lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Knightian uncertainty

message: I wonder how far this is related with Taleb's black swan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
This is indeed related to the black swan! Taleb argues strongly against concepts such as ´´knightian uncertainty´´, in fact he argues against
any way of distinguishing different kinds of uncertainty.  In the black swan, the book, look for section named "The uncertainty of the nerd", for this.
I will add a reference to this book to the article.    --Kjetil Halvorsen 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Black swan?

message: I doubt that Knightian uncertainty can be related to the Ellsberg paradx: If you draw from Ellsberg's urn you can make a statement about the probability of the colour you draw, at least theoretically so. By randomly drawing you could even infer the odds by the law of large numbers. Therefore, the probabilities ARE measurable. Knight by contrast emphasises that they cannot be measured! There need to be a distinction between probs which are there and those which are not. If it is possible to assign a probability but we do not know it we have ambiguity, if it is not possible to assign a probability (end hence it cannot be measured) then we face uncertainty. Maybe Knight should have made himself clearer about what he actually had in mind ;-) 160.85.104.70 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ellsberg paradox

message: I think the article should have a section on how to make decisions in the face of Knightian uncertainty. I’m not too familiar with this, but I think that a discussion of uninformative Bayesian priors may be relevant. Loraof (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs section on making decisions
Talk:Logistics management

message: @Joannes Vermorel @CorporateM @Ani Kuriakose @Ian Glossop @User:Pippin Bear @User:Snow Rise @User:TDJankins I propose that Logistics management be merged into Logistics. Lbertolotti (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this could definitely be merged into the Logistics page under one of the subheadings, however the intro to the Logistics page should probably be more general than it currently is as it's currently about Logistics Management. Also, we probably don't need the universities list.--TDJankins (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Yeah, looks better.--TDJankins (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Managed float regime

message: ===United States in dirty float list===
I am a little taken aback by seeing the United States in the list of countries that employs a managed float.  With the possible exception of Canada, the United States has intervened less in the foreign exchange markets in support of a dollar exchange rate target, if for no other reason than it is simply not possible, given the enormous use of the U.S. dollar in international commerce, and the shear volume of trading of the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B167:6805:CDC:A110:92FB:6FF9 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States doesn't appear to be listed anymore. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: I am a little taken aback by seeing the United States in the list of countries that employs a managed float.  With the possible exception of Canada, the United States has intervened less in the foreign exchange markets in support of a dollar exchange rate target, if for no other reason than it is simply not possible, given the enormous use of the U.S. dollar in international commerce, and the shear volume of trading of the U.S. dollar in foreign exchange markets.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B167:6805:CDC:A110:92FB:6FF9 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States doesn't appear to be listed anymore. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: United States in dirty float list
Talk:Marginal propensity to save

message: This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look out for possible copyright violations in this article 

message: The article on marginalism states that marginal changes are conventionally understood to be very small. In those terms a 50% increase in income and a 100% increase in savings are not 'marginal' as conventionally understood. To illustrate the point what would be required is something like a 2% increase in income and a 3% increase in savings.Optymystic (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marginal
Talk:Mark Twain effect

message: This article corrently says "The fact that Twain specifically picks out October initially is taken as a reference to an "October effect", as exemplified by the 1929, 1987 and 2008 stock market crashes which roughly occurred in October." This is unlikely absent time travel. Twain died in 1910 which is 19 years before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Also, this effect is attributed to mutual funds fiscal years ending in October and the first mutual fund was established in 1924, fourteen years after Twain's death.
Furthermore, this appears to be more commonly called the October Effect then the Mark Twain Effect. A google search for ["october effect" stock market] produces 28 times as many hits as ["mark twain effect" stock market]. I think the article should be renamed to October Effect.
Here's the history of this sentence.
* The sentence 'Some have [incorrectly] taken this as a reference to an "October effect".' was added on 22 Decenber 2014 by an anonymous editor.
* That editor then changed this to 'The fact that Twain specifically picks out October initially is [incorrectly] taken as a reference...'
* Another anonymous editor changed this to '[most likely incorrectly]'.
* Finally, user Alextejthompson removed '[most likely incorrectly]' as OR.
In fact, the entire sentence is OR. The original sentence that some people incorrectly credit Twain for referencing the October effect is probably true now if it wasn't before due to the Wikipedia effect.
---Vroo (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one replied to this after ~7 weeks, I've gone ahead and changed the content to fix this. While the "October effect" is the more common name, I did not rename the article at this point since most of the content is talking about Twain. If the article is expanded to include more discussion of the October effect in general, it should be renamed at that point.   ---Vroo (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-hoc attribution
Talk:Marshallian demand function

