Talk:History of economic thought

message: Per above, Mark Blaug's magisterial "Economics" section (10-pages) in Britannica,  Macropedia  "Social sciences" article, devotes about 40% of a column to the theory of imperfect and monopolistic competition in the 1930s under the title "The critics," which follows "The marginalists" (that is, neoclassicals). Their chief architects were respectively Joan Robinson and Edward H. Chamberlin whose books were each published in 1933. Those are by far their most cited works & with similar orders of citations for R & C. Their influence was great, indexed by chapters in most principles of economics textbooks today on monopoly, monopolistic competition & oligopoly along the lines that they laid out .  That should be warrant enough for including a subsection on her, Sraffa, and Chamberlin for that matter, if someone is willing to get around to it. There's an extensive article on her in The New Palgrave (TOC). Yes, she was fierce Keynesian, Sraffian, & radical too. But first things first as to imperfect competition IMO. 
The Robinson and Chamberlin books preceded Keynes's General Theory by 3 years.   Sraffa's related work, which stimulated Robinson, preceded GT by 10 years (per "Sraffa, Piero," Laws of Returns section (TOC), The New Palgrave). None of them  relied on GT. That would suggest locating the section before Keynes, as Blaug does. Sraffa's 1960 magnum opus was an outgrowth of his 1926 work. Far from enhancing Keynes, the current placement & heading ("Keynesian economics") might suggest that Keynes needs an anachronistic prop, which of course he does not.  He's looking pretty good today (though not without controversy, as usual). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Joan Robinson redux and section placement

message: Please add a John Law section http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law
John Law  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compinchados (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Law 

message: These edits added material on (roughly) Islamic economics. I'm going to pull it out. I think it doesn't belong in this article, at least as written, for a few reasons.
* First, and most minor, it clearly doesn't belong where it is in the flow of the article, because it's out of chronology, referring to 20th-century thought mixed in with medieval thought.
* Second, at least some of the sources are insufficient. The piece at allacademic.com appears to be unpublished, instead a conference paper. The piece from tripod.com appears self-published. Neither stands up on WIkipedia as a reliable source.
* Third, and most worth discussion, it doesn't seem like these branches of Islamic economics have been significant in the overall history of economic thought. I admit a lot of ignorance on this matter. I know that Ibn Khaldun is credited with great feats in economics as well as other fields, but if that's to be included, it should be in the older sections, and elaborated on in that way. More modern Islamic economic thoughts don't seem to have influenced the broader field of economics in any significant way. To the extent that Islamic economics is important in the Islamic world, my (admittedly ignorant) understanding is that it's less a matter of different analysis, and more a matter of different practice.
CRETOG8(t/c) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Islamic Caliphet 

message: I'm just saying. And certainly not as a criticism. Perhaps the page title should reflect this reality. Bluebasket (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practically speaking this page is the History of ''Western'' economic thought 

message: So, why have a new section here just for the above heading subject?  For one thing, some of the same points may apply elsewhere, the better to improve those spots similarly. Most careful readers  will be able to spot other places where related remarks might apply.  All this,  despite quite a number of footnotes in the article already. 
    
The following was moved from end on the 1st paragraph of "Mathematical analysis" section: of the article:
:Rather than using the persuasive language of classical economists like Mill, the Pareto efficient curve could be represented with a precise mathematical formula:P(Y) = \{ y^{\prime} \in Y: \; \{y^{\prime\prime} \in Y:\; y^{\prime\prime} \succ y^{\prime}, y^{\prime\prime} \neq y^{\prime} \; \} = \empty \} .
# It reads like it is based on a secondary course, but no such source is cited.  The formula did not come out of thin air, but there is no citation. It reads also like a comment  by a heterodox economic writer or a satirical postmodernist critique of mainstream economics as to its alleged incomprehensibility -- the more so because there is no verbal explanation of what the notation refers to.  Nothing  necessarily wrong with that as such except in an encyclopedia article on history of economic thought, in which it violates WP:NPOV.  Perhaps I've got it wrong and that's the notation of Pareto or a later interpreter Pareto using contemporary (that is, post-Pareto) notation. In that case, a simple citation should suffice. But anachronistic notation would, however, be esp, out of place in this article.
# A dated  notation was made  for 1st paragraph on Pareto, which purports to explain a Pareto graph that sounds suspiciously like an Edgeworth box, such as here:
 
