cannot exceed social costs ipso facto, as the latter includes private costs. Furthermore, the author speaks of the benefits of education, rather than its costs. 86.130.40.37 13:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benefits and costs

message: Is there a missing diagram, or am I just not seeing it?
Dudboi 05:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed it because the image is dead. I'll try to draw an ersatz version soon. __earth (Talk) 08:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a new image; I would appreciate feedback.  Jon513 (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: missing diagram

message: After adding some headings, it appears much more readable. OptimistBen (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings

message: This article clearly shows the ignorance of the mainstream of economics. The institutionalists and ecological economists critique of this flawed definition of social costs is ignored. Wikipedia in this sense furthers the hegemony of the old economic paradigm that has brought us the current ecological and socio-economic calamities. For a much better account of social costs look at K. William Kapp at Wikipedia. His book 'The Social Costs of BUsiness Enterprise' dismantles the neoclassical approach to social costs and provides a much better framework because it is not based on utilitarianism.
I can only laugh at the example of the lemon juice consumer, who supposedly does not cause any externalities. Just consider all the pollution that happens when the lemons are industrially grown and harvested, the pollution during the transport to the restaurant etc pp. Modern agriculture is heavily based on non-renewable mineral resources that cause global warming, soil pollution, workers deseases etc. Even if the juice is purely made with taste enhancers and chemicals, the production process surely contributes to ecological destruction. The deal between the juice drinker and restaurant owner has many consequences that can only be overlooked by brainwashed neoclassical economists that still cite Marshall and Pigou, old men with an archaic consciousness that dates from the 19th century and surely is out of synch for modern day ecological problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.78.235 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dismal neoclassical economics 

message: Isn't it suppose to be external costs not social costs? Many textbooks and websites say that Social Costs = Private Costs + External Costs. Social costs is the combined total cost. 175.138.252.248 (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Costs Not Social Costs 

message: Whoever wrote the entry failed to mention the great variety of views and definitions of social costs in economics. The neoclassical perspective that dominates this entry is only one of them. And, reading the text, the author does not even reflect this theory very well, as there is confusion between total and social costs at first and then later between externalities and social costs. I wonder what happened to the previous entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:877:AF00:956F:F07A:94E4:C11F (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluralism