Talk:Theory of imputation/Archives/2012

“higher” v. “lower”

You've mixed up higher and lower order goods -- it should be the other way around than it is here. (Ori) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.133.141 (talk • contribs)

You are right. --Leitfaden (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Menger not Wieser

Wikipedia seems to have many articles written based on the notion that, because the term “marginal utility” originates from Wieser, Menger must have derived his ideas from Wieser. That's grossly illogical, and the conclusion is historically false. (And, BTW, to be precise, Wieser coined the term “Grenznutzen”, not the term “marginal utility”; the latter is a translation by someone else of “Grenznutzen”; hence I write “from Wieser” rather than “with Wieser”.) —SlamDiego_←T 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wieser not Menger

Sorry if this is a naive question (I'm not an economist, nor an historian) but: isn't the theory of imputation from Wieser, specifically based on his Der natürliche Wert?

Just asking.... Dave [[WP:NPP|You can help!]] (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Example

I don't think that I really understand what this article was about. I'm not an economist so maybe I don't have to basic knowledge, but it might be nice if there was an example that almost anyone could understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.14.13 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I am also not an economist but I found the explanation succinct and understandable. Plus it makes more sense then the labor theory of value, which (in my untrained mind at least) implies that an inefficient production system produces more valuable goods than an efficient one, which is so, like, counter intuitive that I don't even want to get started on it. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What a Sick theory

Where this theory and most economic theory fails is that economist seldom understand that value often has nothing to do with money. Property in particular serves the purpose of liberty and to suggest that such property can be considered in monetary terms or to impart some form of income to such property destroys the liberty and makes the one in possession of such property into a slave. Failure by economist and all other "authorities" to separate ownership (which is based on being freed from debt) from “investorship” (which is based on making money) makes government into a God that the people are required to worship with the almighty dollar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.59.66 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)