Talk:Deadweight loss

message: I doubt I completely understand this but a dead weight loss sounds like gouging.  Why not use the Tickle-me elmo xmas example. At least thats how I think the nail example relates.  At any rate I don't think nails is a good example and we should look for a historical one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.115.85 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tickle-me elmo xmas

message: Deadweight loss and excess burden of taxation are synonyms closely related. I propose that we merge them. --Explodicle (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can not merge these two terms because while they "might" be closely related to one another, deadweight loss in this instance represents a general definition unlike excess burden of taxation which refers to a specific area (tax) reflecting the presence of deadweight loss.~~~ Dianaviry (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

text: You're right. I've changed my original statement. --Explodicle (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Actually, I would move for deletion of the article as an idiosyncratic theory, not of encyclopedic interest. Pustelnik (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadweight loss is a very common notion in economics, not idiosyncratic at all. Cretog8 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete over my dead body! After having a 45 minute argument with my economics student friend about this very topic, only to reach a agreement some days later (him after consulting his tutor, me this article) I think it would not benefit Wikipedia as a whole by removing it, unless we suddenly aren't supposed to be making entires on economics. Hayaku (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Keep' useful term. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Proposal

message: Market regulations are also a source of deadweight loss  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.42.15 (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulation 

message: "Marshallian deadweight loss is zero where demand is perfectly elastic" [or supply inelastic]
I dispute the [where demand is perfectly elastic] bit of this statement. The loss of consumer surplus is zero in this case, but surely the deadweight loss also includes the loss of the producer surplus, which is not zer. See the first graph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence . Or have I missed something??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.253.211 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Case with perfectly elastic demand

message: Deadweight loss due to taxation is heavily dependent on the elasticity of demand. For example the dwl from a $10 tax on oil is radically different from the dwl from a $10 tax on passion fruit. Would a section describing this effect be a welcomed addition? Justintbassett (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new section: dwl with respect to elasticity of demand 

message: --Propose mentioning that monopolies are not only caused by artificial scarcity. Natural resources can also be scarce. Owner occupation/use of such resources also leads to considerable dead weight losses.---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.144.215 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopolies 

message: The lede description is incomplete, and the description on the diagram is incomplete verging on the incorrect. I will rectify when I get the time. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: Need of Updated Information There are significant aspects in need of attendion and improvement here. Considering that all including topics are directly related to our main subject "deadweight loss," we need to provide a more reliable explanation of the direct relationship between these terms as well as how they all revolve around the main topic.--Dianaviry (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis