Talk:Economics/Archive 2

message: I really don't think Godel has much to do with economics. Did McClosky herself cite Godel? If not I really think it should be taken out as it just seems like more abuse of Godel by people who severely misunderstand his Incompletness Theorems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.57.18 (talk) 
:Point well taken.  No one denies the importance of Gödel's theorems, but what's needed is a citation of theoretical or practical instances where Gõdel's theorem illuminates actual, not merely hypothetical, problems in economic analysis.  Material not satisfying Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is subject to deletion.  (Change of subject: please  put new section to a Talk page at end of other sections per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#layout. That's where users are likely to look first.) --Thomasmeeks 11:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godel 

message: A bit strange that the word economy was censored from this page on economics, under the pretence that the meaning attributed to economy was not exactly right (which I doubt, by the way, economy is not only a system, or whatever other definition, it is also a set of human and social activities in such a system, and this is its most important aspect). It is as if an article on agronomy were not mentioning farming (which is the case by the way, but at least it says "agricultural" ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 07:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, I will see how I can arrrange a mention in the article about the way economics can address "an" economy. --Pgreenfinch 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Hi, I just started the thermoeconomics article.  If anyone would like to contribute, please do so.  Also if anyone has comments or suggestions or knows of related pages please leave a talk message.  Lastly, if anyone has any tips as to who coined the term and when, your help would be appreciated. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 14:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermoeconomics 

message: There is no Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics. Such broad topic as economics needs a wikiproject.--201 03:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a template from this project right at the top of the article. And the last thing we need is more crap clogging talk pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Economics]] 

message: ummmm... The criticism section is ridiculous!
Wikipedia is not an airing ground for the many potential, and I should mention marginal, arguments against economic theory in general. One goal of wikipedia is to maintain consistency. View other controversial sciences, such as psychology or sociology. This section reads like an agenda.
- We don't need to get rid of the entire criticism section! However, it can be summarized in a much more succinct way. We can use other fields of study as basic comparisons correct? In many, there is no criticism section at all, even though one certainly could exist (such as ecology or sociology). In others, where criticism sections are undoubtedly warranted, such as psychology, a small section is given to summarize the essential criticisms that the field has attracted.
Such a method is a good standard to follow. After all, this is an overview of the topic, NOT an analysis. The writing in this criticism section comes across as analyzing economics and bringing to light even the more specialized criticisms (mccloskey criticism). I am almost tempted to say that it crosses the line into original research / analysis.
Economics is one of the more controversial sciences. Like sociology and psychology, it has attracted its share of criticisms, perhaps more so than some sciences, and this is worth noting. However, devoting gigantic sections (they are gigantic - proportionally, the section was larger than many of the basic explanation sections) is unreasonable.
This consistency among other articles is important. If one article, say on economics, has a much larger criticism section than an article on other related sciences, then it gives the impression that economics is singled out for criticism, or that it is a particularly weak science. Perhaps these are the personal feelings of some people, but it is not a reflection of the standing of Economics in academia.
147.4.214.19 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I'm probably not going to plunge into this one, at least not now: I'm involved in quite enough controversial articles. But I do have some suggestions:
* "Interdisciplinary studies and cross-application" should not be the first section. We should give a lot more grounding in what economics is before we start looking at how it sometimes exceeds its usual frontiers.
* The section "Economic language and reasoning" assumes an econometric context. I'm not sure how deep this article should go into econometrics; the econometrics article is, in fact, extremely short, and should probably grow. At the very least, this section should be explicit about representing not all of economics, but simply the currently dominant school.
* There is a bit of a laundry list of minor criticisms, but utterly unmentioned here (unless it's here and I'm missing it) is a rather important current of critique from within: that the increasingly mathematical tendency of economics in the post-WWII era has caused most economists to lose sight of important issues that are harder to quantify. Among the more notable sources of this critique are the recently deceased Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith and the economist who have gathered under the banner of "post-autistic economics" (on which we have barely more than a stub). - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Jmabel 

message: Yes, some more months have gone by, and some people who disagree with me who have never studied any economic theories other than neoclassical have put garbage like "Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources." as the second sentence.  I am pushing this crap down to the neoclassical theory section where it belongs, once again.  I advise the people who post this stuff to pick up Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, David Ricardo and whatnot.  They might be shocked to learn that none of them believed this crap, I mean, theory. Regardless, it does not encompass all economics.  Put it in the neoclassical section or the wiki page devoted to that theory. Ruy Lopez 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully support that. The different fields of science should be primarily distinguished by their subject matter, not their method. Economics is about how human societies use their resources. It's not much more complicated than that. Whether we then choose to do that in a neoclassical manner (choice, incentives etc.) is secondary to what we are studying. Although to be fair certain leading economists have talked rubbish on this matter, notably Lionel Robbins and Stigler.--Nmcmurdo 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I approve of various definitions, but the one's included range from 50 to 100 years old. The science has changed markedly in the past 30 years -- let alone the past 50. I suggest these be replaced with contemporary definitions. Wikiant 21:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  return of the people who disagree with me 

message: Is Marx mentioned in this article? He and his theory should be mentioned somewhere in this. As should Adam Smith. --Zhukov 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith is mentioned quite a few times, Marx only indirectly (a link to Marxist economics, which is a redirect to the better title Marxian economics). I'm not sure whether or not there should be a lot more Marx here. He was certainly a notable sociologist, polemicist, and political figure, but in economics, Marx seems to stand up better as a critic than for his own positive views. The one major theoretical contribution of his that I think should clearly be added is the theory of surplus value, which goes a long way to explain capitalist accumulation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx? 

message: Classical economic theroy of economics hardly holds true when you allow credit.  Consumers, who under the theory would buy according to need and income creating a demand, now buy without enough consideration to income.  What is created is a false economy and an embalance of demand as a relationship to income.  Consumers are constantly bombarded by the commercialization of credit creating a demand for credit and consequently a demand for goods or services.  At some point the use of credit will outstrip the available income.  During the recent past, home equity has salvaged the lack of income, but without inflation of house/land values, the consumer will be strapped.  The banking system understands this and with the aid of our representatives, a new bankruptcy law has been passed to extend the solvency of the banking system.  An expanding economy is nothing more than an expanding credit structure that can only be sustained by inflation - either in wages or property. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkree (talk • contribs).
:Credit permits consumption to be timed in a different pattern to income. Widespread credit creation can be a factor in inflation. Both these topics have received a large literature in economics. --Nmcmurdo 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit as a Consequence 

message: Intro says:
:An economist is a person using economic concepts and data in the course of employment.
(My italics.) What's that supposed to mean? Should it read e.g. 'in the course of his/her employment'?? (I.e. professionally) Ben Finn 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Pushing the envelope is going too far.  But Edits should go as far as  well-defined use of language and concepts in the public domain can go, with appropriate references where necessary.  That means not watering down to placate but tightening up for clarity, readability, and informative content with a collective purpose of improving the article.  To that end, the principle of charity, referred to above, may be a useful device for constraining Edits (where there is any truth worth salvaging, of course).  In some cases at least, its use may make it easier to see the possible reason for an earlier Edit, the better to improve on one's own Edit. -- Thomasmeeks 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing the envelope & the principle of charity

message: The 2nd sentence in the article, slightly edited from above, was deleted:
:Dimensions of production include measurement, such as “how much,”  “how efficiently,” and “for whom” (that is, 'distribution').
with this explanation in Edit summary:
:The second sentence was confusing, out of place, and interrupted the flow. Production is only one part of (production, consumption, distribution), let's be general up front and specific later.
That Edit summary does not explain what is confusing about the sentence immediately following terms that are themselves unexplained & that invite elaboration, nor what is overly specific about the 2-word explications of 'measurement' (variations of which are well-attested in principles texts as to terms in the definition of 'economics' to avert confusion), nor the links that elaborate. On 2nd sentence of above Edit summary,  production is necessary for consumption and distribution, & in that sense prior to them.  Comments welcome from that writer or anyone else. --Thomasmeeks 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A focus in economics is measuring and understanding the quantity of goods and services production, the efficiency and trade-offs in this production, and the distribution and allocation of goods and services to the benefit of society.
Then it would be less jargon-laden, more understandable to the layman, clearer overall, and it would point out that although this is a focus of economics, it is not the entire science.
Even rewritten like this, I still don't think it should be the second sentence in the article. 
Jabraham 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the above comment as to the sentence at the top of this section deleted from the article, first, some preliminaries.  Surely "dimensions" is not obscure in that sentence, given 3 examples referred to there. And surely "jargon-laden" does not refer to "measurement," "production," or “how much, ”etc.  Those terms make up most of the sentence.  So, what remains?  The comment suggests that the sentence implies that most of the subject comes down studying the "measurement of production" (including some dimensions of it).  That is a quite unwarranted inference from the sentence but one that I agree future Edits could take care to avoid suggesting.  --Thomasmeeks 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd sentence deleted

message: The 3rd para.: substitutes “modern” for “mainstream.”  “Mainstream economics” is unnecessary (and arguably question-begging) here and is instead discussed in  the  paragraph on heterodox economics, which  follows the para. on other divisions of economics and includes a cited example of  a  heterodox perspective:
:Another division is between mainstream economics, used to distinguish economics in general from  heterodox approaches and schools, for example, Austrian economics,  Marxian economics and institutional economics, which proceed from their own perspectives.  Thus, in Marx’s labour theory of value, in a capitalist system value is considered as  a measure of labor exploitation* rather than of price.
:*J.E. Roemer (1987), "Marxian value analysis," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3,  p.  383.  (Typo fix.) Thomasmeeks 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited last para. swapped with previous para. 

message: I'm puzzled by the contents of section 5 (Economic assumptions) of the economics article. As far as I can tell, save 5.4 Scarcity,  all of the sub-headings in that section describe economic concepts or models and not assumptions. I'm not convinced that the inclusion of an assumptions section in a main article page is particulary useful, given that each school of thought (and indeed many sub-fields within a school) make different assumptions.
I think an "assumptions" section should be reserved for school or discipline specific pages. On the main page there could be links to detailed pages and a brief summary of the article lead on the main page. Indeed that seems to be the spirit of the text as it currently stands. Price and Value seem to me to best classified as "core concepts". Supply and Demand are examples of models, and scarcity I suppose could be classified as an assumption.
If others feel that this is a problem (or at least an inelegant exposition), the fix would require some consensus and concerted effort to create an alternative structure. I.e. linked pages would need to be examined and maintained in a way that is consistent with the main page, structural changes made to this article, etc. Being new I'm not sure of the process involved in addressing this concern. Suggestions and comments are welcome. Joel Kincaid 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Anyone commenting only on above may might prefer not to indent.) And that brings up a another consideration evident from studying the subsection headings: (1) Value, (2) Supply and demand, (3) Price, (4) Scarcity, (5) Marginalism.  Clearly "cost" is in (1) and probably should be in that section heading (with a rewrite in the subsection to indicate their integral relation).  Price is also there.  (2) is an example of a Model (economics).  If (2) stays, possibly it should be should be with a retitled "Economic models," with a segue Edit.  (3) is a clear example of model-specific assumptions.  Some of it might be moved to (1), which already discusses Price.  The rest of (3), well, see above.  (4) is covered neatly in the lede.  If it stays, it might be clarified and slimmed down to the more pointed examples.  It is certainly a core concept, but whether its worth keeping is another matter.  (5) ia totally derivative from the preceding.  It might be worked in there to illustrate for example the use of a model.  I hope that there is an effective consensus that can improve the section and the article.  It is hard to generalize without knowing what the final product would look like.  That's the advantage of not ruling out continuing piecemeal or bold (though not reckless) revisions.  If mistakes are made they can always by reverted or fixed.  --Thomasmeeks 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: I'm trying to do the right thing here. This section is a bit of a jumble. There are no cites -- it seems that the whole section has been set up to house a group of people that would rather muse or speculate about *something*. It really needs to go....I'll leave this comment here for a few and then delete if there is no discussion. There is no way this article will make FA status with stuff like that thrown in to spice things up. Joel Kincaid 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call to Delete "Effect on Society Section" 

message: I think that here could be a place to differ between several approaches, schools and styles of economic languages and reasoning. The current article only mentions econometric thinking and perhaps enters too deep in this special area. I'm not ready yet in rethinking the subject, but it might be like that (proposal):
Economic reasoning happens - as in other sciences as well - by the use of quantitative analysis, by the use of qualitative research and of course by philosophical reflection.
Quantitative research
The collection of economic data and the formulation of economic models are part of an econometric approach to economy. The Austrian School and the Chikago School were focused on these aspects with a strong impact on mathematics. Economists as Paul Samuelson,  Paul Krugman and Irving Fisher are recommended for econometric research. Quantitative methods are used in many fields of economics: in entrepreneurship, macroeconomics, political economy, game theory and financial theory and many others.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is published in often popular books and essays. In Universities as Columbia, Berkeley and Yale, The London School of Economics, in Munich and in Zurich the focus is more on qualitative research. Richard Layard (London) researches in luck and happiness, Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia) investigates the consequences of globalization. Game theorists as Ernst Fehr (Zurich) and Klaus Schmidt (Munich) are desproving the self interest hypothesis.
Philosophical Research
The question What is economy? is the issue of a philosophical approach to economy. Economists like Peter Barnes (Capitalism 3.0), Alexander Dill (Towards a Global Freeware Index) and Peter Sloterdijk (Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals) define economy in completely new categories as the commons, public goods, wellness and freeware.
I would be glad to hear your opinion to this approach.--Jörg Sutter 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic languages and reasoning 

message: With all the edit templates, "citation needed" notes, and esoteric language towards the end, I don't believe this article deserves an "A Class" rating.DMCer 15:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Class? 

message: The current Economics version with the Edit summary "Edit of lead: see Talk:Economics#Lead" under the history tab is an attempt reconcile the discussion in the section immediately above this one. The previous article Edit from Feb. 21 edited, rearranged, and introduced new material. I am sympathetic to motivation for those changes.   But I believe that they can be accomplished in another way without raising contentious issues that can be dealt with in other sections.  On that objective, it will be noticed, we are agreed.    
I believe that the lead for this article should have an analytical cast.  The WP:LEAD should also motivate the reader to read beyond the lead of the article.  If there is going to be a reference to the history of the subject it should then be included only insofar as it sheds some light on the subject today in an interesting way.  I hope that others might be sympathetic to that approach as part of this collective effort to improve the article.  
The current Robbins paragraph has no mention of neoclassical economics.  It's unnecessary there.  And Robbins's analytical points go well beyond the confines of neoclassical economics.  No one seriously believes that neoclassical economics has a copyright on the notions of econonmic scarcity and the necessity for choice.  
Remaining in the current article is only minimal mention of neoclassical economics.  IMHO, even that could go.  It may be a source of confusion in the lead.  Or it may be perceived as an attempt to use persuasive terminology, which is what I think is what my fellow colloquist in the previous section was getting at.  That's an argument for taking it out,  with which I would not disagree.  --Thomasmeeks 18:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Economics#Lead: shortened restore with sect. 1:
# restores para. 2 & an abbreviated para. 3 to the lead from a 3/17/07 Edit 
# edits the last sentence of the lead with a broader link for social institutions
# retitles section 1 to: In the beginning  . . .  
(1) is intended to better satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines & suggestions as to providing an accessible overview for the article as a whole.   It is also within length guidelines for the lead, despite the article itself being very long with many sections.
(3) Is not just about a historical definition.  It is a thumbnail history of its modern "origin" (with motivation thrown in from an influential source -- Adam Smith himself).  The title is intended to be descriptive (and not overly heavy).  The slight Edit at the end of the section may (correctly) suggest current uses of 'political economy'. --Thomasmeeks 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The current Economics version with the Edit summary 
:See Talk:Economics#Lead: shortened restore with sect. 1:
# restores para. 2 & an abbreviated para. 3 to the lead from a 3/17/07 Edit 
# edits the last sentence of the lead with a broader link for social institutions
# retitles section 1 to: In the beginning  . . .  
(1) is intended to better satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines & suggestions as to providing an accessible overview for the article as a whole.   It is also within length guidelines for the lead, despite the article itself being very long with many sections.
(3) Is not just about a historical definition.  It is a thumbnail history of its modern "origin" (with motivation thrown in from an influential source -- Adam Smith himself).  The title is intended to be descriptive (and not overly heavy).  The slight Edit at the end of the section may (correctly) suggest current uses of 'political economy'. --Thomasmeeks 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead: shortened restore with sect. 1

message: The modern mainstream economics section repeats itself a lot.
It opens with "Mainstream economics begins with the premise that resources are scarce and that it is necessary to choose between competing alternatives."  this is a reiteration of something found in the opening of the article - "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."  Someone must really like repeating that though because later on in this section we see 
"Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources."
Then later in this section we see
"neoclassical economics, which began to develop in the late 1800s and models choices made in the allocation of scarce resources."
Then later in this section
"It is sometimes referred to as the study of choice under conditions of scarcity."
Then later in this section
"Economics is a broad term given to the social science of how choices are made in face of limited resources."
Then later in this section a word for word repetition of what was said in the opening -
"the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses"
Reading all of this I conclude that mainstream economics studies the relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.  But I do not need to be told this six times (seven, if you count the opening).  This section also repeats itself in other ways.  I am removing redundancy from it. Ruy Lopez 12:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern mainstream economics 

message: Why is there a no-references tag on this article? There's a long list of references under "Notes", and I've just added some more (to clarify the introduction and first section). Is it OK if I remove the no-refs tag? Walton Vivat Regina! 20:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many different definitions have been applied to economics: one source describes it as "the study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources."  Professor Victor Lima of the University of Chicago, on the other hand, used the more concise statement "economics is what economists do." .
The Edit summary for deletion of this paragraph was: "Definitions not well attested, esp. ones that may be challenged as question begging, do not belong in Lead section."   There is the further problem that such an Edit might be perceived as frivolous or an effort at post-modernist ironic deconstruction.   In other contexts, such efforts might be entertaining, but in an open-source encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, intentional efforts along those lines might be seen as a subtle kind of vandalism. I attribute no such intent to the above user, but perceptions matter.   --Thomasmeeks 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-references tag? 

message: Concerning the recent 2nd paragraph add to the lead (since deleted) of Economics by the user listed immediately above (User:Walton monarchist89):
:Many different definitions have been applied to economics: one source describes it as "the study of how the forces of supply and demand allocate scarce resources."  Professor Victor Lima of the University of Chicago, on the other hand, used the more concise statement "economics is what economists do." .
The Edit summary for deletion of this paragraph was: "Definitions not well attested, esp. ones that may be challenged as question begging, do not belong in Lead section."   There is the further problem that such an Edit might be perceived as frivolous or an effort at post-modernist ironic deconstruction.   In other contexts, such efforts might be entertaining, but in an open-source encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, intentional efforts along those lines might be seen as a subtle kind of vandalism. I attribute no such intent to the above user, but perceptions matter.   --Thomasmeeks 16:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible perception of Edits as post-modernist ironic deconstruction

message: Meso first. A Google Scholar papers search of the 3 people listed in Economics on mesoeconomics yields the following for:
:Holland mesoeconomics: 35 hits, a few of them with more than a tiny number cites or in a prestigious journal; very diffuse in subject matter (accurately reflected in mesoeconomics)
:Dopfer mesoeconomics: 6 hits of which 2 are listed below. (Of the remaining, 2 are  primarily linked to Schumpeterian economics & 1 goes to dissertation abstracts, & the other does not mention meso)
:proofs  of a nice survey chapter on Evolutionary Economics, with the next hit even better in its narrower subject. 
2004 Micro-meso-macro article, Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 
:Mamalakis  mesoeconomics: 2 journal hits, one in a regional world affairs journal (3 cites), the other in an economics journal (0 cites).   (Markos Mamalakis is a distinguished scholar.  That's not at issue.)  
If this paragraph stays, I think the authors and references should be in a footnote only.  And what remains should be greatly condensed, as micro and macro are.  What's presently there suggests that relabelling standard microeconomics + focus on institutional economics (already mentioned twice in the lead) is sufficient to make meso worth mentioning in the this section.   
In its present form, meso coverage impresses me as disproportionately long relative to micro and macro and misleading to boot. If mentioned at all in this section, it needs to be done better and much more concisely. 
As for picoeconomics it is not obvious that it should be lumped in one paragraph with meso. Further I don't see taxonomy as a good enough reason for inclusion of picoeconomics in this general article, especially in the absence of an existing substantial Wiki article on the subject.  --Thomasmeeks 19:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mesoeconomics and picoeconomics

message: That (first part of the) paragraph, at the current sect. 4, top (Economics#Economic fields), is copied below:
:The vast majority of economic theory is in terms of either macro or micro economics. However, a few authors (for example, Kurt Dopfer, Stuart Holland and Markos Mamalakis) also argue that 'mesoeconomics', which considers the intermediate level of economic organization such as markets and other institutional arrangements, should be considered an additional branch of economic study. Mamalakis claims that mesoeconomics "unifies and reconciles the macro and micro approaches and is a "richer" way of studying the dynamics of economics than the two traditional models.[footnote: Markos Mamalakis: The man behind 'mesoeconomics', accessdate=2007-03-University of Wisconsin Milwaukee,1999-04-27], Walz-Chojnacki, Greg Faculty/Staff Newsletter.] 
I do not see any substantive consensus in the above discussion for its retention.  Quite the contrary.  Problems include, but are not limited to, the following:
* 'Mesoeconomics' as described above is already covered through: 
#aggregation at the level of a market (or markets) referred to in in Economics#Microeconomics
# micro-macro modelling referred to much more precisely  in Economics#Macroeconomics, 3rd sent. from bottom (with the footnoted reference on mesoeonomics in connection with imperfect competition)
# institutions  in the lead, later in the paragraph in question with discussion of heterodox economics, and in the "Other fields" subsection
* A scholarly 3-volume Handbook of Macroeconomics (Taylor and Woodfor, ed., 1999) about 4000 pages), surveying not only "received results" but "newer developments" in its 26 chapters, did not list 'mesoeconomics' in subject indexes or in the relevant chapters. The JEL classification codes#Microeconomics and  JEL classification codes#JEL: D Subcategories Macroeconomics and monetary economics do not list 'mesoeconomics' as a category.  
* The value added by the Mamalakis quote is an interested party's claim and need be given little weight without more substantive content there.  
Informed readers would be warranted in challenging retention of the paragraph in question there or expanding it.  Discussion is covered in substance elsewhere in the article but is not specific enough there to avoid appearing as special pleading or redundancy.   --Thomasmeeks 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mesoeconomics paragraph revisited

message: Um, what the heck are these and why do they matter. Should we just break things into macro and micro? JoshuaZ 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meso and Pico enconomics. 

message: The current Robbins paragraph in the lead (mostly uninterrupted for some time)  has advantages in being placed there.   To tie it to "mainstream economics" is arguably a non-Wikipedia:Neutral point of view anachronism, as though scarcity requiring choice is controversial among those knowledgeable about economics.  No one who advocates one policy over another on economic-welfare considerations can believe that.  Moreover, it satisfies WP:LEAD guidelines providing  context and an overview for many aspects of economics discussed in later sections. Comments welcome.  --Thomasmeeks 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current Robbins paragraph has no mention of neoclassical economics. It's unnecessary there. And Robbins's analytical points go well beyond the confines of neoclassical economics. No one seriously believes that neoclassical economics has a copyright on the notions of econonmic scarcity and the necessity for choice.
--Thomasmeeks 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An argument for the Robbins paragraph in the lead 

message: Just thought the introduction needed a little bit of work. Asarko U.S.Eastern 00:58, 29 March 2007
::Unfortunately your efforts build on the Edits of the previous unregistered user.  Those Edits exported paragraph 2 & the last part of the last paragraph and replaced the first paragraph.  All are now restored.  (See preceding section for more on para. 2.)  The restored materials arguably satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines as to providing an accessible overview and context on later sections of the article.  
::The previous Edit included a new first and 3rd paragraph (available through the history tab of the previous article Edit).  The first paragraph included an opaque definition which no standard dictionary supports.  The 3rd paragraph did not satisfy WP:LEAD guidelines as to context or overview as to what follows in the article, so I believe. --Thomasmeeks 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intro 

message: According to the upper righthand template on this page, Economics lost its Wikipedia:Featured articles status on April 21, 2006 (click [show] Article milestones in that template).  Reasons for the demotion are at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Economics (with a Sept. 11, 2006 addendum).  Much has happened in the article since then.  You can judge for yourself what still needs to be fixed.  New material may remedy earlier deficiencies or add new ones.  Happily, the latter may provide still further opportunities for improvement.  --Thomasmeeks 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It couldn't return to FA status without some serious research to back up the material in the article, particularly the history and Development of economic thought sections (the latter of which needs to be moved into the history section). The best sources need to be consulted and cited to be sure the article accords with the current state of knowledge. That was the most damning criticism, that there were errors and misinterpretations. - Taxman Talk 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How "Economics" lost its Featured Article status 

message: I'm proposing a change here rather than implementing it myself because I'm not an experienced user of WP and I have a conflict of interest (I work for economicsnetwork.ac.uk). The list of study links is long and arbitrary, with some resources that seem too specific to be cited in an encyclopedia introduction to the topic of Economics. There are three links to the Library of Economics and Liberty: once we have one link to the home page, why two more links to specific pages on that site? Agent-based modelling seems a very specific link to have under study resources for Economics: better to highlight portal sites through which one can find hundreds of these specific resources, such as MERLOT, Bized and the Economics Network. The Capitalism Magazine article that's linked is not really a study resource or an academic work: it's an opinion column pushing one point of view.
The Miscellaneous section appears to be just a list of some arbitrary pages on the web that have some relevance to economics. I don't think they belong in this encyclopedia entry. If it's a good idea to point to journals, then point to a list of economics journals (e.g. http://www.helsinki.fi/WebEc/journal1.html), not just to one.
MartinPoulter 10:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with all the specific changes you recommended (and thank you for being honest and disclosing your association), but what portal sites do you have in mind? The agent based modelling would be better at Model (economics). - Taxman Talk 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're not all "portal" sites in the proper sense of the word, but in the existing list of study resources, I'd count the following: MERLOT, Economics Network, MIT OpenCourseWare, the Oswego.edu guide to textbooks, Bized, econlib, about.com and maybe some of the dictionary and encyclopedia sites. Portals not mentioned so far include Resources for Economists  (long established and now the official portal of the American Economic Association); Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) (massive gateway to economics research, maintained by volunteer academic economists) and Intute Social Sciences (Searchable human catalogue of the best links for teaching and research in Economics). Maybe also very useful to have Economics Departments, Institutes and Research Centers in the World, again a long-established academic site. MartinPoulter 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say your suggestions all sound good. Start weeding away and if anyone thinks you go overboard then we can discuss it. But it's easier to discuss improvements after you've made the first round. I say reduce to the minimum number of links you can that are the highest quality. - Taxman Talk 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a first pass, but I'll make another pass tomorrow. Given that there are so many other pages about Economics, I think more links can be moved off this page. MartinPoulter 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Links and Miscellaneous 

message: Concerning the 01:30 Edit above, the current Lead restores the previous para. 2 Edit & separation of para. 1 & 2.   Para. 1 is close to a dictionary definition (complete with etymology).  Para. 2 presents Robbins's analytical argument, which includes his definition. The difference warrants a separate paragraph.  Differences from the 01:30 Edit are indicated here.  In particular the first sentence is different:
:01:30 Edit: Lionel Robbins in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science defined economics as:
:current Edit: A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: 
The current Edit trades a long essay title for:
# a more concise identification of the essay, including the year
# a more specific portion of the 1932 essay link, which identifies the historical  influence of Robbins's definition
# an explicit expression that Robbin's definition  continues to be important. 
I believe that much of the problem with the 01:30 Edit on this point might have been avoided by noting the last starred point in the preceding section ("Talk:Economics#Once again, the opening") or verification of Robbins's influence in the link. --Thomasmeeks 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: structure changes: 2nd para.