message: The pages for Marshallian demand, Hicksian demand, and Minimum expenditure functions, Roy's identity, and the Slutsky equation have differing notations. While this isn't a problem for experts, the connections between these concepts are very important. It might help people using Wikipedia as a learning resource if the notations were unified. Jonthawk (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent notation across articles 

message: There is an apparently large overlap between Demand curve, Marshallian demand function and Utility maximization problem. I would like to see some explanation about the differences and relationships between them. -- Erel Segal (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping pages
Talk:Medium term note

message: Some of the info here seems bogus. There was some spamming in this article related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lifnlsdlsdnf.  The explicit spam has been removed, but the article is still bad. Compare , which talks about SEC Rule 415, shelf registrations, and how GMAC used them. That's not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, but it makes sense.  (I realize that General Motors isn't exactly a good example of financial management this week, but they're way ahead of the spammer.) --John Nagle (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This Federal Reserve Bulletin article  might be a good source. --John Nagle (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some info here is bogus 

message: Just undid these edits  because they were copied from . --John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid copyvio
Talk:Monetary economics/Archive 1

message: Monetary theory has had a stable Redirect of Monetary economics to it since December 2007. The following are some considerations for going to the next step  and changing the article title to Monetary economics.
# The article is already arguably the closest fit of 'monetary economics' on Wiki in the judgment of Wiki editors per above. The change would not be so big.  The Edit history of the article  would go with the name change, again making the change not so big.  
# If 'monetary theory' is correctly described in the article as a "major branch" of macroeconomics, arguably the "more major" branch is the one that should be used in the article title.  
# Stated another way, the comprehensive JEL classification codes for the subject uses "theory" only a few times and not at all in the  JEL classification codes#Macroeconomics and monetary economics JEL: E Subcategories. Why? Possibly because it is taken for granted that there may be aspects of monetary theory (or a monetary theory) worth considering besides pure theory, such as empirical aspects of the theory.  That would be a good reason for including the broader term 'monetary economics' so as not to suggest that the theory is only about theory.  
# Unlike a particular theory or approach (such a the Quantity theory of money), the term 'monetary theory' might suggest to the unwary that the subject has no empirical applications, which is misleading. The more general term 'monetary economics' avoids that problem. 
# The huge 8-volume The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2008) with almost 1900 articles has no separate entry  for 'monetary theory', but the 2nd hit for that term there is the article "monetary economics, history of," which, as the Table of Contents indicates, includes plenty of theory, suggesting the fundamental role of monetary theory in monetary economics.
Unless there is a consensus otherwise, may  I propose changing the article title to "Monetary economics" as early as 7 full days from now to allow for full consideration and light traffic on this page.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change of article title to "Monetary economics"
Talk:Net national product

message: The section Use in economics is not meant to provide an exhaustive list of all the applications of net national product, but rather some typical examples. If you would like to do me (and maybe also this encyclopedia) a favor, please list further applications under this thread, so that we can integrate them consistently and coherently in the article without bloating its Use in economics section beyond measure. Thank you in advance --Arbraxan (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in economics
Talk:No liability

message: It is possible that the NL phase operates only during the exploration for propects. operations.
Once the company starts mining and selling the ore, that is when the company converts to the normal Limited phase.    Tabletop (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mining or Exploration 

message: Should the shareholder chose not to pay when there is a call, the shareholder forfeits both the unpaid and paid shares.
Surely the shareholder forfeits the partly paid shares, but keeps any paid shares !?   Tabletop (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely Not
Talk:Noise trader

message: Obvioulsy it is not clear what is meant by noise trading. For example the analyst Bassam Fattouh wrote something completely different:
Black (1986) defines noise traders as agents  who sell and buy assets on the basis of  of irrelevant information 
z z Transact on the basis of extrapolating past trends  (technical analysis) or irrational investors’ sentiments  (herding) rather than on market fundamentals or the  arrival of new information (see for instance  Shleifer and Summers (1990) among  many others)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.129.218 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content 

message: The existing text was entirely original research and one-sided opinion.  It was useless. I restarted the article with a complete citation back to the original Fischer Black "Noise" paper.  It is a very important concept and this can be seen from the times Black's paper continues to be cited in the literature.
What the article needs is some recent research on what analysts consider what's the "signal" and what's the "noise" that goes into trading decisions. patsw (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewritten

message: The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0cdcnctx& (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent 

message: Is the mentioning of the term "idiot trader" really ethical? I don't want to erase it, since I'm not quite familiar with the topic. It does however seem not-too-relevant.69.119.232.155 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiot trader?
Talk:Non-market economics

message: Non-Market Economies status is a controversial issue in trade debates. When countries that have that NME status like China, Vietnam,... involve in a trade dispute, such as a dumping case, trading partner can refer to prices in a third country to calculate dumping margin rather than using prices in such countries due to NME status reason.
1betterworld (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not worth it, because the statement above is just bizarre, as it endorses the statement in question. Also, responding to removals by unsigned users makes no sense. (The reference would be J.G. Backhaus' edited volume on Bücher, for instance.) Clossius 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Market Economies 

message: Expanded some information and added a reference section with a couple citations and also an external links section with a couple related links. skip sievert (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added citations and links
Talk:WTKM-FM

message: Rummage Sale Friday and Saturday 
9-5 in Germantown at the corner of Holy Hill Rd, Maple Rd and Hwy 145. Enter driveway on Maple Rd. Dressers, futons, lamps, coffee/end tables, mens clothes/jackets XL tall and 2Xtall, Princess Barbie dolls, durable medical equipment, coolers, yard tools,kitchen tables 1950’s and 1970’s, baby swings, camping cookware.  Lots more!! 72.128.90.225 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi- Family Rummage Sale
Talk:Output (economics)

message: It should be considered to merge "gross output" and "net output" pages into this one.Northwind Arrow (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggesting merge

message: In economics, output is the quantity and quality of goods or services produced in a given time period, within a given economic network, whether consumed or used for further production.
not quality
only quantity TimurMamleev (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  error
Talk:Output elasticity

message: The first sentence of this article defines the "output elasticity" to refer to changes in a single  input, but a later paragraph defines it to refer to a simultaneous changes in all of the imputs (i.e. local homogeneity). This should be made consistent. I've changed this to clarify that these are different uses of the term. Ted.tem.parker (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is self-contradictory
Talk:Paper trading

message: "Paper trading" means "Pretend trading."  Is this notable?  I mean, do we have articles on Pretend engineering or Pretend bicycling.  Maybe Air guitar comes closest?  This is a good argument to delete this.  Smallbones (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretend trading 

message: "Forex" and "derivatives" are NOT "strategies". They are markets (or types of markets). 165.228.173.76 (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called "Advanced Strategies"
Talk:Performance bond

message: This article in my opinion doesn't look to be of the typical standard of wikipedia, in fact it looks like it was copy-pasted from a info blog. In particular the following part is of concern:
May I suggest the Template:Cleanup?
Aresilek (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up template
Talk:Pork cycle

message: Isn't this precisely the situation where speculators come to the rescue, damping movements of prices by trying to predict them? I don't have a degree in economics, so i'd like the article to tell me.. Anyone? Joepnl (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculators

message: This article ties the McRib sandwich to the pork cycle. How can we work it in? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  McRib
Talk:WTBU (Boston University)

message: IMHO WTBU's notability comes from its roster of alumni, particularly Howard Stern. Haikupoet (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In case of a future ProD...

