Talk:Economic problem

message: Is the economic problem ("finite natural resources and human capital are insufficient to satisfy infinite human wants") falsifiable?  It seems that by prefixing "finite" or "infinite" in front of each of these three terms, it's possible to make 8 different variations of the "economic problem," but it's not clear which of these is correct, or testable.  As far as I can tell, "human wants" in the context of this theory seems to refer to "consumption of goods and services" , so asserting that "human wants are infinite" is equivalent to an assertion that people are consumption-limited.  So while this theory may apply to most people and allow descriptive models, it's normative.  I'm basically searching for a substantive discussion of whether the economic problem is falsifiable, but I don't know the subject well enough to figure out where to look. - Connelly (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiable? 

message: This needs to be "stubised" and the english cleared up, also it could do with renaming! --JDnCoke 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: needs to be "stubised"

message: Somebody has interfered with the text (e.g. 'Jesus and friends')
81.144.199.142 (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article defaced 

message: May need to be merged into something else. ATM there's an implicit conflation of the Fundamental Economic problem with what would probably be titled Socialist calculation. Lycurgus (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously A Mess ... 

message: "The Economic Problem" is not a term used in the literature; it is a very common CONCEPT in economics but it is not a term as such and could be confusing to the uninitiated.  Perhaps it should be merged with the article on scarcity but first eliminate any implication that the word itself is a term in usage.  If someone can find an example of the term used in this way in mainstream literature I'll back off, but if not the article should be removed.  If it appears this way heterodox literature fine but than it should be made clear it is term only in specific circles.  Unless these problems are somehow dealt with I'm going to delete the article because as it stands the article is actively harmful to the readers lexicon.   Walras101 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard the term often. It is commonly used in intro textbooks. For example, see page 39 in "Economics: Principles and Policy" by William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Relevance  

message: This article is not suitable for Wikipedia in this form. It's just some kind of extract from an economics textbook with some pseudo-science thrown in. It's not bad per se - given that economics works with these kinds of hazy, unchallenged basic concepts. 
This, for example
"Needs are things or material items of peoples need for survival, such as food, clothing, housing, and water. Everyone has a different needs and wants. Until the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of the world's population struggled for access to basic human needs."
is very vapid. Economics, like anything in an encyclopedia needs to be referenced down to sources, not just link to other articles and overall be taken as given.  jmanooch 09:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , agreed, it's a mess. I tried to clean it up a little bit as it is true that this is often described as the fundamental economic problem. II | (t - c) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers, thanks for your work. I agree with the assessment, but as an instructor in this field trying to use Wikipedia as a reference tool, I think we clear this issue up. I'll try to work on this more ...Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues Tag 

message: I share the confusion that others have expressed about the validity of this material as a separate Wikipedia page. As it currently stands, the opening sentence does not make sense to me as it appears to distort/borrow Lionel Robbins classic definition of the science of economics:
Current text: Economic problems are the science that studies human behavior in relationship with ends and scarce means that have alternative uses
Robbins: Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Robbins, L. C. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.
Also, I see people use "the economic problem" but this article begins with a plural term. Maybe  the author mean something like: "Economic problems are a set of problems studied in Economics, which has been defined as "the science that studies human behavior in relationship with ends and scarce means that have alternative uses" (Robbins).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcobb99 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confuses economic problem with science of economics? 

message: Economics problem means the problem people encounter in the society while attempting to society. The basic economics problem are 
1. What to produce
2. How to produce
3.for whom to produce 105.112.177.42 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic economics problem 

message: Importance of opportunity cost to an individual ,a farm and a goverment 105.112.17.101 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics