Talk:Economic model/Archive 1

message: I suggested Marxian, not because I think it is particularly accurate but as a balance to more academically (at least in US) polite models.  
CSTAR 23:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: probably needs to be done on this page. Feel free to change or remove anything I wrote (that goes without saying in a wiki I guess)
I wanted to discuss Samuelson's concept of operationally meaningful theorem and will do so soon.  As I mentioned earlier, I would also like to see whether earlier economic models in the 17 and 18th centurry existed.  This sound like a very French idea, so maybe some predecessor of Leon Walras (for example Francois Quesnay) had some models.  Talking about econmics per-se (a la Adam Smith, or Hobbes or Hume) does not a model make.  I am not a historian though some my knowledge is very mundane, limited to what I know from Heilbronner and a few other popular references.
Again if you have any  ideas CSTAR 03:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work

message: Yes it seems that the French physiocrats really did have discernible models.
:All through the 18th century simple probabilistic models were used to understand the economics of insurance. This was a natural extrapolation of the theory of gambling, and played an important role both in the development of probability theory itself and in the development of actuarial science. Many of the giants of 18th century mathematical physics contributed to this field. Around 1730, De Moivre addressed some of these problems in the 3rd edition of the Doctrine of Chances. Even earlier (1709), Nicolas Bernoulli studies problems related to savings and interest in the Ars Conjectandi. In 1730, Daniel Bernoulli studied "moral probability" in his Mensura Sortis, where he introduced what we would today call "logarithmic utility of money" and applied it to gambling and insurance problems, including a solution of the paradoxical Saint Petersburg problem. All of these developments were summarized by Laplace in his Analytical Theory of Probability (1812). Clearly, by the time David Ricardo came along he had a lot of well-established math to draw from. — Miguel 06:17, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
:: Miguel, que tal si agregas esto, en la parte de historia? CSTAR 03:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hecho. Miguel 20:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical precedents 

message: OK we both added stuff; you can integrate it somehow with my addition. Delete whatever you want.CSTAR 02:07, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to coordinate

message: I had assumed that this article was aiming to talk about the history of "modeling" in economics - but perhaps this is where I went wrong? 
Alternatively there may be something else about this page which I am not aware of; is it a candidate for article of the day? Is it part of a larger plan?
I don't believe in plans (see points raised in the article) - I just type when subjects seem to be missing (I assume that if I add a detail in the wrong place it can be moved later). 
:Nothing much different with this page than others. There are just two experienced Wikipedians, myself and CSTAR that have been working on this page for a long time. We want to make it the best article we can, as I'm sure you do, but we appear to have a better handle on Wikipedia's policies. Nothing wrong with that, just keep trying to help and learn how to help the best. - Taxman 04:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I had a look through the discussions above and detect some of the same confusion. If I knew more clearly what the article was trying to focus on I might be able to contribute better.
The Wikipedians here seem to be rigorous and intelligent, so I'm sure you will appreciate the irony of fate which has befallen me: I have been more severly challenged on this page than on any of my other contributions even though this should be the one page I actually know something about (in a minor way, this has been my job and educational background for the past ten years). 
Of course, the other irony is that this page appears to have a tighter control system than any other (where one may have expected a more free-wheeling laissez-faire attitude).
I will wait until the issue of what this page is aiming to do is cleared up, before making any changes (which prevents me from citing sources as requested by the User:Taxman).
:Well the standard Wiki way is that an article on a direct topic, like this one, should cover the topic in a broad manner, cover every important facet of the topic, and not cover any one topic more than it's importance to the subject deserves. That's the ideal anyway. Yes that means this is the overview article. As such it contains some history, but should not focus on it. A 'History of economic modelling' article would be the place to cover that as its topic. 
:Strange that you would say a question of what the topic of this article is prevents you from citing sources. It does no such thing, and is entirely mutually exclusive. Whatever the topic is, be it snails or economics, all material added to Wikipedia can be cited. Cited material that is off topic can be moved, uncited material is much harder to work with later. - Taxman 04:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I like an abrasive approach - that's the proper way to express a difference of views - 
Cheers
Wragge 22:20, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
:Interesting approach. It certainly works at times, though I prefer to use influence and requests instead. In any case, your efforts are certainly welcomed, as long as you make an effort to follow Wikipedia's policies. I decided to just respond here before delving into the volumes of material below. - Taxman 04:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
::: Hi Taxman, I can understand how that would have looked strange - there was a three way conversation going on: first of all you asked me to cite sources, and I was half way into doing this (adding them to the chaos bit - although probably too many now) before another user (CSTAR) asked me to stop completely. My reason for stopping was simply that he asked me to dissist, and had nothing to do with your earlier request for sources. I only mentioned your name as an apologia for not fulfilling the citation request.
::: This article seems to include a history of economic modelling already, so a new article on the history would presumably be based on this if one were ever made. Thanks for asking for more details, but I don't think I'll add any more to this article, because: (1) I don't really think my tactics are compatable here, (2) I don't have a compelling need to write on this topic - or even much interest in it as a theoretical overview, (3) There are 500,000 other articles for me to 'improve'.
::::Cheers, Wragge 05:16, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
:::::I understood the three way conversation. The approach I was referring to is what you stated "I like an abrasive approach". Even more interesting for someone that prefers that approach is that you immediately stop your efforts when challenged. If you have something to offer the article please do, just be willing to mold your efforts a bit for greatest effectiveness. If you choose not too, so be it, carry on helping wherever you so choose. I still haven't had time to read all of the changes or even all of the commentary, so for all I know, maybe it would make my life easier of you edited other articles instead of this one! :) - Taxman 05:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Taxman,
I'm glad you were following that. I like an a forthright exchange of ideas, and therefore I definitely do not stop making additions when challenged. As you see in the history I immediately added a section backing up the "chaos" point when you (correctly) challenged me for perhaps introducing a strawman. HOWEVER; I then received a direct request to cease additions. There is a difference between a request like that and a request for more information. I am sure we are all tired of this conversation now, so please don't feel compelled to read the detailed answer below - its mostly about semantics and collaborative philosophy.
Cheers,
: Wragge 13:19, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
::Wragge : You twice make the claim that I asked you to desist:
::: and I was half way into doing this (adding them to the chaos bit - although probably too many now) before another user (CSTAR) asked me to stop completely. My reason for stopping was simply that he asked me to dissist,
:: Please look at what I actually said -- discuss your goals before going further. For what is a collaborative effort, that is certainly a reasonable request; it's a request for discussion and is not a request for you to stop. Notice also that I didn't ask (or even suggest) you delete any of your edits. Moreover, my list of comments below were written asking for clarification of terms after I  made an effort to edit your additions.  For instance, I asked a question about present utility, because quite honestly, I didn't know which one of the several possibilities I memtioned you were referring to.   The same problem occurred in several other instances. --CSTAR 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article intended as a general discussion of economic models?