message: Isn't it about time to remove the references tag at the top of the page?  This article is about as thoroughly referenced as any in Wikipedia.  If there are specific reference challenges, they should be in specific sections, not the entire article.BillGosset 18:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right.  Yes, a specific section could get a template or a specific para. or sentence could get flagged as ((fact)) to target problem areas.  In the meanwhile, the References template at the top of the article might have served its purpose well.  --Thomasmeeks 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "References needed" Tag 

message: The Economics article Edit for 23:49, 27 July 2007 had this (partial) Edit summary: 
:(Restores and edits "Information economics" (sect. 2.5.5) from "Contract theory."  
The article Edit that preceded it was for 20:19, 27 July 2007 and had this Edit summary:
:(→Information economics - change to contract theory; see talk:information economics). 
So, which Edit is right?  Wrong question.  Arguably, the right question is this. Which has broader usage and is likely to be of interest to more readers?  "Information economics" has about the same usage as "contract theory"  in scholarly contexts.  Thus, a Google Advanced Search of of scholarly papers (with "Google Scholar) for "information economics" yields 9600 hits vs. "contract theory" AND "economic" with about the same. So, "information economics" and "contract theory" both have wide scholarly attestation.  However, the narrower focus of the Contract theory article compared to the Information economics article is evident.  Information economics also better reflects the broader usage of "Information" at the top of JEL D8 in "Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty," which clearly refers to more "information" in the topics below it than the 'information' link at JEL: D82, which is (appropriately) linked to Contract theory.  The latter usage applies uniquely to JEL: D82.  So, Contract theory matters, but it's not the only thing that matters as to scholarly uses of the term 'information' in economics or, broadly speaking, information economics (alternatively, the economics of information).  Moving from scholars talking to scholars, "information economics" has far wider currency and application in common discourse than "contract theory" as related to economics.  Moreover, the Encyclopaedia Britannica article for "Economics," in describing contemporary fields of the subject discusses "information economics," not "contract theory."  It should be acceptable for the present article to follow suit, including contract theory as an important application of the subject, but not the only important one. --Thomasmeeks 02:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas, "information economics" and "contract theory" seem to refer to different things.  The former is about information technology in business, and pertains to practical decision-making about IT.  The latter is about the strategic interactions between principals and agents.  (To the extent this distinction is not clear, I think we would be wise to sharpen it.)  The Section D JEL codes don't fit with anything IT-specific, but I agree contract theory also isn't a perfect fit.  Perhaps Expected utility would be better?  Also, note that at google, google scholar, and ssrn, searches for "contract theory" all return more hits than searches for "information economics."  Jeremy Tobacman 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clear up something, the use of the term "information economics" in the wikipedia article of the same name is a much broader topic than information technology in business, although that article is quite muddled and has probably caused a lot of confusion. There is one narrow use of the term that applies specifically to a weighted scoring method for IT developed by Parker, et. al.  But the article talks about the developments in the economics of asymetric information in transactions and which became a Nobel Prize winning area of study.  There is also applied information economics which was developed initially in IT but has been used outside of IT.  I've been arguing in the information economics discussion page that these various topics need to be untangled.  Some work has been done but it should still be split into different articles.Hubbardaie 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tangentially, I strongly agree that the article on contract theory needs work.  Principal-agent problem is non-technical, but much more thorough.  Jeremy Tobacman 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: My suggestion would be that contract theory appear under the heading of law and economics. Indeed on the contract theory page the lead places it (correctly IMHO) as a sub field of law and economics. In general the economics of information is a much broader field.  The relationship between information and law and economics (and many other areas in economics) rests on the fact that contracts (and laws) only "matter" in a world where information is other than perfect. From this perspective the fields of information and law and economics have developed in a mutual way. My two cents. Corebreeches 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx, both.  Jeremy, agreed as to your 1st sent., but on your 2nd sent.  many of the Google Scholar hits seem to agree with my above-mentioned JEL D8 category link, which can include your usage. The question is the more informative term for the present article, and here I believe that the broader usage is more informative.  Corebreeches,  my above-mentioned JEL D8 category link does have 'contract law' as a subcategory.  As to law and econ, there is separate litsting for 'Contract Law' at JEL classification codes#Law and economics JEL: K Subcategories, not the same usage (necessarily) as the Contract theory article or JEL D86 Contract Law usage.  --Thomasmeeks 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my additional comments at Talk:Information_economics#Contract_theory.2C_asymmetric_information.2C_and_this_article. Jeremy Tobacman 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information economics as broader term than Contract theory 

message: *Development economics examines the economic aspects of the development process in developing countries with a focus on methods of promoting economic growth.
*Environmental economics is concerned with environmental issues, in particular the concept of externalities, which can lead to market failure.
*Financial economics, often simply referred to as finance, is concerned with the allocation of financial resources in an uncertain (or risky) environment. Thus, its focus is on the operation of financial markets, the pricing of financial instruments, and the financial structure of companies. While it has traditionally been considered a part of economics, today, finance has established itself as a separate discipline in its own right.
. . ." (End of quotation)
::::::::::#####
:A case in favor of restoring the earlier subsections & title is set out below, labelled for ease of reference if that is helpful.  
:In favor of restoring field-name subsections of "Further  fields":
:(1T) It is fair to acknowledge that [1] (elimination of subsections for "Further  fields") brings out clearly that, by comparison with the previous section,  some of the descriptions of different fields are too skimpy & could be supplemented to the benefit of the section.  That may be an argument for supplementing the description rather than eliminating the subsections.  
:(2T) It is inaccurate to call the field paragraphs in "Further fields" a 'list', because each paragraph is a description that goes beyond naming each field.  Agreed, subsectioning what is only a list would be questionable.  But listing the specific fields as distinct subsections can be very useful.  In particular, it allows the reader inspecting the Contents box at the beginning of Economics to identify contents of "Further fields."  For many readers that might be the high point of the article, to which they could easily click to or at least eagerly anticipate.  And from there the reader may go to the main article if desired.  Why make the section mysterious as to contents by removing a list of its contents in the Contents box?  The assumption that the reader will react with "Yikes!" rather than "Cool!" at the subjects is doubtful.  Those put off by that section may be grateful to learn of its contents so as to skip over it.  So, "clogging" section with field-name subsections arguably benefits most readers.   
:(3T) The beginning of the big "Social Sciences" article in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica has a table of contents for the article, including those for Economics.  The section for "Fields of contemporary economics" lists 9 fields (a majority of them also in "Further fields").  If it is important  enough for Britannica to list the 9 fields in its table of contents, it should arguably be important enough for Economics to list the 10 fields in the Contents box for that section.
:[4T] Bolded hypertext links is an alternative to  subsectioning with a main article under the subsection title, but it is arguably distracting ("busy") in short successive paragraphs, most with multiple other non-bolded Wiki links.  It is not as though alphabetic succession of fields shows a logical relation of the different fields that might warrant the compression from eliminating subsections.   The sharp transition of fields arguably warrants subsections to parallel them, not bolded hypertext.   
:[5T] There is an asymmetry between the listing of subjects in the "Mathematical and quantitative methods"  and the non-listing of subjects in "Further fields," despite a structural similarity of the two sections.  The reader may unfortunately conclude that the subjects in "Further fields" do no warrant separate listing. But the fields of the section are far from second-class in importance.  Subsections can reflect their importance. Both should be subsectioned.  
:In favor of restoring the section heading back to "Selected fields" from "Further fields":
:[6T] The "Further" may refer to either of the preceding sections:
:"Related fields, other distinctions, and classifications" or "Mathematical and quantitative methods."  But the relevant basic unit is 'related fields' in the first section, not 'fields'.  The relevant unit in the second case is 'mathematical (or) quantitative) methods', not 'fields'.  'Further' as a modifier implicitly refers the reader back to earlier sections, when this is not necessary & not helpful.  There is a different basis for inclusion in the preceding 2 sections.  'Selected' is non-commital but at least suggests that the fields in that section were selected for a reason, not necessarily the same as for the previous sections.  'Further' arguably obscures unnecessarily.  (One suggested alternative 'select' may be read as possibly transgressing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by  those doing the "selecting.")  
:Arguably the principle use of this section title is as a neutral placeholder for the listed subsections.  Comments are welcome, whether pro or con or to add to any points so far made in this section.  --Thomasmeeks 19:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I can't pretend I've read all of this. I made the changes so it just looked more presentable. But it's not really a big thing - a matter of preference, and I'm sure it won't matter to me to do anything different. Of course what really matters is a well written and well referenced page. Wikidea 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thx, & amen.  I tried to fix a problem discussed above as to skimpy content of the first 2 subsections, which earlier Edits made more evident.  --Thomasmeeks 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Further fields

