Talk:The Market for Lemons

message: :with the net effect of a non-existent or low-quality used computer market
Eh, a quick look at eBay as well as my experience bying second-hand computer every year clearly show that there exists a good market. Who invented the claim?? That would make an interesting positive example; I think the reasons are that many computers indeed come with 30-day warranty and enough buyers are computer specialists to ensure that consumers can't be all fooled.
125.234.4.52 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no market in used computers?? 

message: There's an article here which makes a number of critiques of this article as of roughly this revision.  One of the points which hasn't been addressed is the treatment of the situation in which the seller has less information than the buyer (the reverse of the classic "lemon" situation).  The examples of the dearth of formal credit markets in developing countries and the unavailability of health insurance for the elderly would appear to be in this category.  According to , both of these examples are from Akerlof's paper.  I tried rewriting these sections, but I'm not sure I would get it right. Perhaps someone who knows this area of economics better, and/or has more time to read the papers involved, could tackle it. Kingdon (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seller has incomplete information 

message: Based on the lead section, this article should be just about Akerlof's paper. Yet it creeps into other related areas with little warning to reader when it's actually doing so. VasileGaburici (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic creep 

message: The page on Lemon Law states that buying 'as is' cars does NOT waive your lemon law rights, in direct contradiction to this article. Could someone familiar with the laws clarify this point? Quantum7 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law. VG ☎ 06:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As Is purchases 

message: This is actually a pretty good and well written article. A few more sources and citations and a bit of clean up could get this to WP:Good article standards easily.radek (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  good article 

message: This idea that there are no good used cars for sale is obviously false, so why is it given so much weight in the article?  Why no explanation of why it's an oversimplification?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.59.166 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of veracity? 

message: A "Lemon (automobile)" is not the same thing as a "Clunker (automobile)"  A clunker is a beat-up old car that still runs, and might even run well.  It just makes clunking noises as it moves along.  A lemon never works right, even if it is brand new and looks wonderful.  A lemon is one those things that never quite works no matter how much work you try to do to fix it.  A clunker works, maybe even works very well, but just looks and sounds terrible.  Indeed, a lemon is probably the mirror opposite of a clunker. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A "lemon" is not a "clunker"

message: And what do the actual pictures of cars have to do with the economics concept?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:608C:4950:15CA:378A:E7B1:C7A4 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article (case study) took the example of second hand cars. 81.57.178.197 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article full of pictures of cars 

message: The basic concept of this seems to be the need of transparent information. We may need to link to concepts of transparency (market) and open data. 81.57.178.197 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transparency 

message: Early in the article, good cars (by contrast with "lemons") are called "peaches", later on they're called "cherries". One term should be used throughout.
Glenbarnett (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Replaced by "peach" everywhere, which should reflect the most popular usage. 7804j (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent terminology for "good" products 

message: Dr. Quiggin has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Quiggin has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Schrobback, Peggy & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak & Quiggin, John C., 2011. "The complexities in environmental decision-making for the Murray-Darling Basin," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100708, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Quiggin's comment on this article 

message: How Akerlof calculated his model, in particular, S1? How did he get it without data of costs for the 1st group of market agents? And where did he take average quality (p/2)? All in all, his conception is understandable, but only this moment he didn’t explain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.236.136 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the Akerlof’s model (market of used autos)