Talk:Economics/Archive 1

message: Why not the allocation of resources, period? Whether they're 'scarce' or not isn't really relevant and too often a matter of opinion. There are plenty of doctors in the US, for example, but their distribution is hardly optimal. It's economic, however.
Dated July 29, 2003 by User:Socrates99
:Because the allocation of non-scarce resources is generally rather trival.  If the resource is non-scarce give everyone who wants it as much as they want.  In situations where it is interesting like patents and copyright, the time required to create them is scarce. As an amateur economist, I would define scarcity as something that has an opportunity cost so in that economic sense doctors are scarce since there is something else that would be useful for them to do (say like be a doctor in a different county).  Jrincayc 03:49, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why insert the notion of scarcity? 

message: The first sentence has no verb: "Economics (formally known as political economy) the governance of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth and the various related problems of scarcity, finance, debt, taxation, labor, law, inequity, poverty, pollution, war, etc. " ...I am going to insert the word studies for now. Feel free to fix it differently. Kingturtle 04:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: :Marxist economists, who were more influential a few decades ago, often feel that each era of history obeys its very own set of laws, and that contemporary economics can only be applied to industrialized societies.
was replaced with:
:Marxist economic theory asserts that each historical era has a unique "dialectical" tension, and that economic formulations can only be applied to societies which have the same "objective" means of production.
The first actually makes sense to me.  Is there any advantage to the second?  It looks like it might be more precise, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Jrincayc 14:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The new description is harder to understand. It requires that the reader know what dialectic and objective mean as used by Marx/Hegel. It also illiminates the comment about the declining influence of Marxist economics since the fall of communist USSR. mydogategodshat 00:44, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted back to original wording.  I would probably would like the change better if it included a link on objective and dialectical to the definition that Marx/Hegel have.  Jrincayc 02:15, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: Can you write it in such a way that the reader can understand it without knowledge of specialized Marxist/Hegelian terminology?  mydogategodshat 02:15, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism Description 

message: Economic Theory As A Degenerate Science
Steve Keen a senior lecturer in economics in the University of Western Sydney claims in his book "debunking economics" that current mainstream economic theory is a degenerate science closer to the field of astrology than the field of astronomy. 
Keen argues that the very mathematical foundation of economics is flawed. While the theory of supply and demand is correct, the mathematics is used incorrectly in the basic foundation of economics. 
In particular, the supply and demand graphs shows two straight lines intersecting each other. The point where the straight upward slooping supply line intersect the downward slooping demand line is where the economic exchange is suppose to take place. 
The problem as immediately spotted by physicists, mathematicians and engineers is that in real life, lines representing natural phenomena is never a straight line but curves. 
Keen says, the market demand curve can’t be smooth – at best it’s jagged, going up and down with price – while the supply "curve" is at best a horizontal line which probably slopes down rather than up. 
(This guy Keen is a quack. He is claiming that firms will want to produce more product when price (and profits) goes down and they will want to produce less when selling price (and profits) goes up! He also claims the demand curve rises in places. For this to happen the income effect would have to be greater than the substitution effect and there is very little empirical evidence to support this (see here for an explanation). What actually happens is that the demand curve falls at varying rates (see here). mydogategodshat 11:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I would like to see both a short "criticisms" section in this article and also full length articles on the topics. My problem is not with the topics but with the content. I am not familiar with Keens work, but I doubt if this material is an accurate representation of it. Maybe someone that is familiar with Keens could paste this material to a new article and fix it.mydogategodshat 04:12, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the link to Keen's web site. I checked out some of his articles. I particularly liked the way he critiqued infiniticimal output here . I think I will read some of his stuff in detail when I have the time. mydogategodshat 23:36, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following material removed from the article

message: I have removed the following:
[edit]Economics is a social science that studies human resource making activity. Humans make resources to support their life. Human life on this Earth needs supply. The three basic supply, food, clothing and housing then a wide variety other goods, products and services. The supply, these resources is made in the economy of a society. Economics studies how the economy works. How the products, goods and serives are made, traded and distributed. 
Maybe this was written by a non-english writer, but I have to challenge some of the terminology. Generally in economics, resources are things that are used rather than made. Also to say that economics studies how things are made is misleading. The study of how things are made is industrial engineering. Economics studies how things are made only in the very restricted sense of how scarce resources are allocated in a production process. I do however agree tautologically that "economics studies how the economy works". :)
:mydogategodshat 05:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More stuff removed

message: I could as well just edit it, but I'd guess editing wars are frowned upon. So I'm new around here, and, as a non-logged in user, I made some minor changes to the article, most notably in the definitions of microeconomics and macroeconomics. The phrase "which constructs economic phenomena from the behavior of individual actors and firms" was changed to "which constructs economic behavior from the behavior of individual actors and firms" - which makes no sense.
Previously, the page said something about "microeconomics studying the behavior of individual actors", which would rule general equilibrium theory out. 
I'm thinking of "Microeconomics builds a theory of economics phenomena starting from its microfoundations - the behaviour of individual families and firms". Somehow, it seems the word "phenomena" is frowned upon, but it's really precisely what I mean here - see phenomenology.
If the talk pages don't show any activity on this in a few hours, I'll edit it again. The old version was imprecise, and the version which replaced mine makes no sense.
:I have introduced a definition of microeconomics that mirors the logical structure of the macroeconomics definition. mydogategodshat 01:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement that general equalibrium is not macroeconomics is interesting. There is no doubt that gen equl is microeconomics. But this is not the same as claiming that it is not macroeconomics. It certainly deals with macroeconomic topics, even though it is built using microeconomic techniques.mydogategodshat 01:10, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining microeconomics 

message: I am a "newbie" so you can take what I have to say with however much salt you care to. 
I was startled, first of all, to find that the word "capitalism" is nowhere actually mentioned in the body of Wikipedia's Economy citation (except in the reference list at the bottom). Capitalism seems instead to have the status of  a subcategory in the Business citation. Marxist, Marxism, Marxian, Karl Marx, on the other hand /are/ cited, some more than once.
Whatever happened to good old capitalism guys? 
Stirling Newberry Most of the article is a discussion of capitalist economics - starting with Smith, Ricardo, moving through Marshall and Keynes, with some references to later work. However it is worth pointing out the difference between market and capitalism - the two are not the same, and emphasizing that economics is focused primarily on capitalist markets, and to a lesser extent socialist ones.
The authors seem to have carried NPOV to a new and near pathological extreme, as though in an article on psychotherapy, Freud had been banished to the Medicine category and the text was chock full of Jungian philosophy.
Stirling Newberry I think this statement is a bit extreme and insulting.
Your article seems more of a battleground than a source of information on Economics aimed at someone that actually wants to know how it is practised in the world as we know it. Last I looked capitalism was /the/ major economic system on the planet and the End of History was nigh. No problem with discussing its shortcomings but shouldn't one at least mention it? 
Stirling Newberry And this one definitely is. The article goes into great detail about the primary activity of economists - making models, collecting data and using supply and demand curves with measurable variables to understand collective behavior.
Wgoetsch 22Mar04
:As much as I like salt, particularly with french frys, I have to admit that "newbies" can add a perspective that "long timers" miss, and in this instance I agree with user:wgoetsch in some regards. Wikipedia articles do tend to be idiological battlegrounds with everyone adding a paragraph on their particular school of thought.  And I agree that there is no economics in this article. There is little in this article about WHAT economists do or HOW they do it. This is not an economics article and is not intended to be one, from what I can see. Instead, it is an overview of economic concepts as seen by various economic schools of thought and branches of economics. I have no problem with this because Wikipedia does have many good economics articles. See for example welfare economics, supply and demand, production theory, consumer theory, labour economics. These articles however, are of less interest to the general public. Labour economics for example has been a candidate for featured article status for several weeks, but it is not being voted for, presumably because so few Wikipedians are interested in "hard" economics.
:You mentioned that capitalism was not mentioned in this article, so I added a bit.
:mydogategodshat 05:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More Capitalism

message: Economists believe that incentives and preferences (tastes) together play an important role in shaping decision making. Sometimes a preference relation can be represented by a utility function. Concepts from the Utilitarian school of philosophy are used as analytical concepts within economics, though economists appreciate that society may not adopt utilitarian objectives. 
Could we get rid of Economists believe-- This reminds me of a church. Shouldn't this be something like:
From the distinctive point of view of economic analysis incentives and preferences (tastes) together play an important role in decision making.
Also  what meaning does the word "shaping" convey in the original version of the article?  Wouldn't it be more informative to refer to a process of decision making (this I admit is idiosyntractic -- I believe in a process view human activity). 
CSTAR 16:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph: beliefs 

message: I have just created a book on Economics from a mathematical perspective.  It has no content yet and help would be greatly appreciated, http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Economics:_A_Mathematical_Aproach.
:Interesting.  Good luck with it.  I wonder if anyone will create: Economics: A Graphical and Intuitive Approach. Jrincayc 02:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics Book 

message: I need to reference an article or section that is not present, one that explains the means by which costs are externalized and the effects of this. Examples could be the externalization of health costs by the coal industry or the externalization of costs of defending, suppressing, and replacing countries and governments to ensure cheap motor fuels in the US. I could write something about this but it would not be from the viewpoint of an economics expert. Please notify me when this is available so that I can link to it. Thanks,  Leonard G. 21:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the phenomenon you're looking for is already discussed at externality. Isomorphic 23:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Externalization 

message: Hello, I think this sentence is incorrect: "There is some degree of tension between economics and ethics, another of the most basic social sciences, which tends to avoid quantification and emphasize balances of rights."  Ethics isn't a social science, i.e. it hardly, if at all, conducts experiments or studies empirical findings as a science does.  It is a humanity, like philosophy, in that it uses rational arguements to make its case.  If it is agreed, then let's change social science to humanity or other equilivant word. --ShaunMacPherson 06:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc Errors 

message: Someone inserted a query about the phrase "the economy of polities" into the article, wondering if it should read "the economy of politics."  I don't know the actual quote, but from context the answer is probably that it's correct as written.  I believe "polity" is a political entity such as a state.  The use is therefore appropriate. Isomorphic 02:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Polities vs. Politics

message: What's POV about In contrast, most of today's currencies including the US dollar are fiat money meaning it has no intrinsic value?
: Well for one, the value of currency (fiat or otherwise) is based on a system of trust-- is that valiue intrinsic to the currency or to something else; I'm not sure that's what the problem with the original formulation, but the notion of intrinsic economic value is certainly dubious. CSTAR 23:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Intrinsic value refers to the material fiat money is made of. Paper is intrinsically (almost) worthless as opposed to gold or silver. I don't think that's POV.--Fenice 10:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just saw that the quote comes from a caption without further explanation. As I said, I don't think it's POV. But the sentence is hard to understand in this context, so I support removing it.--Fenice 10:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow how one can dispute that the dollar is fiat money.  I must be one of those ultra-conservatives that the fiat money article says define fiat stringently.  "Intrinsic value" does seem debatable, but I'm sure we could work around that.  Maybe not at a length that would make it reasonable to include in the caption. - Nat Krause 15:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole long article at fiat money on this.  The difference between asset money and fiat money is controversial, and therefore not something to assert. More over the caption takes a very specific POV - namely that representative money has intrinsic value - and that is something that even many gold bugs don't agree with. Stirling Newberry 16:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: The sentence regarding Say's Law struck me as cumbersome and in need of a little improvement. icut4u 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Ethics is most certainly not a branch of the social sciences (unless one really means an ethnographic study of moral codes, which does not seem to be the case).  Not in any university I know, and not even on the social science article the sentence references and that is linked hereto.  Ethics is part of the humanties, specifically, philosophy.  In fact, there is also a kind of quantificationin branches of ethics...for example, the application of game theory (Nozick, Williams, and others) and, in metaethics, where philosophers make use of formal, logical construction.  I corrected the sentence to reflect these facts.icut4u 04:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics and Social Science

message: I look at the first sentence from October and it seems much better.  It seems to have gotten worse since then.  Or at least more narrowly defined, it seems to define economics as a certain school or schools sees it.  It was broaded before.  That it is focused on price was added since October, but is all economics focused on price?  The early economists from Adam Smith to David Ricardo and so forth were not really price-obsessed, and there continues to exist a focus on other aspects of economics such as say production, although of course probably not among economic professors at American business schools.  It also adds that this is "seen through the lens of allocation of scarce resources".  This is another definition narrowing it in terms of economic schools.  Some people might see it through the lens of the value provided by labor.
The paragraph after that is a recent addition (last two months), which also explains economics through the lens of one particular economic school.  I'll deal with that later. Ruy Lopez 07:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence 

message: I'm doing a little work here as part of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. This article is listed on User:Taxman/Featured articles with references problems. Maurreen 09:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1.0

message: Material flow:
Extractors => Raw Materials => Raw Material  Transport => Processors => Product => Distribution => Consumption
According to what I understand to be the "laws" of economics, under the following circumstances one would expect a certain result:
1.) A raw material (crude oil)is provided at market price under production volumes, but not prices, determined by a cartel (OPEC) to a number of processors (manufactures, in this case a number of refiners) who provide a product for distribution to consumers (various products, but predominantly motor fuels). End consumer market prices are set by supply and demand, as are raw materials prices to the processors under the production restraints imposed by the cartel. Assume that the flow-through and pricing have stabilized.
2.) a processor is disabled. Under the laws of economics (as I understand them), the price of the raw material (crude oil) should decrease (since demand is now decreased) or remain constant (if supply  of raw material is reduced by producers in response to changed market conditions) and the price of the product should increase (assuming constant demand and reduced supply due to reduced supply from the processors.
Recently, there was a refinery explosion which disabled about 3% of the U.S. processing of petroleum products.
Contrary to the expectations outlined above, the price of crude oil ("Raw Materials" above) increased.
This seems counter-intuitive. Can any expert explain this in rational market terms?
Thanks in advance, Leonard G. 03:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest question

message: This is the first time I've posted anything on Wikipedia before, but I had to answer Leonard's question.
If a processor is disable, demand doesn't shift back, supply shifts back.  This is the cause for the price increase.  It is also, to an extent, the main ideas behind Reaganomix, Thatcherism, and suppl-yside economics, only with the AD/AS model instead of a simple basic supply/demand graph.
I might as well pose a question of my own.  Higher taxes on the rich and less on the poor are supposed to help income disparity right?  Well, when I look at the basic supply/demand graphs, the exact opposite happens.
Take a the high-end income labor market, for example, and say taxes are increased on those laborers earning high-income.  This in turns increases their costs, and because of this, shifts their supply curve back.  In response there are less high-end laborers, with even higher incomes.  The point of more taxes on the rich is to create more less-income laborers.
Oddly enough, the same things happens with low-income laborers.  If taxes are decreased on low-income laborers, this means less costs, which means their supply curve shifts outward.  Because of this, the equilibrium price causes more poorer laborers.
Thoughts on this?
:Labour is a somewhat weird market.  Increasing the wage recieved can either decrease or increase the amount supplied.  Some people will see a wage increase and think, now I don't need to work as much to earn the amount I need to live on.  Others will see a wage increase and think, now I can get more money per hour of leisure that I give up, so I will work more.  Which direction people will go depends on personal preferences.  As for your other question, think about this: Is your goal to decrease inequality between incomes, or is it to raise the income of the lowest portion?  If I am thinking correctly about what you said, you are decreasing the number of rich relative to the number of poor, which should decrease income disparity, which is the original goal.  Jrincayc 12:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Labor markets are also heavilly dependent on culture.  For example, U.S. laborers tend to respond to raises in pay by working more, so they can make more money (Americans are crass materialists, obviously.) Laborers in Mexico tend to do the opposite: they decrease their hours when wages go up (Mexicans are lazy, obviously.)  It has to do with the relative values give to leisure time and material goods.  Isomorphic 13:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answering Modest Question 

message: Hi. Does anyone think the opening should define economics as the study of resource allocation instead of production and consumption?  After all, not all of the problems studied by economics directly involve produciton and consumption. It's usually defined that way.  Does anyone think that's POV?  Mgw 23:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allocation 

message: It was wrong. And I think the greek spelling is still wrong, but I don't have a dictionary with me. --pippo2001 09:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I've been slowly working on :Category:Economics and am hoping that anyone who watches this page might be able to help. The main category has more than 150 articles and many should be sorted into subcategories. I don't know much about the subject. Maurreen 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category sorting

message: The greek word oikos is spelled actually "οίκος", and "νέμω" is an archaic verb, meaning literally "to distribute", although it later received also the meaning of "rules" ("law" is a better translation to "νόμος", as "rule" is "κανόνας"). "to distribute" is actually more accurate to the meaning of economia. I can assure that, since my native language is Greek. Please edit this page; the server seems to be down at this moment.
:No, that is not correct. Please refer to an Etymology Dictionary if you have doubts. This are just two of the descriptions: 
:c.1530, "household management," from L. oeconomia, from Gk. oikonomia "household management," from oikonomos "manager, steward," from oikos "house" (cognate with L. vicus "district," vicinus "near;" O.E. wic "dwelling, village;" see villa) + nomos "managing," from nemein "manage" (see numismatics). The sense of "manage the resources of a country" (short for political economy) is from 1651. Hence, economic (1835) means "related to the science of economics," while economical (1780) retains the sense "characterized by thrift." Economist is 1586 in the sense of "household manager," 1804 meaning "student of political economy." Economy (adj.) as a term in advertising at first meant simply "cheaper" (1821), then "bigger and thus cheaper per unit or amount" (1950). FROM  Online Etymology Dictionary
: The basic notion contained in the word economy is “household management”. It comes from Greek oikonomia, by way of French or Latin, and means the “steward of a household”. This was a compound noun formed from oikos, “house” and nemein, “manage”. The original sense “household management” was extended into English. It broadened out in the 17th century to the management of a nation’s resources, while the use of the derivative economics for the theoretical study of the creation and consumption of wealth dates from the early 19th century. From Ayto, John. Dictionary of Word Origins. New York: Arcade Publishing, 1990. --pippo2001 01:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On etymology 

message: There is a new portal. See Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Business, Economics, Finance. Maurreen 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: The article subsidy is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 17:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I think Economics would benefit from having a List of legal topics type list. I was talking to MyDogAteGodsHat too, does anyone know if there is a similiar topic for economics, and if there is a redirect to it from List of economic topics would be useful. --ShaunMacPherson 06:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at List of economics topics.--Fenice 07:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal people

message: There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: content dispute on [[coercive monopoly]]

message: The idea that individuals act to maximise utility is not and never has been solely associated with the neoclassical school of thought. Much of the mainstream of economics is, and has always been concerned with this concept and exploring its limitations. This can be demonstrated by reference to just about any undergraduate textbook. What's normally referred to as 'Neoclassicisim' refers to either (some) macroeconomic applications of this procedure, or to the more extreme micreconomic applications. I've edited a section of the article accordingly. The Land 16:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-classical economics

message: If we're going to have "Alternatives" to "mainstream" economists and claim that "Socialist Economists" exist in academia, could we please have examples?  If we can't have examples, could we not even list "alternatives". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 10lbs of potatoes (talk • contribs) 11 Nov 2005.
: At one point I added a mention of post-autistic economics to the article, and it was promptly removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems (and I need to spend time perusing the history of the article) either than few neoinstitutional, Keynesian and post-Keynesian, Marxist and post-Marxist, post-autistic, even post-modern scholars edit this article, or a neo-liberal, neo-conservative cabal is acting as a gatekeeper against any alternatives to the status quo model.  From reading other articles, I would suspect the latter.--Imagine&Engage/Talk 11:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: Why are there two See Also sections on this entry? Unless anyone has a good reason for that to be the case, I'll change it in a while. Odd bloke 04:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two "See Also" section 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: Following changed to a redirect. 
:Real Economy can be defined as an economy taken in terms of the goods it produces or trades as opposed to money. E.g. If a country pays $60 for a barrel of oil the real trade has been that barrel of oil and the nominal has been the $60 traded.
::I did not create this. WCFrancis 16:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Economy

message: I don't think the sentence "The welfare definition was still criticized as too narrowly materialistic. It ignores, for example, the non-material aspects of the services of a doctor or a dancer" is correct. There's nothing in Marshallian economics that says that only apples and oranges have value but not medical services or dance performances. They're all "goods". I don't know wherethe  notion in the sentence comes from. Also, in general the description of the Welfare definition is pretty poor, since it doesn't even give the definition. I mean, at the very least utility and the concept of consumer surplus should be mentioned. radek
:radek, here and above, some very good comments. I really encourage you to edit the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welfare definition

message: The remarks here on Evolutionary economics are almost incomprehensible; the article on the topic not much less so. In particular "Evolutionary economics often deals with the otherwise difficult questions related to the role of 'routines' and 'capabilities' in explaining heterogeneity in firm outcomes," is utterly jargon-laden. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary economics 

message: What is the annual € (Euro) value of the 30 + 300 main and subsidiary anti-vaccinationist websites' retail trade?
is a question I posed on the talk page for Anti-vaccinationists.  Any help would be appreciated.  Midgley 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The value of an industry: Anti-vaccinationism 

message: I will add the proper translations of oikos (family, household, estate) and nomos (custom, law) so that it is clearer that both political economy (management of the state) and scarcity (macro and micro) are covered. 
* for nomos, see http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html: "One example is the Greek word nomos, which is usually translated "law." In Greek the basic meaning of nomos is "custom" or "convention," for the Greeks held that law was simply codified custom."
* for oikos, see http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-815025-3: "The Oeconomicus is unique in Greek literature in combining a discussion of the proper management of an oikos (`family', `household', or `estate') and didactic material on agriculture within a Socratic dialogue." 
Subsequently, I will add my definition of economics from DRGTPE, see 
http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Papers/Drgtpe/Index.html
Please note that there is a version available in Project Gutenberg, so that digital copying is allowed as long as the PG reference exists, while one is referred to the publisher for printed versions.
Colignatus 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  oikos and nomos

message: I think there's a good case for adopting the JEL classification system  to define categories in economics. I'm not sure, though, how to implement this, or even how to go about getting some sort of consensus. Any ideas? JQ 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the JEL system public domain, or might we have an intellectual property issue here? I ask because, for example, the Dewey Decimal system is not in the public domain. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Update. I have received permission to use the JEL classifications, with attribution, which I think makes sense in any case. Does anyone have any concerns about this.? JQ 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JEL classifications

message: :Economics is said to be normative when it recommends one choice over another, or when a subjective value judgment is made. Conversely, economics is said to be positive when it tries objectively to predict and explain consequences of choices, given a set of assumptions such as observations or policy objectives. The choice of which assumptions to make in building a model as well as which observations to highlight is, however, normative.
I have real trouble understanding this. I'm going to generalise wildly and say most readers won't be able to make any sense of this either. Can we dumb this down a little? After all, this is the introduction section to a very broad & high level topic. WhiteCat 10:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine if you want to dumb this down.  My main concern with the introduction is every few months someone who has only studies neoclassical economics comes in and rewrites the introduction as if they were rewriting the neoclassical economics page rather than the economics page.  This is something to be avoided. Ruy Lopez 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bewildering introduction

message: Conversely, economics is said to be positive when it tries objectively to predict
Conversely, economics is said to be positive when it tries to objectively predict
The second one sounds better to me. --Gbleem 13:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to objectively 

message: Where does after tax analysis, an engineering economic method, fit in the the tree of economic articles? searches are drawing blanks ... if i have to create, where should it go? -- ∞Dbroadwell 07:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put this in as a section of Valuation (finance) JQ 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It can be more than just strict value, Present worth, Future worth, and Annual worth can all be considered within after tax analysis ... Does Valuation (finance) still seen the best fit? -- ∞Dbroadwell 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these are, or should be, considered in valuation. They are covered in Valuation_using_discounted_cash_flows, though the article needs some work.  Tax is just one factor that should be taken into account. JQ 10:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh well, as a student in this area, I don't know enough to refactor the economic analysis docs. I count myself lucky that i was able to improve depreciation and MACRS with data from the IRS, (worked for Jackson Hewitt for a few years). -- ∞Dbroadwell 03:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Tax Analysis 

message: I've been working on :Category:Economics using the JEL classification codes. I've gone furthest with :Category:Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) including a lot of links to relevant articles at JEL_classification_codes#Mathematical_and_quantitative_methods_JEL:_C_Subcategories. The process showed up a lot of gaps in article coverage. Kevin kzollman made a nice template, which improved the look.  I'd appreciate comments, suggestions and criticism. JQ 07:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics categories

message: I would contend that the criticism section should not contain criticism of specific economic theories, mostly because these are not in fact criticisms of economics. They only make sense in the context of the specific theory to which they are directed. For instance, at the moment the article includes a critique of Pareto efficiency. But the article doesn't explain what pareto efficiency is, so anyone reading this (who presumably knows very little about the subject) is likely to be quite confused by this. Some theories are discussed in the article, and criticism about them should be included right there with the presentation of the theory. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The criticism section

message: Would someone care to clean up Pat Devine and his socialist economics? Simesa 01:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pat Devine]] 

message: M&Ms says; How is this a fallacy? 
One criticism of relying solely on the criterion of Pareto efficiency is that it tends to support the status quo, since it is often difficult to find practical examples of changes in a society that do not harm at least one person. Still, if an economic system is to be devised, it is preferable that it result in outcomes that are Pareto efficient. 
Firstly economists are not dependent on this criterion. It is reconised as an ideal. What is important is that economist or who ever creates policy tries to create "more pareto efficient moves". Basically economist realise that sometimes the person who has to make a decision and is caught between a rock and a hard. When this happens economist refer to a cost-benefit analysis which in keeping with pareto efficeincy they will try to make a decision on the best "possible" outcome. 
It should be removed from the article as a fallacy or an attempt should be made to state that while decision makers do not have the option of making a 100% pareto efficeint move then they choose the next best "possible" option in accordance with the principal of efficeincy.
It's not. Whoever wrote that has no idea of what they're talking about. I deleted the 'examples' as they're all pretty bad.radek 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be a fallacy, the section is wider than that. Everything here is economics. I provided the references you are claiming and I hope you read some before restart your blind (and, in my opinion, silly) reversion war. Page Up 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A survey of economists on certain beliefs is used to support the claim that "many economics subfields and concepts aren't immune to recurrent and well-known contradictions and fallacies"? This is absurd. Your additions are being reverted because they are not well-considered enough to belong in the umbrella article for this field. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's because you and your friend don't want the section in this article. Page Up 12:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, as I said right above, I think the changes are not well-considered. Obviously I don't want them in the article.... Christopher Parham (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacies etc... 

message: I have removed:
''
:John Maynard Keynes once remarked that "Economics is the science of thinking."''
Feel free to object. --A Sunshade Lust 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics "science of thinking" quote 

message: hi! I'm an editor on LostPedia, a Lost (TV series)-related wiki (and recently, an editor on wiki as well. this stuff is addictive!). i'm working on an economics article (IANAEconomist) over there with someone who is an economist; i'm acting more in the editing capacity, whilst the other user is supplying the facts, essentially. i'd really love some other wikipedians who are versed in this area (who are also good editors) to have a look at the article in question! my aim is to make the article a lot more understandable to people unfamiliar with economics as a science. it has the potential to be a truly excellent article if it can be distilled a bit more. your input is appreciated! --Kaini 04:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  calling all economist LOST fans -  who are also good at editing/condensing! 

message: "The accounting measures usually used measure the pay received for work and the price paid for goods, and do not deal with the economic activities of those not significantly involved in buying and selling (for example, retired people, beggars, peasants)."
This could be a lot clearer, I think.--142.227.45.20 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence 

message: Unlike natural scientists and in a way similar to what happen in other social sciences, economists are generally unable to test their theories due to its impracticality. Unlike the natural sciences, economics yields no natural laws or universal constants, so this has led some critics to argue that economics is not a science, or at best, is just a soft science. This is plain false. The Austrian School deduces the whole economics from just some axioms and empirical notions, these are nothing but universal constants for the world one lives in. Intangible 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  error? 

message: "Economics has been persistently criticized for its heavy reliance on unrealistic, unobservable, or unverifiable assumptions. Some people reply to this criticism by saying that the unrealistic assumptions of economics result from abstraction from unimportant details, and abstraction is necessary for knowledge of a complex real world. So, far from unrealistic assumptions detracting from the epistemic worth of economics, such assumptions are essential for economic knowledge. Denominating this explanation the abstractionist defence, and after clarifying abstraction, unrealistic assumptions and kindred notions, some studies have shown that this abstractionist defence does not successfully rebut the position of those who criticize economics for its unrealistic assumptions."
I have a lot of problems with the quoted material.  First, it is copied nearly word for word from its source (although the source is cited).  Second, most of the changes made to the text are to reword from first to third person.  Examples; "I call this line of argument 'the Abstractionist Defense'." has been changed to "Denominating this explanation the abstractionist defence", making it seem as though the 'abstractionist defense' is a regularly used term.  Also, "I show that the Abstractionist Defense does not successfully rebut the position" has been changed to "some studies have shown that this abstractionist defence does not successfully rebut".  Making it appear as though there are multiple studies proving this, rather than just one person arguing it.  Third, this is the abstract of one paper.  Simple because one paper criticizes something does not justify it being included in an encyclopedia article.    For these reasons I am removing the text from the article. William conway bcc 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged flaws and criticisms section 

message: The following paragraph was poorly written and lacks citation. I am sure something like this belongs in the article; it should have citation. I would have copy edited it myself it I'd been sure of what it meant to say. And, yes, it began with a lowercase letter.
in modern times, alternative measures have been development to measure the welfare of a nation, flaws have been seen in modern toolds such as Gross domestic product, the index of social economic welfare (IESW) is published by the UN and show economic welfare more accurate as it factors in enviromental costs, it subtracts the cost to remove negatives to show how a society grows rather than measure GDP which is simply an measurement of all transactions.
I would even try to pick apart the syntax and grammar; I think there are supposed to be several sentences here. I'm guessing "have been development" ==> "have been developed", "toolds" might be "tools" (but that's not a very apt word, either). Someone want to take a shot at rewriting this in actual English? - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut, needs rewrite