message: I have tagged :File:WTBUmylesAM.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:WTBUmylesAM.jpg]] may be deleted 

message: I have tagged :File:Welcome2wtbu.jpg, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Welcome2wtbu.jpg]] may be deleted
Talk:Price-cap regulation

message: Wow, eight uses of the word "conversely", all within a gigantic paragraph. We might be better off using an equation. Erudecorp ? * 22:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversely
Talk:Project stakeholder

message: I think this needs to be substantially smaller, and primarily link to a key article... perhaps project management or possibly the pmbok article.  This is all project management detail, and Wikipedia is not a "how to manage projects" site.  There are many excellent ones.  It is a general-purpose encyclopedia.  sinneed (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapador favors a much longer treatment. 

message: I suggest that this article be merged into Stakeholder§Types. 2604:2000:EFC0:13:B578:5970:9E1C:9E06 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Psychic cost

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-05-6 Automated pywikipediabot message
Talk:Legacy 76

message: I believe this club only fields a youth soccer team. I don’t think they have a team in the NPSL any longer. Mueller921 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don’t think they have a NPSL team any longer
Template talk:Makoto Shinkai

message: But without the grouping people would tend to think it's in chronological order, which is not the case. _dk (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're more than welcome to reorder the links so they are organized chronologically, then. =) -- as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Grouping
Talk:Real gross domestic product

message: The article does not make clear what is a "real GDP". "Real GDP growth" or "real GDP evolution" is a clear concept (the GDP evolution corrected by the price evolution). But "real GDP" is not. Is it considered real in reference to a previous GDP? Should we convert today current GDP into one calculated with past prices?. I'm not too convinced by this concept.--Pgreenfinch 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing concept 

message: It would be very helpful if the page included or linked a chart showing 
Log of real GDP vs log of potential GDP (or "Potential output" as the current WP article is disappointingly titled))
with which potential GDP is frequently and most helpfully contrasted.  
The Potential GDP article should be renamed as such, and linked here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.142.40 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A chart would be helpful comparing Real vs Potential GDP
Talk:Residual value

message: Residual value has other meanings, some, as in maths, far more important than the present article. 41.246.168.178 (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meanings of residual value
Talk:Return on capital

message: Please add explanations of the terms used in the formulas!
:BV of Equity, OK so I know BV is book value, but witch equity?  Shareholder equity with the comp[any?  Equity as valued by the market?  If its the value of the shareholder equity why deduct the debt, since the shareholder equity in the company already accounts for this.  If its market equity valueation then again why deduct debt, since the market pricing is the market pricing which includes all known information. Jasonfward (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also need to explain the meaning of "AdjustedTaxes" 99.112.92.109 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This http://www.investorwords.com/4247/Return_on_Capital.html gives a clearer explanation and directly contradicts this article.  Jasonfward (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree this article needs a lot of work, including elaboration of the formulæ.  —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulas 

message: I undid an edit you made to this page.
There are a couple of intertwined reasons.
First, the material added is almost identical to a paragraph in Return_on_capital_employed, With the only difference that "ROCE" was changed to "ROIC". 
Second, the claim is unsupported. I'll also note it is unsupported in the other article. (I just added a citation needed tag to it".) Statements such as this must be reference to a reliable source.
I don't know whether the material was copied from another Wikipedia article on whether both paragraphs were copied from the same common source.
Even if copied from another Wikipedia article, there are some guidelines which must be followed:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia And even if those are followed, there is still a requirement for a reference to reliable source.
On the chance that a reliable source can be found, we still have the issue that the exact same statement is being said about "ROCE" and "ROIC". Although it is theoretically possible that two different concepts can have an identical drawback associated with them, I use this opportunity to ask editors to look into both articles. Either they are identical concepts with slightly different names, which would lead to I need to merge the two articles with a small explanatory sentence explaining that to slightly different terms are used to refer to the same thing;
or,
they are materially different concepts, and both articles ought to include text explaining how the two concepts differ.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of "drawback material"
Talk:Russell 2000 Index

message: Could someone please create a records page?
Figfires (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

message: If we look at :Category:Companies by stock market index, most of the world's major indices are listed, except for the Russel. Can somebody add this? 92.16.44.56 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of new category