message: The following long paragraph added recently was removed from the top of Economics#Mathematical and quantitative methods:
:An economic problem often involves so many variables that mathematics is the only practical way of handling it - "handling" in the sense of solving it. For many academics interested on the subject, like Alfred Marshall, every economic problem which can be quantified, analytically expressed and solved, should be treated by means of mathematical work.JSTOR: Marshall on Mathematics, in JSTOR Economic analysis relies more and more on mathematical foundations. Economics has become increasingly dependent on mathematical methods, and the mathematical tools it employs have become more sophisticated. As a result, mathematically competent professionals are needed in industry and government for dealing with the subject. Graduate programs in economics and finance programs in graduate schools of management require strong undergraduate preparation in mathematics for admission and are attractive to an increasingly high number of mathematicians. Applied mathematicians apply mathematical principles to practical problems, such as economic analysis and other economics-related issues, in such a way that many economic problems are oftenly defined as being integrated into the scope of applied mathematics.Sheila C Dow - THE USE OF MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS, For presentation to the ESRC Public Understanding of Mathematics Seminar, Birmingham, 21-2 May 1999
Problems with the paragraph arguably include these: 
# It is unnecessary for this section, given the subsections below it that make similar points more exactly, more generally, and more simply as to methods, including math econ, econometrics, and national accounting.   
# It sounds like a classroom lecture, rather than written in the more concise fashion standard for an encyclopedia.  
# It writes about economists and graduate students rather than economics as a subject.
# It unneccessarily bogs this section down, rather than allowing a faster transition to the next "Selected fields" section of the aricle. Placement of the "Mathematical and quantitative methods" section of the article  is discussed above atTalk:Economics#"Mathematical and quantitative methods" section after "Selected fields"?. Why create a problem here where there arguably was none before?  --Thomasmeeks 18:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mathematical and quantitative methods" para. moved to Talk p.

message: The 2nd sentence of Economics for some time has included the Greek letters such as in the last edit before they were removed:
:The term 'economics' is from the Greek oikos (, house) and nomos (νόμος, custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)." 
The current edit reads:
:The term 'economics' is from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."  (bolding of 'for' added)
The bolded 'for' above implies that  'oikos'  (house) and  'nomos'  are merely roman-letter transliterations from the Greek rather than the Greek itself.  Reason for the omission of the Greek letters:  
# Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Such "completeness" seems more appropriate for the etymology of a dictionary entry. (Even standard dictionaries not infrequently omit the Greek.)
# There is redundancy in including both the roman and Greek letters when the roman letters are sufficient to get the point across.    
# Dropping the the Greek diacriticals (accents) makes the Greek letters even less urgent because of similarities to the Roman letters of what remain.  (According to Diacritics (Greek alphabet)#Historical Development, the first diacriticals started appearing around 2nd century A.D.  Purists might smile at these late additions for "authenticity.")
# While the Greek letters might be fun to puzzle through for some, others, even knowledgeable others, might well ask of them, "What is the point?"  --Thomasmeeks 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Greek letters from 2nd sentence of "Economics" 

message: I must say that I am not at ease with this edit , although some work was required with regard to style and presentation. It seems to me that the Austrian School of economics is at least notable enough to deserve its own section, and certainly deserves a longer one than Marxian Economics, which are notable as well but no longer taken seriously since a long time. --Childhood's End 14:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Schools : Austrian School 

message: It was proposed above at Talk:Economics#Merging (1) sect. 5 & 6 (2) Reasoning & Concepts sect.; Economic systems? to merge these article sections:
:Economics#History of economics
:Economics#Schools of thought
Inspection of the subsections reveals the overlap, which merger could eliminate with a gain of continuity: 
:5 History of economics   [18th and 19th century]
::5.1 Classical economics
::5.1.1 Theories of value: classical and Marxist 
::5.2 Neoclassical economics 
::5.3 Other schools and approaches 
::5.4 Historic definitions of economics 
:::5.4.1 Wealth definition 
:::5.4.2 Welfare definition 
:6 Schools of thought [last 3 subsections more 20th-century]
::6.1 Classical economics 
::6.2 Marxian economics 
::6.3 Keynesian economics 
::6.4 Neoclassical economics 
::6.5 Other schools 
One provisional name of such a merged section would be "History and schools of economics."  If there is no consensus against it, I'll proceed with a merger in a few days.  Comments, pro or con, are requested below. Thx.  --Thomasmeeks 21:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge sect. 5 "History" & 6 "Schools"? Request for comment 

message: There is a new paradigm known as Transfinancial Economics, or TFE. At the time of writing it is in the process of research, and development though the basic concepts will remain the same in all likelihood. See link for more information.
   
      
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Robert Searle, Wikipedia is not the place for original works. Also, I don't mean to offend, but you need to learn more about global economics (concentrate on finance).  In addition, you need to understand that computers do not solve everything and some things should still be left in the hands of humans.  Good Luck! --EGeek (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfinancial Economics 

message: I believe that the answer to the above question is "No" for the "Economics" article as recently edited.  The subsection  in question was recently added and is reproduced below:
:Experimental economics
:Experimental economics is a new field of economics developed by Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith, Professor at Chapman University , in order to examine the allocation mechanisms in markets.  Also called "Economics Systems Design", Smith describes the origins of this new groundbreaking economic field:
 
:"In the Autumn semester, 1955, I taught Principles of Economics, and found it a challenge to convey basic microeconomic theory to students. Why/how could any market approximate a competitive equilibrium? I resolved that on the first day of class the following semester, I would try running a market experiment that would give the students an opportunity to experience an actual market, and me the opportunity to observe one in which I knew, but they did not know what were the alleged driving conditions of supply and demand in that market."  
:Allocation problems involve using a testbed, which is a platform for experimentation that allows for rigorous, transparent, and replicable testing of new and old allocation systems.
::::::::::#####
Problems with retaining subsection include the following:
1. The 2nd paragraph seems contrary to the Please note point at the bottom of the Edit window:
*Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images. 
The quoted material does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Public domain standards for quotation. In addition it is copywrited.  
2. The subsection is written in a fashion drastically & inappropriately different from the other Economics#Selected fields in being biographical rather than subject-oriented.  {This is not to deny Vernon Smith's central contribution of course.)    
Important though the subject is, it is significantly less so than any other field listed there (doubtless in part due to its recent vintage),  as very roughly gauged by the following stats from an Advanced search using http://scholar.google.com/ (which limits searches to scholarly papers and some books).  
"Experimental economics"  13,600 hits
"Mathematical economics"  23,000 hits
Econometrics 275,000 hits
==="Selected fields" section: Google Scholar hits for most subsections===
(inserted subsection heading for ease of reference --Thomasmeeks Oct. 7, 2007)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Experimental economics" be a separate subsection? 

message: (inserted subsection heading for ease of reference --Thomasmeeks Oct. 7, 2007)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Selected fields" section: Google Scholar hits for most subsections

message: The following subsection was added in the last few days to the "Selected fields" section of Economics:
:Political Economics
:Political economics as a sub-field of economics, relates to the application of economic tools to the study of political systems, and the economic effects of different political systems.  Political economics applies tools from such fields as game theory and public choice theory to incorporate political and economic choices into a coherent model.  
It was more recently removed after addition of another subsection Economics#Economic systems intended to preserve the advantage of "Political economics" but without its drawbacks.  Here are arguments for the swap of "Economic systems" for "Political economics." 
# "Political economics" is missing as an entry and in the subject indexes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Palgrave:  A Dictionary of Economics where one would expect to find it if it is important enough to appear in this general article with other "select fields." Neither is there  a "Political economics" category in the very detailed JEL classification codes. 
# Political economics is appreciably less well-attested than other "selected fields" in its section by the approximate measure  of a Google Scholar search yielding about 14,000+ hits. (See  above for comparison.) 
# There is not even a Wiki article titled "Political economics.
# There is a recently added discussion of public choice theory  in Economics#Public finance. The "Public choice theory" article also mentions use of game theory.  These make a "Political economics" subsection less pressing. 
# The one relatively new element of "Political economics" in the "Selected fields" section is mention of political systems.   But for that purpose, the corresponding major branch of economics in both Encyclopaedia Britannica (cited in the footnotes for the "Economic systems" subsection),  and the category for JEL codes is  not "political economics" but "economic systems."  Moreover, one of the subcategories of  JEL classification codes#Economic systems JEL: P Subcategories is political economy, which can be construed as a more standard  WP:VERIFY-able  term in this context than 'political economics'.  
Accordingly, the better-attested "Economic systems" has been added as a subsection of Economic#Selected fields and "Political economics" has been removed.  Discussion, pro or con, is welcome below. P.S. It is only fair to acknowledge Suicup's priority in July 2007 on Economic systems on this page (archived at sect. 37.3.1 "Merging (1) sect. 5 & 6 (2) Reasoning & Concepts sect.; Economic systems?".   --Thomasmeeks 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'Economic Systems' should not go into 'Areas of Economics', but rather in its own major heading - perhaps titled 'Political Economy'. My reasoning is that the various areas of economics describe and explain phenomena within economic systems. Thus I think that the hierarchy should be as follows: Economic thought > Political Economy > Areas of Economics. That is, after describing the general schools of historical thought we then move towards categorizing economic systems within those thought paradigms. Finally, we can use the various Areas of Economics to understand how the Economic Systems operate. Suicup 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the above as to history and schools of economics coming first was the case as to Economics for a time (the first part of Summer 2007).  Whether many people would agree that the "Areas of economics" section was thereby clarified is an interesting question but not one that many economics textbook writers seem to have considered.  If the proposed new section above would be, not on economic systems as such, but on "political economy" within economic systems as per JEL classification codes#Economic systems JEL: P Subcategories, it is not clear how the various areas of economics would be thereby clarified and how this would finally clarify the workings of economic systems, though it would unquestionably defer considertion of subject areas.  --Thomasmeeks 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other reason why economic systems does not belong in areas is because the former is generally a philosophical/political matter (hence 'political economy'), whereas the latter is obviously an economics matter. ie capitalism vs communism is predicated upon who you think should own the means of production, ie a philosophical question; however the various areas of economics merely explain the allocation of resources etc (ie an economic question) within those systems. Suicup 18:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Political economics" be a separate subsection? 

