Talk:Marginalism/Archive 2

message: There are a number of things wrong with this article.  I'm going to note three of them:
*Empty or incorrect equation of utility with rational self-interest.
*:If we define “self-interest” simply as whatever one seeks, then “pursuit of self-interest” is synonymous with “pursuit of the pursued” — formally empty, and misleading because presumed by most readers to have content.
*:On the other hand, if by “self-interest” we mean something along the lines of the model used by Adam Smith in his Inquiry in the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, then a presumption of self-interest is not presumed by marginalism per se.  The logic of marginalism holds for any individual who can somewhat order his or her interests.  If Mary's priorities are
*:#Feed baby.
*:#Feed hubby.
*:#Feed neighbor's cat.
*:#Feed self.
*:there is still diminishing marginal usefulness of means.
*:I'm well-aware that we can find economists who mistakenly declare that utility necessarily is measured by self-interest.  We can find someone making mistaken declarations about virtually any point of economic theory.  In the case of this particular mistake, its origins lie partly in the strong influence that Utilitarians had on British economist, but mostly in just not recognizing the difference between an essential attribute and an accidental attribute. (One would not declare that breathing were a feature of marginalism, even though every known marginalist was also a breather.)
*Confusion about the size of a marginal change.
*:Under the standard presumptions of neo-classical economics, goods and services are continuously divisible.  Thus, marginal changes are small.  But those presumptions are not part of marginalism proper.  When Böhm-Bawerk offered his famous example of the farmer with five sacks of grain, the allocation is not made grain-by-grain, but sack-by-sack.  The logic of marginal utility is that whatever the size of the revelant increase or decrease, the valuation is that of the change that it induces (eg survival or death of the parrots).  One doesn't observe Carl Menger attempting to use the differential calculus to engage in marginal analysis!
*Confusion about the implications and historical effects of the alleged “Weber-Fechner law of sensation”.
*:Ernst Heinrich Weber's empirical results indicated that to go from one detectable change to another, there had to be ever-increasing levels of stimulus.  Fechner, presuming that sensation was quantified and that discernable changes in stimuli corresponded to equal changes in sensation, arrived at a logarithmic relation.  Now:
*:#Even if we assume that sensation is a good or service, and so that increases in sensation are improvements, this would be nothing more than a special case of diminishing marginal productivity, no more suggestive that previously recognized cases!
*:#Is blue better than red or than green?  The differences amongst colors are exactly the sort of differences in sensation that Weber found.
*:The only reference to Weber or Fechner that I've found in the work of any 19th Century marginalist appears in Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics (p 62 in the original), wherein he referenced Fechner in defense of the (spurious) claim that satisfaction were introspectively measurable.  Edgeworth was a second-generation British marginalist, not an Austrian.  The third-generation Austrian marginalist Mises (Nationalökonomie pp 92-94 and Human Action 1ed pp 125-7) was harshly critical of the confusion of Fechnerian notions with marginal utility, as had been the German Max Weber (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre pp 149 & 372).
—SlamDiego 13:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Bad Things 

message: I have effected changes as per the above discussion.
I have also provided the beginnings of a real historical discussion.  However, that discussion was written with just marginal utility in mind, and needs coverage of marginal physical productivity.  Also, I moved the whole historical section to after the concepts section, for obvious reasons.
The concepts section is in terrible need of reform.  I've not closely looked at the schools-of-thought section; I dread to do so. —SlamDiego←T 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I have effected a major reworking of the “concepts” section. (Amongst other things, it now actually explains the concept of the margin — rather a proper thing for an article on marginalism.) Since the section now has a discussion of the concept of marginal utility, I removed that from the section on value theory.  that section is clearly in need of work, which I may effect at some point in the very near future. SlamDiego←T 07:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts section 

message: Okay, I've extensively revised section but the “...and Schools of Thought” section and the “Criticism” section.  The former consists of things which are either redundant, or need to be moved to the “Criticism” section, and I may do that in the near future.
The “History” section remains, despite its length, in need of expansion, because it was written as a history of marginal utility theory per se. —SlamDiego←T 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further revisions 

message: My edit summary for and edit got truncated, so I am posting an explanation of the edit here:
The “law” of diminishing marginal utility isn't really a law; it is more of a typical case.  The “law” and its implications are described in the article.  Wikification of “law of diminishing marginal utility” just takes the reader to a redirect.
BTW, I am still wrestling with a kludgy Win9x beast, as I await repair of my nice Linux box (which will probably be fixed on late Monday). So I'm still limiting my edits accordingly.  My apologies to anyone whom is thus frustrated. —SlamDiego←T 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Most of the discussion of this article seems to have degenerated into pedantic debate over spelling... Can we get back on topic?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is sectioned.  Just avoid the section(s) on spelling if they bore you.  The topic proper of the talk page is how to write the article, and that includes issues of spelling, grammar, &c.  Meanwhile, the discussion that you have been pushing has long since gone away from the topic proper, as you want to use the talk page to engage in polemics and scam tutorial about a science with which you are fairly unfamiliar. —SlamDiego←T 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eye am knot at awl board bye thee section on spelling. It's just revealing and amusing the extent certain contributors are willing to immerse themselves in minutiae. On your second point, I wholeheartedly withdraw and apologise for any implication, if such existed, that I wished to elicit a tutorial on aeconomics or anything else from you. It is abundantly obvious that you are first and foremost a specialist in pedantic obfuscation and are hopefully committed to ensuring your secrets die with you.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly for your religion, there aren't any secrets here, and various economists (including me) have taught the relevant fact and theory to thousands.  You simply went about seeking tutorial in a grossly inappropriate way, which failed. —SlamDiego←T 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no idea what you're talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the problem, Jack, is that you haven't known what actual economists have been talking about, but were sure that you did, and in your attacks burned bridges that you could have used later. *shrug* —SlamDiego←T 20:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Issues