:But that's not Pareto.  So, what's the source?  I'm making such a big deal of all this, because IMO a knowledgeable reader might consider the article tainted by its presence & have stayed away from it for that reason. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice source, that last. In retrospect, I'm afraid I was too cautious at (1) above. To go beyond it, an accessible, brief treatment of Pareto is  "Pareto, Vilfredo (1848–1923)," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, section:  Efficiency or ‘Pareto optimality'.  Pareto improves on Edgeworth in including production, not merely exchange.   Pareto's notion of efficiency is described there as having had the greatest impact of all his contributions. For describing that, the first paragraph of the "Mathematical analysis" section (on the Edgeworth-Bowley box) might be replaced. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a minimal Edit to try to fix the above problem,  stimulated by the thought how easy it might be considering how difficult I might have made it appear. --TM 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st paragraph of "Mathematical analysis" section: citation needed 

message: This source  also An Outline of the History of Economic Thought By Ernesto Screpanti, Stefano Zamagni  For some (not much) non western views free History of Economic Thought: A Critical Account of the Origin and Development of the Economic Theories of the Leading Thinkers in the Leading Nations By Lewis H. Haney (old but free at questia )  The first one listed is the best for wikipedia I think. If any one is interested I could look around for more. J8079s (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  filling in the gap 

message: Physiocrats and Henry George
Doesn't the school of the importance of land value and it's control belong somewhere in here? 68.48.204.94 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiocrats and Henry George 

message: There is no mention of this important author here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.127.171.212 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Cantillon 

message: I've lumped together some sections by school, and the remaining by time (eg early-mid 20th Century and mid-late 20th). There is probably a better way section into schools but this is a start. I've removed names from some of the sections, ideally the section will be named after the concept, with the key people detailed in the section text.
Out of interest here is the article in Nov 2008 not long after it failed a 'good article' assessment, and here in January before the 'new cull'.
I think there may be a need for complimentary articles for perhaps each century, where less dominant but still notable ideas can be detailed. 
Jonpatterns (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  looking good. New sections make more sense. I will work a bit with the pictures. The template you directed me to needs a little thought when the pictures are of diferent sizes, but I am sure I can work it out. I added some text for Sen as promised, but tirole more problematic. Also a feature of his page Jean Tirole: currently just a list of prizes and no explanantion of what his work is.  Maybe when the Tirole page is sorted we can add it in.Byronmercury (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: Is it beneficial to have the lifespan (1945-) every time an economist is introduced? Maybe is is only necessary when the time their work was published is unknown? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is useful for the uninformed reader.Byronmercury (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates after names

message: I have actually never heard of this man, but he has a substantial page on the english wikipedia and pages in maybe two dozen languages and all you can find to say about him is that :"Until Joseph J. Spengler's 1964 work "Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldun", Adam Smith (1723–1790) was believed to be the "Father of Economics". Now there is a second candidate, Arab Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) of Tunisia, although how the Muslim world fell behind the West[dubious – discuss], or what influence Khaldun had in the West is unclear."?
Wow. Look, I didn't dig too deep, but the French page was translated from the German one, and the English page is not flagged as such, so there's a likelihood that they are completely different. There's apparently a lot that could be said here about this man, and yes I realize that is a summary page, and, and yes I am aware that the standard retort is that I can do it. Yes, I do know that. At the moment I am copyediting. I have paused that task to point out that a) this statement, compared to the loving attention given to (yawn) Plato and Aristotle, covered over and over again everywhere, is a mite embarrassing, and b) the condescending tone here really should be addressed. The Muslim world fell behind the west? Really? Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say above. The article needs to be balanced correctly, and Western bias removed. As well as the article on Ibn Khaldun there is a section on Ancient_economic_thought#Ibn_Khaldun which may be a useful summary.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In the text I added to this section I disambiguated lifecycle to the biological meaning, since he was essentially talking about the rise and fall of civilizations. There is an economic entry for the term, but the meaning does not match. Also, since nobody is defending the ethnoentric comment, I am just going to remove it, since it doesn't really add any information.Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Ibn Khaldun */ dubious template  