message: The following subsection was added in the last week to the "Selected fields" section of Economics:
:Business Economics
:This field of economics focuses to the changing manpower requirements of the economy as it addresses the needs of its immediate environment. Its core courses are in research, industry, business analysis, development planning and investment undertakings.
It was more recently removed after addition of another subsection Economics#Managerial economics intended to preserve the advantage of "Business Economics" but without its drawbacks.  Here are arguments for removing the "Business Economics" subsection.  
# "business economics" is missing as an entry and in the subject indexes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Palgrave:  A Dictionary of Economics where one would expect to find it if it is important enough to appear in this general article with other "select fields." 
# There is a "Business Economics" subcategory at JEL classification codes#Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting JEL: M Subcategories, namely at JEL: M2 and  JEL: M21, and impressively there are Google Scholar 26,000+ hits for a search of: "business economics" JEL. But this declines to an unimpressive 300+ hits for a search of: "business econonomics" JEL M2 OR M21.  Rather "business economics" gets largely picked up in other JEL categories for most Google Scholar hits such as as "Microeoonomics," "Industrial rganization," and "Financial Economics" (or Finance).  These are included in Economics subsections.  So, "Business economics" as a separate field is a largely redundant descriptive term rather than a separate "select field" in this part of the article.  
# Unlike the other subsections in "Select fields," there is not even a Wiki article titled "business economics."
 
A better place for working in discussion might be the last section, "Economics in practice," not as to "business economics" as such but as to "business economists."  
Arguments for including a "Managerial economics" subsection in place of "Business economics" include these:
# It is has an Encyclopaedia Britannica entry and a related New Palgrave:  A Dictionary of Economics entry.
# It can act as a better-attested surrogate for the subcategories included under JEL classification codes#Business administration and business economics; marketing; accounting JEL: M Subcategories, including Business Economics. --Thomasmeeks 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Business Economics" be a separate subsection? 

message: The following was recently added to the top of Economics: 
I believe the following are sufficient reasons for replacememt  of the above Disambiguation with a gloss of "economies"  in last paragraph of the lead (namely, the much-briefer "as economic systems"). 
:1. The Disambiguation is arguably unnecessary (esp. with the  gloss).    People who search for Economy would be taken to that article, & similarly for Economics. There is no reason to impute possible confusion requiring disambiguation. 'Economy' or 'economies' is referred to in the first sentence of the last lead paragraph and prominently in the lead of sect. 2 "Areas of economics."  Why disambiguate when the context of 'economy' (complete with in-line link & current gloss) is prominent in Economics?
:2. The first Disambiguation sentence may  also mislead.  The first sentence & last para. of the lead correctly do not confine "economics" to study of the economy. The Disambiguation (1st sentence reinforced by 2nd sentence)  suggests otherwise.  So, the Disambiguation  quite possibly misleading and unnecessarily distracting. --Thomasmeeks 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Disambiguation of "Economics" & "Economy" necessary? 

message: This article subsection combines the previous lead of the "History and schools of economics" section with 2 subsections recently formed: "Pre-modern period: Ancient economic thought" & "Early modern period".  Why? Economics is widely considered to have become a separate subject only with the emergence of classical economics. The continuum & overlap of earlier thought is reflected in the current heading Economics#Early economic thought and the current transition between the 1st & 2nd paragraphs.  It is a reasonable description of the contents.  (It is also the title of a standard book of the subject, Early Economic Thought: Selections from Economic Literature Prior to Adam Smith by AE Monroe (1924, Harvard University Press).)  The headings it replaces are question-begging as to content & do not capture the overlap/continuum as to history & schools. The current Edit of that section has corrected errors from the previous Edit and added relevant details based on new page-specific references citsd. There is no "Main article" template for this subsection, because in-line links are provided instead, making the "Main article" template redundant (added:) and therefore a distraction before they would most likely be used. The same subjects are also well-covered in the respective "Main articles" template for the section heading immediately above the subsection --Thomasmeeks 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early economic thought" section 

message: I know Georgism is temporarily unfashionable, but should it go entirely unmentioned in an article on Economics? My preference is for comprehensiveness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.252.65 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A general reference to Henry George in now included in the 2nd to last sentence of Economics#Early economic thought in a broader context.  --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Henry George]] and [[Economic Rent]] be noted here? 

message: Is the following template at the top of the article still necessary? 
Arguably not.  Since the template was added in 23:35, 14 May 2007, the number of footnotes has grown from 21 to 107.  A check a few weeks ago suggests that some of the citations in the last section don't fit.  But cleaning up citations is different from lack thereof for the entire article. If there are sections or passages that lack necessary citation, they can be singled out with a  template or 
 
after the citation-challenged sentence or paragraph. Most of the article currently appears exceptionally well documented now, though bot necessarily for some of most recent additions. If there is no consensus otherwise, I'll remove the current Citations template in a week.   --Thomasmeeks 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Citatations template at top of article still necessary? 

message: The "Economics#Development and growth economics" subsection was re-merged from a recent split into "Development economics" and "Growth economics."  Below is a brief for re-merging.
For purposes of a course catalog and analytical distinction, a separate listing of Development Economics and Growth Economics makes good sense.  That is not at issue.  The question here is entirely one of convenience in this section of the article. And here the advantages of linking related subjects in exposition  of their union are several, among them:
# The definition & discussion of "growth  economics" naturally precedes referring to it regarding "evelopment economics."  Splitting and alphabetizing them puts the "cart before the horse" and separates them in a way that obscures their linkage. 
# The figure with "Growth economics" ties in very well with "Development economics" because of obvious temporal and geograpic differences in income levels.  The vivid disparities are lost by separation into 2 subsections. Treating these as related subjects in the subsection generates another analytical synergy.
# "Growth economics" as a subsection loses the very important linkage from juxtaposing the subsections "Economics#Game theory" and "Industrial organiation." 
# Oxford University Press in its catalogs and Encyclopaedia Britannica in its Macro article on Econ treats the two subjects together.  These are sound scholarly precedents in this overview of the subject.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition & discussion of "growth  economics" naturally precedes referring to it regarding "development economics."
Arguably that warrants the order of treatment in the subsection, even though it overrides the alphabetic order in the section title ("Development and growth"...).  
In the previous Edit, that order was reversed with the connector of "In particular" preceding the growth-econ. part.  The "In particular" phrase is a non sequitur in that growth economics can appy to a high- or low-income economies.  Nor is growth economics simply an application of development economics.  In a theoretical sense, it is more nearly the opposite with dev. econ. using growth econ. theory as an input.    
Before there was a modern subject of "growth economics" there was economic growth, as illustrated by the figure of that section.  This further warrants treating growth econ first.  Thus, the alphabetized sequrnce of the subsection title is retained (parallel to the alphabetid sequence of the other subsections), but the order of discussion is determined by the above considerations. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am in sympathy with the some of the above remarks.  Your subsequent add of the last sentence to the Macroeconomics subsection, although overlapping with the Dev. and Growth subsection I hope meets your concern about the Macro section.  As to a merger of "Growth econ" and "Macro," that would I believe lose the synergies of the current "Development and growth economics" subsection. My recent Edit, while modest, was intended to differentiate growth econ and development econ. in line with your criticism.  I hopes that this brings out that development econ employing of the tools of growth econ in no way makes it an appendage or afterhthought of growth econ.  If the subsection was for a college course catalog, different listings for growth econ and dev. econ might be appropriate.  But the subsection is intended for no such purpose.  For a reader trying to get an overview of econ, the subsection helps illuminate the interrelation, as elaborated in the 4 numbered reasons at the beginning of this section & my immediately previous comment above. Both are important as is their relation to each other.    --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-merged "Development and growth economics" from recent split 

message: The long-standing sequence of the Economics#Development and growth economics waa restored -- with the discussion of growth economics first.  (1) immediately above indicates the rationale for that sequence:  
:The definition & discussion of "growth  economics" naturally precedes referring to it regarding "development economics."
Arguably that warrants the order of treatment in the subsection, even though it overrides the alphabetic order in the section title ("Development and growth"...).  
In the previous Edit, that order was reversed with the connector of "In particular" preceding the growth-econ. part.  The "In particular" phrase is a non sequitur in that growth economics can appy to a high- or low-income economies.  Nor is growth economics simply an application of development economics.  In a theoretical sense, it is more nearly the opposite with dev. econ. using growth econ. theory as an input.    
Before there was a modern subject of "growth economics" there was economic growth, as illustrated by the figure of that section.  This further warrants treating growth econ first.  Thus, the alphabetized sequrnce of the subsection title is retained (parallel to the alphabetid sequence of the other subsections), but the order of discussion is determined by the above considerations. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in sympathy with the some of the above remarks.  Your subsequent add of the last sentence to the Macroeconomics subsection, although overlapping with the Dev. and Growth subsection I hope meets your concern about the Macro section.  As to a merger of "Growth econ" and "Macro," that would I believe lose the synergies of the current "Development and growth economics" subsection. My recent Edit, while modest, was intended to differentiate growth econ and development econ. in line with your criticism.  I hopes that this brings out that development econ employing of the tools of growth econ in no way makes it an appendage or afterhthought of growth econ.  If the subsection was for a college course catalog, different listings for growth econ and dev. econ might be appropriate.  But the subsection is intended for no such purpose.  For a reader trying to get an overview of econ, the subsection helps illuminate the interrelation, as elaborated in the 4 numbered reasons at the beginning of this section & my immediately previous comment above. Both are important as is their relation to each other.    --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequence of "Development and growth economics" subsection 

message: I think the section should have other title. "In the beginning" is ok to start a novel, an author's preface, a tale, but this is supposed to be an article of Wikipedia, isn't it? Pularoid (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For defenses of that title relative to proposed alternatives, see Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more above. The intent is to entice and suggest without without coming across as too ponderous.  The Smith quotation seems very ambitious.  Did he succeed?  At least the title suggests that something possibly portentous was afoot and may pique curiosity as to the section & what follows.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That text was a quote from Adam Smith out of his book The Wealth of Nations. The distinction between "political economy" and "economics" was stated directly below that:Smith referred to the subject as 'political economy', but that term was gradually replaced in general usage by 'economics' after 1870.Therefore I am putting this text back. --EGeek (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Smith referred to the subject as political economy" is 100% original research. Add a source quickly or this needs a complete review. You cannot put a quote from WoN then pretend that Adam Smith thought that his comments about political economy would now apply to what we call economics. Please re-read what I said above. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source now provided  actually says that "political economy originally referred to classical economic theory as developped by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and (...)". Again, there is no ground to ascertain that Adam Smith referred to the subject as political economy (it even suggests that he did not). --Childhood's End (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This being said, I especially think that this quote is a poor choice and mostly irrelevant to Adam Smith's main ideas. It can certainly be replaced by a more telling quote, without need for an unsourced editorial comment. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps what bugged me the most is the fact that this quote is not so central to Adam Smith's main contributions - it even intuitivevly looks to go against his view as far as Smith was essentially against mercantilism. But I guess what you look for is really something specific to the 'identification' of economics as a separate discipline rather than a 'description' of the early roots of what we call now economics in line with the George Stigler paragraph that I added to the text. So, if that must remain the objective, I'll go with the quote. I although still feel that the article would benefit from instead providing a quote that is more reflective of Adam Smith's economic thinking which evolved into nowadays economics. But that's only my two cents... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 7. Well, to note above at Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more "the quotation may be taken as a modern genesis of economics as a program of analysis (suggested by the term 'proposes' in the quotation), including both its practical and scientific uses. It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought." The claims of the quotation are staggeringly bold, I think most would agree.  It is about the  promise of the subject as, to use Marshall's term, an engine of analysis.  That's very contemporary.  The quotation is about the subject of economics, not this or that allegedly key contribution to the subject.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed that. Since what you seem to look for is a quote that identifies the origin of economics as a separate discipline, well yes, it can do that. I do not challenge it on that ground. I more or less agree with its use there because it misrepresents the spirit of The WoN and Adam Smith's economic thinking; notably, it tends to suggest that Adam Smith supported mercantilism, whereas the book attempted to debunk it. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well we have to agree to disagree :)  As to the Smithian role of government, the best reference would rather be Adam Smith himself (see for instance Book IV, Chap.2, para.11 ) --Childhood's End (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the beginning 

message: The defense immediately above of the Section 1 heading "In the beginning" in Economics still applies relative to  "History," the latest proposed alternative heading. A pertinent question should be "Which heading is likely to entice interest?" The one-paragraph section is a substantive segue to the rest of the article, rather than a "history," which implies chronology. Arguably, the point of the section is analytical (in revealiing a continuity of the subject), not "history" as such (elaborated at Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more).  There is of course the later section, "Economics#History and schools of economics," for which the term 'history' applies along with  
under the heading. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "In the beginning" again

message: I have no problem with the title, but I certainly do with what's under it! This text would have you believe that Adam Smith made no difference between "economics" and "political economy" which I would be surprised to find a source for. I'll add a cn tag. I think this source shows that Adam Smith actually talked about "economics" as we now know them (allocation of limited resources to unlimited ends). 
This perhaps would be more in line : "Just how individuals can best apply their own labor or any other resource is a central subject in the first book of the series. Smith claimed that an individual would invest a resource, for example, land or labor, so as to earn the highest possible return on it. Consequently, all uses of the resource must yield an equal rate of return (adjusted for the relative riskiness of each enterprise). Otherwise reallocation would result. This idea, wrote George Stigler, is the central proposition of economic theory. (...) French economist Turgot had made the same point in 1766. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That text was a quote from Adam Smith out of his book The Wealth of Nations. The distinction between "political economy" and "economics" was stated directly below that:Smith referred to the subject as 'political economy', but that term was gradually replaced in general usage by 'economics' after 1870.Therefore I am putting this text back. --EGeek (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Smith referred to the subject as political economy" is 100% original research. Add a source quickly or this needs a complete review. You cannot put a quote from WoN then pretend that Adam Smith thought that his comments about political economy would now apply to what we call economics. Please re-read what I said above. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source now provided  actually says that "political economy originally referred to classical economic theory as developped by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and (...)". Again, there is no ground to ascertain that Adam Smith referred to the subject as political economy (it even suggests that he did not). --Childhood's End (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This being said, I especially think that this quote is a poor choice and mostly irrelevant to Adam Smith's main ideas. It can certainly be replaced by a more telling quote, without need for an unsourced editorial comment. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps what bugged me the most is the fact that this quote is not so central to Adam Smith's main contributions - it even intuitivevly looks to go against his view as far as Smith was essentially against mercantilism. But I guess what you look for is really something specific to the 'identification' of economics as a separate discipline rather than a 'description' of the early roots of what we call now economics in line with the George Stigler paragraph that I added to the text. So, if that must remain the objective, I'll go with the quote. I although still feel that the article would benefit from instead providing a quote that is more reflective of Adam Smith's economic thinking which evolved into nowadays economics. But that's only my two cents... --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 7. Well, to note above at Talk:Economics#Section 1: heading rationale & more "the quotation may be taken as a modern genesis of economics as a program of analysis (suggested by the term 'proposes' in the quotation), including both its practical and scientific uses. It is a verifiable source on a certain continuity of thought." The claims of the quotation are staggeringly bold, I think most would agree.  It is about the  promise of the subject as, to use Marshall's term, an engine of analysis.  That's very contemporary.  The quotation is about the subject of economics, not this or that allegedly key contribution to the subject.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed that. Since what you seem to look for is a quote that identifies the origin of economics as a separate discipline, well yes, it can do that. I do not challenge it on that ground. I more or less agree with its use there because it misrepresents the spirit of The WoN and Adam Smith's economic thinking; notably, it tends to suggest that Adam Smith supported mercantilism, whereas the book attempted to debunk it. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well we have to agree to disagree :)  As to the Smithian role of government, the best reference would rather be Adam Smith himself (see for instance Book IV, Chap.2, para.11 ) --Childhood's End (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation of Adam Smith

message: Should the effect of the underground economy on the greater economy be discussed? Brian Pearson (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, not here. There is an article called Economy - that's the right place for your suggestion, I think. Pularoid (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Underground Economy 

message: First, should the first two words of the section really be "For example"? Shouldn't a claim be made first before one offers to provide an example for illustrative purposes? Second, in the first sentence, shouldn't there be a "to" between the words "possible" and "associate"? Third, wouldn't the word "regard" be more appropriate than the word "associate"?  Compare: "It is possible to associate... as issues in economics" versus "It is possible to regard... as issues in economics"?  Or, if "associate" is thought to be the superior word, might not it be better if "as" is replaced by "with", i.e. "...associate... with issues in economics"? Fourth, in the second sentence, isn't the word "such" in the phrase "no such value claims" misplaced? The first sentence, though it may have mentioned topics relating to values, did not make any specific value claims. Fifth, the second sentence seems awkward. In particular, the word "this" in the second clause seems poorly chosen since it can be read as referring to the claim made in the first clause (which it does not), or it can be read as referring to the observation in the first sentence (which it presumably does). Sixth, shouldn't the third sentence be reworked? Currently, it reads like two sentences have been squeezed into one. 
Asylumofignorance (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should section 6.6.1 be slightly reworked? 

message: No one managed to catch this obvious vandalism edit? "in the world of unlimited needs" Nice :p Gary King (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on February 16, 2008 

message: "Real Economy" redirects here, however there is no mention of that term in the article.76.85.197.151 (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Redirect 

message: I believe that the answer to the above question should be "yes."  An Edit restored the 3rd-level sections (that is, sub-sub-sections of a section) to the Table of Contents (TOC) of Economics. The reason given for an earlier recent removal of 3rd-level sections from the TOC was that the TOC had become very long. I sympathize with the objective of  keeping things as simple as reasonable.  The change did cut the length of the TOC in half, from about 2 full screens. But most of the cut came from eliminating all subsections for fields of econ under the "Areas of econ" (section 2) except Micro and Macro.  Listing the specific fields in the TOC can be very useful and informative.  In particular:
# It allows the reader inspecting the TOC to identify contents of "Mathematical and quantitative methods" & "Selected fields" at a glance to see if there is anything of interest or not.  For some readers, that might be the high point of the article, to which they could easily click or at least eagerly anticipate. If it is instead not of interest, at least the reader would be saved the trouble of looking at that section.  Only the TOC allows such a quick overview. So, being able to see the subsections in the TOC arguably benefits most readers.   
# The beginning of the big "Social Sciences" article in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007, v. 27, p. 316) has a TOC for the article, including Economics.  The section for "Fields of contemporary economics" lists, besides Micro & Macro subsections, subsections for 9 fields (all of them also in the 2 Economics saubsections).  If it is important  enough for Britannica to list the fields for which it has subsections, it should arguably be important enough for Economics to do likewise.
# The subsections listed there fall under most of the JEL classification codes (not only the 2 respective classifications for Micro and Macro/Monetary).  Including them in the TOC would arguably better convey the contemporary state of the subject than only the micro/macro distinction, however useful. 
# There is a parallel for such listing of fields in Psychology.  
On independent grounds, I believe that the article would be improved by moving sect. 3 & 4 to sect. 2 b/c of their continuity with the lead and sect. 1.  It is provides background helpful for the "Areas of economics" section.  As a side effect, it would allow more of the article to precede the long listing in the TOC of the "Areas of economics" subsections. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Table of Contents list fields other than Micro & Macro? 

message: An Edit moved Sect. 2 ("Areas of economics") to follow sect. 3 & 4. The move is intended to provide more continuity with what precedes it (for example as to the discussion of scarcity in the Lead). The move also provides background helpful for the "Areas of economics" section that now follows (for example the reference to 'efficiency' in the Microeconomics section).  The newly-placed sect. 2 was renamed "Basic concepts" (from "Economic concepts"). The topics there are often covered in general terms at the beginning of a principles textbook, for example Samuelson and Nordhaus's Economics, ch. 1-3 on fundamenttals, markets and government, and basics of supply and demand.  (I believe that a move like the one here was suggeted some time ago but that it was discouraged then pending improvement of the relevant section.)  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sect. 2 moved to follow sect. 3 (renamed to "Basic concepts") & 4 

message: Both these figures/charts look problematic to me. 
* The PPF slopes upwards for a short section. I think this might have damaging implications for standard analysis.
* The chart for Per Capita GDP, 1-2003 AD doesn't show anything clearly except that GDP per capita has gone up and that we don't have lots of data for most of human history.
In my view both these figures would seem to be bringing our article and economics into disrepute and the article would be improved by their removal. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly doubt the last few words of the above. On the chart for Per Capita GDP, is the above objection that the chart is too small to see clearly?   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPF and World GDP per capita figures/charts 

message: The Economics subsection "Is economics a science?" (previously under section 6 "Criticism") was recently 
* moved to section 3 "Economic reasoning" 
* then melded in substance or detail there but with the subsection intact
* then deleted as a separate subsection 
** A comparison with Wiki markup of "Economic reasoning"  before and with the meld is  here.  
** A comparison without Wiki markup and before the meld is here. 
** A comparison without Wiki markup and with the meld is here. 
Arguments for the melded section include these:
# A lot of the discussion in "Is economics a science?" was already covered in a more economics-specific way in "Economic reasoning," resulting in substantive redundancy in "Is economics a science?" Melding allows covering the same topic in a more concise, focused way. 
# The melding in the current "Economic reasoning" section adds substantive content from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources bearing on the scientific status of economics. It builds on the significant strengths of the earlier subsection by adding content and addressing the question of economics as a science. The meld makes clear that criticism is an ongoing aspect of economics as a subject.
# The melded version either cites page-specific sources or refers to the whole cited article because the whole subject of the article is referred to in the text. Most of the discussion in the now deleted "Is economics a science?" section was either unreferenced or self-published online (contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) policy), referenced by non-page-specific sources, or unrelated to the discussion where the reference occurs. 
# Aside from the last-mentioned problem, paragraph 4 of "Is economics a science?" reads something like a very vigorous exchange in a journal (stated in gross terms}. Whether it warrants the space in the body of an analytical survey article of "Economics" is very questionable. Unfortunately, I believe that leaving it in would invite readers to pick sides and makes it harder to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy as to the article. Still, the meld did include in the middle set of footnotes of paragraph 2 what, it happens, are references exhibiting spirited difference in views on methods. I doubt that anyone would object to the footnotes. 
# "Econometrics" is not mentioned in the meld, since that has its own subsection later in the article. Instead, "statistical methods" etc. are discussed. 
Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Is economics a science?" melded to "Economic reasoning" sect.

message: * positive economics ("what is") and normative economics ("what ought to be")
'What ought to be' is not science. IMHO the article should reflect that economics is not only a science, but has a different meaning as well, perfectly put at : the means by which society uses human and natural resources in the pursuit of human welfare. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it is a science, it may be not only a science. So, there's is no necessary incompatability.  That's reflected in the positive/normative distinction. The 2nd paragraph of section 4 and sect. 4.3.14 do pick up on that again. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ought to be? 

message: * Common problems among different types of economies include: what goods to produce and in what quantities (consumption or investment, private goods or public goods, meat or potatoes, etc.), how to produce them (coal or nuclear power, how much and what kind of machinery, who farms or teaches, etc.), for whom to produce them, reflecting the distribution of income from output.
Sorely missing seem: when to produce them, where to produce them, and why to produce them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing common problems 

message: * The model of supply and demand predicts that for a given supply and demand curve, price and quantity will stabilize at the price that makes quantity supplied equal to quantity demanded.
Actually, it does no such thing. The model merely indicates that there is a point where demand and supply are equal, and that's it. Only if price and allocation models are added, do we get predictions of what will happen, and this can vary. The price that is formed can bounce around, converge to a non-equilibrium point, be sticky, etc. The allocation can be imperfect, as on the house market or the labour market, which in turn can influence how prices are formed, just as non-equilibruium price can influence the rate by which allocation is imperfect. And both of them can affect the supply and demand curves themselves. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the model does standardly include quantity or price terms, and a hypothesis or argument of stable equilibrium. Whether the model yields useful, correct, or appliicable predictions is another matter.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little citation note here.   Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis and Lazear's article cite the centrality of stable equiibrium in modeling as a source of operationally meaningful theorems.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, mathematics and disequilibrium theory say different. ;) Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I sympathize with the above concern. The text and accompanying graph-with-text should be able to stand on their own if read independently, but they should reinforce each other if they are both read.  Also, one previously unfamiliar with the topic should be able follow the subject as presented.  I agree that something could be added on supply-&-demand adjustment to equilibrium (best done in a clear and concise fashion of course). Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added point: I'll look into the possibility of vertical carroted brackets labelled 'surplus' and 'shortage' being added to the current graph to go with added discussion of supply-&-demand adjustment to disequilibrium.  Meanwhile, anyone could add to Economics#Supply and demand as per the above discussion. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The model of supply and demand 

message: Sect. 6.1 ("Criticism of assumptions"), including  subsect. 6.1.1 ("Assumptions and observations") were recently melded to  sect. 3 ("Economic reasoning").  To facilitate before-and-after comparisions, here is a listing of steps that were taken for the meld:
The Economics subsections "Criticism of assumptions") &  "Assumptions and observations"
* moved to section 3 "Economic reasoning" 
* then melded in substance at the top of the section but with the moved subsections intact
* then deleted as a separate subsections;. 
** A comparison with Wiki markup of "Economic reasoning"  before and with the meld is  here.  
** A comparison without Wiki markup and before the meld is here. 
** A comparison without Wiki markup and with the meld is here. 
Arguments for the melded section include these:
# A lot of the discussion on assumptions in the moved subsections can be conveniently included in "Economic reasoning," not as a prelude to criticism but as a statement of how economic reasoning makes or uses such assumptions.  
# More econ.-specific examples of assumptions were provided for concreteness.  
# Supportive references were provided for WP:VER
# The following starred subejcts from the "Assumptions and observations" subsection were omitted:
:*Well-Being = Consumption: The earlier Edit ended up granting that which was criticized. All that remained was a criticism of an overstatement for which there was no evidence on prevalence. 
:*Atomism: No citation is given as to prevalence of alleged belief on independence of preferences.  Argualby, taking preferences as given is arguably a mere convenience, not some deep misunderstanding warranting criticism in this survey article. Empirical work often does account preference-dependence with socio-economic variables for example.  Related problems of externalities, economic bubbles, etc. are examined when they is the subject of interest. 
:5. Major points of the melded subsections are preserved or expanded  in 40% less space and with greater specificity. 
Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting points.  For reference purposes, the quoted passage is at the top of sect. 2, "Basic concepts."  Substantive comment: 'When' is picked it to some excent by 'what': conumption (for prsent use), investment (to enable more future consumption)  'Where' is picked up to some extent by 'what' goods are produced as to different geographic areas or for public production vs. household production and by whom.  'Why' is pikcked up by differret types of economies & political systems in different ways. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of assumptions" sect. melded to "Economic reasoning" sect.