message: Looked at his wikipedia page. Isn't he more of a business thinker than an economist, from what I can see? Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a lot of overlap between economics and business, business can be seen as a sub division of economics. Especially considering the time period I think it is worthwhile including Fan Li.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Li Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/schools/austrian.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Drakopoulos 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.
We believe Dr. Drakopoulos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Drakopoulos, Stavros A., 2014. "Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics," MPRA Paper 57222, University Library of Munich, Germany.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Drakopoulos's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113063048/http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEcoIndus/SupportsdeCours/COASE.pdf to http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEcoIndus/SupportsdeCours/COASE.pdf
*Added  tag to https://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/research/discussion/DP2005-E01.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914144818/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09672567.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09672567.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032417/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdp1096/rdp1096d.pdf to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdp1096/rdp1096d.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502201750/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/stead.ricardo to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/stead.ricardo
*Added  tag to http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825142408/http://www.cedes.uerj.br/documentos/artigos/Consensus%20Dissensus%20and%20Economic%20Ideas%20The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Keynesianism%20during%20the%20economic%20crisis.pdf to http://www.cedes.uerj.br/documentos/artigos/Consensus%20Dissensus%20and%20Economic%20Ideas%20The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Keynesianism%20during%20the%20economic%20crisis.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040726122301/http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEcoIndus/SupportsdeCours/COASE.pdf to http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEcoIndus/SupportsdeCours/COASE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927032417/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdp1096/rdp1096d.pdf to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdp/rdp1096/rdp1096d.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415115548/http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/190/HowShouldWeWrite.pdf to http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/190/HowShouldWeWrite.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The philosophy of this reformer of the Chinese economy in the end of the 19th century should be written somewhere in this history. In some respects this reformer carried the claims of Henry George to the yet undeveloped Chinese political economy. These reforms were eventually introduced on the Island of Tiwan, with great benefit to its development. Macrocompassion (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution of Sun Yat-Sen? 

message: The idea of business being an expression of a fair and social relationship between trading partners originated even before the Greek ideas on it were applied. The Talmudic laws being derived from biblical ones, already had specific requirements as to how the land should be divided and its benefits used by the ancient Hebrew, tribes when they took over (by conquest) the land of Canaan (see Leviticus chapters 19 and 25).Macrocompassion (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talmudic Laws for Ethical and Just Behaviour 

message: I am aware of the work of Henry Hazlett in his claim that one should view the whole of our social system rather than simply examine how a change affect only one participant. What benefits one kind of role-player should be balance by the harm it does to a second. Thus greater income tax is harmful to the householders, but beneficial to the governments efforts to improve the community. The implication that the whole social system does have in it role-playing elements is a significant assumption that can be used to clarify how our social system works.Macrocompassion (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economists who also had some significance 

message: Many if not all of the various descriptions and details of economics theory presented here make no differentiation between which is macro- and which is micro- . The many ideas being explained should be categorized in their opening paragraphs as to which kind of economics they refer. There are other categories too, like econometrics, statistics, methodology and historical developments which also should be better explained by this approach to separating into kinds of economics that otherwise can be a confusing mixture.Macrocompassion (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Difference between Macroeconomics and Microeconomics 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion