Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Community property

Please see Talk:Community property (a disambiguation page) for a discussion of whether there is a primary topic for this term; and if so, whether it is Community property (marriage) or Public property. 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Old merge proposal

Hello there, I am working though Category:Articles to be merged from November 2007 and I've got to Edgeworth's limit theorem and Edgeworth conjecture. Since my knowledge of economics extends to knowing if I've got the right change, could somebody here determine if this is a valid merge proposal? If it isn't, the merge tags can go. Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the two should be merged. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Me neither. Gary King (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Cheers guys! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing economics topics

I've updated my list of missing economics topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Inflation

I recently went through the Talk:Inflation discussions on how the word should be defined. I understand the controversy and am not questioning either definition. I'm wondering however if the integrity of the article is hindered by not specifying in the intro definition the two major phenomena to which the word itself is used to refer. I was told by one user that doing so and simply mentioning the fact that the implied meaning of the word has changed over time would give "undue" weight to the view of one school of thought over others. I really don't see how this is so.

When there are two separate, specifying terms, each with their own distinguishing adjective (i.e. price inflation and monetary inflation) would it not make sense to clarify and address both of those terms in the opening introduction of an article simply titled "Inflation"? By looking through the discussions, the fact that this has become as big of an issue as it is seems to be more or less a (for lack of a better term) "partisan" 'my school is right and your school is wrong' argument.

I'm not suggesting changing the course of the intro or anything else about the article...I'm just wondering, if the goal here is to educate and disseminate information effectively, why should we intentionally leave out such a vital distinction in the article introduction and definition? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The first section of the article (after the introduction) begins immediately by describing how the meaning of the word has changed. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I wrote the first paragraph. My concern is really the fact that the word is defined in the first sentence of the article, and the introduction and contents box are long enough to shove even that first section well out of sight...and while I think it's certainly appropriate to leave all the details concerning the history of the word in its separate section, I'm wondering if in actually defining the word, a simple mention of the fact that the definition has changed constitutes "undue weight" for a specific school of thought. I don't really see how that is the case.

And on top of that, I believe that a mention of the fact the very definition of the word has completely changed is important to the reader's core understanding of the subject, and would therefore be appropriate to include in the introduction...more specifically directly following, if not part of, the opening definition. What does everyone here think? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Census

Hey all.

It's clear from this talk page that they are lots of skilled economists here on Wikipedia. I'm not one of them, but I am conversant in all thing Wikipedia, and I'd love to be able to help support the actual economists. Together, I reckon we can work out the future direction of this project, how best it can operate, what needs to be done by whom and so forth.

In this vein, and whatever the outcome, it would be really helpful to have a list of everyone who's willing to help out with WPECON, even if only in a small way. I have prepared this page for that purpose, and I would be indebted to you if you might take ten seconds to sign it.

Thanks, and sorry for spamming your talk page(s). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Factors of Production" addition.

Good day,


I read the article Factors of production and some of the related ("See also") topics. I would like to suggest you add to this article a section that lists the factors of production of a typical, today's company. This article has a very complete historical description of the matter but lacks of a more practical perspective. Anyone trying to know which are the actual factors of production of a typical, current company cannot find this information here. A list is required. Here is a proposal but, definitely, it can be expanded and / or improved:


Factors of production of a current, typical company:


1. Real state (land, plant, buildings)

2. Financial resources (capital)

3. Entrepreneurship

4. Office material (stationary)

5. Promotional material

6. Production materials (raw materials, sub-components)

7. Merchandise (goods to be sold)

8. Intangible resources (processes, knowledge, skills, relationships, alliances, brands, patents, information, etc.)

9. Natural resources (e.g. time, climate; not raw materials)

10. Utilities (electric energy, water, telephone service, gas)

11. Technology (Information Technology, communications, production equipment and tools, security equipment)

12. Transportation infrastructure

13. People


A note must be added to mention that these factors vary by industry, sector, and / or company size.


Best regards,


Luis R. Villegas H.

Mexico.


--LuisVillegas (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

macro article on normative economics of central banking?

It occurs to me that it would be nice to have an article on thought on the normative macro economics of central banking. That is, an article that lays out why central banks try to keep inflation/unemployment targets. There is a minor variation in that the Europeans prefer inflation targets while the US prefers a more mixed eye on inflation and GDP growth, but it is really very minor. I believe that there was an academic article published on the new consensus (right before the bubble burst) that could serve as a foundation for this article, with more recent news articles on why the consensus must have been wrong.

I really don't know macro (even someone who recently took econ 101 would probably be better off writing this article than me),but when I was looking at, Monetary Policy Committee it occurs to me that a reader might validly ask the following related questions: why does the bank care about inflation targets? Why should the lead to good growth patterns? Why not target zero? 018 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

O18 makes a good point, but I think that issue would be best addressed in the Monetary Policy article. There's some stuff in Keynesian economics, the Taylor rule article and in the inflation article, that can be copied and pasted into a new section there that could address the current thinking about 'what is appropriate monetary policy'. BTW, Monetary Policy is in terrible shape and could use a rewrite. Anyone here willing to put in the effort to rewrite it? Thanks LK (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are requested

All members' thoughts on any topics concerning how WPECON should be are welcomed on the talkpage of the census. Everyone is - of course, this is a wiki after all - free to comment on the stuff I noted or to go off in whatever tangent they wish.

Also, any apology to those of you who signed the census but do not wish to receive any further communications in the future - this would include updates on the planning process before settling into a regular "newsletter" feature (hopefully, time permitting) and such items would also be "reprinted" here. I completely forgot you, for which I can only apologise. Would you mind removing your names from this list? Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes at the Neutral Point of View policy page

There are changes happening at the WP:NPV page that will significantly affect the articles under our purview. Specifically, WP:UNDUE has been significantly edited in the last week. Please have a look and comment. Thanks. LK (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up LK. I'll try to get involved in the discussion. Morphh (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 European sovereign debt crisis

A pressing current issue, and an article that is linked from the main page. My personal view is that the article is a mess, though any efforts I have made to change it have been reverted by a user who believes that the entire issue is a media conspiracy. I'm far from an expert in these things, and more input is sorely needed. - SimonP (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the edits that were controversially reverted so as to see the content and the reasons for revert? once we accept it here he has to debate it if he has a problem with it. if not then your edits will stay.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue I)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue I (May 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Too Big to Fail

The definition in the article's second paragraph is not accompanied by any citations. Can someone please hunt down a source that either verifies or refutes the claim? If the claim is wrong, a source that labels it as a "popular misconception" would be ideal. Thanks. 128.59.180.241 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Quick question for y'all: does a concept of slowflation genuinely exist in the study of economics, or is somebody just trying to get one over on us by inventing a neologism? If it really exists, it needs some references, and if it's a hoax it needs to be deleted — so could somebody with more of a background in economics than I've got weigh in? Tanx. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't lookcredible. Although google does come up with something, most wouldnt be WP:RS, web logs or neo-dictionaries that proliferate the internet. Only this seems at least pseudo-credible.Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have never come across the term (furthermore, I'm not sure if the definition used in the article for stagflation is correct; there can be slow growth during stagflation), and given the lack of sources the article should probably be put up for deletion. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not standard jargon of economics. Mystache (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not standard. I just searched the JSTOR collections of published economics articles and the term does not appear at all. I agree with JonCatalán that "stagflation" (which shows up in 4300 JSTOR articles) covers the condition of "slowflation." Looking ahead, I don't think the use of "slowflation" would make discussion of economic conditions more concise or clear. I support deletion from wikipedia. -- Econterms (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a prod has already been declined; someone want to list this at AfD? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Listed at AfD here. LK (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Jobless Recovery

Hi all,

I'd appreciate a third opinion, or any other comments/suggestions, on Jobless recovery. I think that the article has several serious problems (length, coatracking, OR / lack of reliable sources, fringe views, &c). Needless to say, the person who seems to have written most of it disagrees. I don't want this to turn adversarial and am prepared to accept that I might be wrong :-)

Can anything be done to improve the article? Others have suggested deletion. So far I have deleted & trimmed several paragraphs of what I thought was the worst fiction, speculation, OR, and scifi [1] but (a) what I've done so far is not popular with another editor, and (b) "several paragraphs" barely makes a dent in it.

What do you think of Jobless recovery? I'd be very grateful if it could get a few more attentive eyeballs, and comments on the talk page.

Thanks for your time - bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a WP:Neologism and doesnt warrant its own article. Some section on another article may fit better. One of the splits pertaining to the current econ. crisis (mainly in the usa -- as it is an american term used by american policymakers)
Its a long article, but maybe it can be merged into some article on economic theories and/or plausible solution. Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Article needs some expert help

I recently removed a PROD on Small Business Lending Index and added it to the Economics project. Maybe you all could give some loving care and better sourcing.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding wikiproject templates to countries in "Category:Economies by country"

Most main article in Category:Economies by country don't have {{WikiProject Economics}} template. I am slowly moving through them, at this point I am mostly done with A and B. Feel free to help out, but if you do so, try to finish a letter and note that here, so I won't waste time opening dozens of pages you took care of :) Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of obvious WPECON pages aren't tagged, I'm slowly feeding them to the bots block by block. I assume you're also rating them / prioritising them as appropriate? Otherwise we could otherwise just leave the bot to it. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your reply earlier. Yes, a bot could do this - although I am rating them as needed, adding country specific wikiprojects, making sure relevant articles are set as "main" for the categories (which the bot may not be able to do). I am assessing their importance as mid, with few exceptions for the major (core) countries. On that note, I've run into an interesting case - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_vs_Republic_of_Ireland_in_the_category_system. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue II)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue II (June 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. Delivered by - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 16:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Three advanced white soldiers

Can anyone translate this financial gobbledygook into English? Fences&Windows 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried a copyedit, but I'm not familiar with financial charts so it still needs attention and sources. Ditto Three Black Crows. Fences&Windows 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this question (and questions like this) be better handled at WP:FINANCE rather than here? We're mostly unfamiliar with chart theory and financial analysis. LK (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, right you are. Shows how much I know about it. Fences&Windows 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Featherbedding

Featherbedding is in need of work, or at least eyes. Anyone interested?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

I think the section about the Great Depression on the Herbert Hoover article does not represent the mainstream view, (Lee Ohanian theory given undue weight). Can someone more knowledgeable than me look at it. Thanks. Sole Soul (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Central banking and "The Creature from Jekyll Island"

If anyone here is familiar with the book, there's a noticeboard request going. BigK HeX (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Economists' Perspectives Sought for Intelligence Citations Bibliography

I see that several articles within the scope of this WikiProject relate to IQ testing. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. I have greatly enjoyed discussing issues of human intelligence with scholars who have an economics perspective, and I'm sure many articles would be improved with more sources from that perspective and more participation by economically trained editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to see more editors with an economics background take a look at articles about IQ testing, especially articles about international comparisons of IQ and economic development. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant Section In Austrian School Article

See section titled "Criticism of mainstream practice" in Austrian school article. (The references are good.) -- RLV 209.217.195.195 (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gold Standard

I've been involved in a dispute with an IP on the Gold standard article. Would appreciate it if people could have a look and watchlist it for a couple of days. Thanks, LK (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, added to my watchlist. Doesn't look too bad at the moment. bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that editor is still active. They have some slightly odd ideas about deflation being a benefit of tying a whole economy to one particular shiny metal, but the personal attacks are relatively mild and they do see the importance of sources.
It's not a huge crisis but might benefit from another pair of eyes...
bobrayner (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dismal science article

There was a survey of American Economic Association economists where most of the economists gave a wrong answer to the question asked, after which the surveyors called it "a dismal performance from the dismal science."[2] Do you guys think this is notable enough for inclusion in the Dismal science article? Shawnc (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure that Dismal science is the best place to put it, since that article is mostly historical, and the only connection seems to be the punning use of the word "dismal". Maybe it would be better to mention it in a more general economics article?
Yeah the article has covered only the historical usage which makes it look out of place. Well at least the story helped me understand why some consider economics to be this "dismal science". Shawnc (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's too specialized for this article. It might deserve a mention in opportunity cost or economics education. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for renaming "Category:Economics of production" to "Category:Production economics"

If anyone would like to weigh in one way or the other on the above, it's not too late at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 25#Category:Economics of production. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does RBI lend money to other banks.???

Why does RBI lend money to other banks.??? 59.95.196.152 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit like, "why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side." But, lending money is how a bank makes money. Also, a reserve bank lends money to control the money supply. 018 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Requested: Proposal for New Economic Indicator for Economy Infoboxes

I would like to add an economic/financial indicator, Doing Business Rank, to the Economy Infoboxes. I think it would be a clearer and more useful way to present the data for each country than adding the statistic to general text on each economy's page. A discussion about this is taking place on the talk page for the Economy Infobox. Please read and contribute your opinion. I hope it can be a useful contribution to the economics project here on wikipedia.

Win.monroe (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe

equity home bias

Off my hat to the original poster of this entry.

But the posting seems to contain incorrect information and it has room for improvement with regard to the "attempt to resolve the puzzle"

(1) It is not French and Poterba who first documented home bias puzzle. See Lewis 1999, Journal of Economic Literature. She explains that it goes back to at least 1970s (Levy, Haim and Marshall Sarnat. 1970. “International Diversification of Investment Portfolios,” Amer. Econ. Rev., 60:4, pp. 668–75.)

(2) One can enrich the "attempt to resolve the puzzle" section by reference to Lewis (1999, Journal of Economic Literature) and Sercu and Vanpee (working paper, 2007).

(3) In my opinion, "information immobility" is not implausible. The key idea is that information must be updated for every minute. Then, the curvature of information production function (as in Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp) or cost differential (as in Ehrlich and Shin, 2010, Amer. Econ. Rev) can possibly explain the home bias puzzle by information differential.

(4) Van Nieuwerburgh and Veldkamp's study is published in Journal of Finance (2009)

I wish I could edit this section myself. But do not have time.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.222 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice literature review. If anyone wants to implement these suggestions, the article in question is Equity home bias puzzle. LK (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule

I would like to repeat here my post to Talk:Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule from yesterday as I hope to find someone here who has a better knowledge on the subject. "Hoax? I have used google as well as ISI Web of Knowledge and could not find any reference. There are certainly a great bunch of clones or students who copied WP 1:1 into their powerpoints, but I could not find anything reliable. Hence I start to get the feeling that this is a big hoax. When can one be sure, that something does not exist? When is the right time to remove unreferenced content?" What other sources would you suggest to look for references? What is the procedure if the hypothesis of an hoax cannot be rejected? --AMH-DS (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Economics terminology that differs from common usage

The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage is a recent addition which hasn't gotten much attention. I've tagged it for the project, but it could likely use more visitors, as well as discussion about whether it's appropriate overall or not. (To me it seems strange for Wikipedia, but could certainly be useful.) CRETOG8(t/c) 18:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unusual, but looks useful. I'll see what I can do. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted by TheFreeloader?

My last discussion post, an attempt to bring about consensus discussion on the "human molecule" theory as used historically in economics, was reverted by TheFreeloader per comment “A copy-pasted section with no relation to economics”. The section in question, as captured by this table: HMS pioneers, was an effort to bring about dialog, between the science/engineering group and the humanities group, on the topic of the person viewed as a “human molecule”, a theory used prominently in the Lausanne school of economics, particularly Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, Leon Winiarski, and their followers, who viewed people as economic molecules or human molecules, in the case of Pareto; recent examples include physicist Mark Buchanan’s 2007 book on the social atom and how he attempts to update the social physics of economist Thomas Schelling’s 1971 checkerboard model of racial segregation in terms of viewing people, in economics, as atoms or molecules, as compared to the ubiquitous "agent model" used currently. I guess attempts to bring about a common dialog between the chemistry-physics community and the economics community is not permissible at Wikipedia? --Libb Thims (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as I noted in reply to your similar post on another WikiProject page, is not the place for promoting ideas that haven't gained traction in the mainstream literature. Publish first elsewhere, in publications that Wikipedia can recognize as reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
How's about you show me where it says that Wikipedia of only for topics in "mainstream literature"? To give everyone an example of the biasing prevalent here, is the fact that Wikipedia articles such as social atomism (Polish) or atomism (social) (English) sit around, nearly uncited, no more main stream than the article I am concerned with, editors having little concern, but when I write up a fairly decent article on the human molecule, as evidenced by the fact that it was featured in October 2007 Did You Know?, everyone jumps on the bandwagon to expunge the article from Wikipedia, using every rule in Wikipedia I can think of against having the article, for reasons I cannot even begin to pin down (albeit often categorized as “original research/fringe science/hoax/synthesis/non-reliable source/conflict of interest, etc.)? --Libb Thims (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
See WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We don’t seem to be seeing eye-to-eye. To go through one example, in 1910 American editor Thomas Dreier wrote the 1910 article “Human Chemicals”, extolling on the philosophy that people should consider themselves as “human chemicals” and use chemistry theory to understand human behavior. It became very popular, so much so that he and Harvard chemist Gustavus Esselen followed this up with the 1948 book We Human Chemicals. Now this is one of ninety examples of a topic that I seem to be barred from writing about at Wikipedia (over even getting a surrogate volunteer to write about) . How exactly does writing about, e.g., the Dreier-Esselen human chemical theory violate: WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Libb Thims (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The policies relate to your earlier question, not this one. As to the Dreier-Esselen theory, that seems to not be economics, so I doubt members of this WikiProject will stop you from writing about it. What will other projects and editors think? I have no idea. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if this subject actually has some relation to economics, then I am sorry I reverted your post. It's just the way you initially had written your post, it did not state any reason for the subject's relevance to economics and I therefore assumed this to be a case of canvassing or forum shopping.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Per suggestion by Kww at the 27 Aug 2010 deletion review, I have initiated an incubator space page: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule. I will work on developing a cogent acceptable article over the next week or so. Feel free to contribute with objections or suggestions. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding article "Satellite (financial)" to article "Modern Portfolio Theory"

IT has been suggested that the above stated article "Satellite (financial) be incorporated into the article "Modern Portfolio Theory". I support this move since I have not the skills or time to improve the article I authored. My interest is to serve the public by helping define a financial term used by at least one large investment banking firm, Goldman Sachs. If the term "Satellite" would produce a hit at the article "Modern Portfolio Theory" as "(financial)" or otherwise produce a result to those seeking to define the term in financial usage, it would be useful and I would be happy to consent to this incorporation. Please advise if I need to participate or otherwise consent to this change. Thank you. 68.226.21.127 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments / edits requested -- Beth Hayes

Beth Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across the foregoing new article and it seemed a bit thin to me on the issue of notability. The best shot at it seems, to me, to be the strength of her academic contributions, which I'm not in any decent position to judge, and I was hoping that someone more familiar with both academia and economics could give the thing a look at shore it up (or opine that it can't be done).

In brief, the subject was a promising economist who was teaching at Northwestern when she was killed in an auto accident at the age of 29. A minor award was named for her at her alma mater, Penn, spearheaded by one of her mentors there, David Cass. I don't think that award moves the notability ball very far (see Talk:Beth_Hayes for my reasoning) but before her death, the subject also authored two published articles and co-authored two others, which are cited in a variety of other papers. It seems to me that if she's notable, it's for those. As I said above, it's hard for me to judge. Important academics aren't typically written up in the New York Times or featured on CBS News, and as someone with no economics training beyond a couple of undergrad courses many years ago, I have no *idea* how to assess her contributions to the field, no matter how many articles may or may not turn up in a Google search. If she's notable I think the article needs something more to establish it; and if it's not, then it should be deleted. Any help would be appreciated! JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I might've asked here too soon - the author seems to be adding some useful material. Should it assuage my notability concerns? JohnInDC (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics

The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)

To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request - evaluating sources

We have a bit of a conundrum at the Central place theory article, where a suggestion has been made that a source has been plagiarized (see the Talk page). The source itself appears to be a copy from another website, so I'm not sure anymore which is the "one true source". Can someone have a look? The question is mostly whether the wording used in the assumptions which form the basis for the theory are irreducible, i.e. is this the standard method by which anyone would present the theory? Or are there sufficiently diverse methods of outlining the theory that it becomes probable that the writing was slavishly copied from this one source? And if so, what is the original source that was copied from? Hopefully there are enough links on the talk page for you to access the relevant information, if not, please let me know. Thanks for any help with this! Franamax (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to reply, but a little attention from one or two other people might be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Economics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Economics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New peer review for Richard Cantillon

Over the past two days I have committed myself to the reconstruction of Richard Cantillon's Wikipedia entry. Having finished the bulk of the content (although not yet going through a customary copy edit of my own), I have asked for a peer review in preparation for featured article candidacy. I would be extremely grateful if anybody would lend their opinions there, especially dealing with information they would like to see included (if there is any). Thank you, JonCatalán(Talk) 04:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the article is now a FAC. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dust Bowl

I'm curious why an article about causes of the Great Depression, primarily in the US, makes no mention of the Dust Bowl. Macroeconomics is not everything (and this from a macroeconomist). Some mention of over-investment (real, not financial) in the late 1920s might also be appropriate. 140.254.199.38 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)ceberw

New School History of Economic Thought RS

This edit surprised me in that I had thought of the History of Economic Thought web site at the New School as a reliable source. However, after following through, the introduction to the site modestly downplays itself and says explicitly:

"Much of what is contained here reflects my personal opinions and areas of interest. The commentary may seem quite idiosyncratic and some may disagree with portions of it. The information here has not been reviewed independently for accuracy, relevance and/or balance and thus deserves a considerable amount of caution. As a result, I would prefer not to be cited as reliable authorities on anything. However, I do not mind being listed as a general internet resource."[3]

Well, drat! It seemed well-done enough (to one such as me who's very ignorant of the history of economic thought) that I was taking it as a de facto WP:RS. Should we take the author at their word and stop using it as a source, or ignore their caveats based on our own judgment? (I'm asking here first rather than at the RS board because I think there might be more informed feedback here, eventually it would probably have to go to the RS board). CRETOG8(t/c) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, though not peer-reviewed. The only real question here is whether we should use it, considering that it asks to not be used, even though our own policy would allow it. I think that this decision must fall to each individual editor. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What makes it a reliable source? See: self-published sources. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that the site states, "Although this page has been developed under the auspices and is hosted by the Department of Economics of the New School for Social Research, we would like to remind everyone visiting this site that neither the department nor the university are to be held responsible for any of the material contained here."[4] Regardless of the disclaimer, it is hosted by the Economics Department of The New School, and so is not self-published. In terms of reliability, I would rank it as similar to a university textbook. LK (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That Krugman publishes under the auspices of The New York Times doesn't make his blog any less self-published (referring to his blog, rather than his columns). Does the content on that website go through a publishing process run by another party (not just hosted by)? JonCatalán(Talk) 05:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:IRS which has a discussion of the difference between blogs that I start start myself (e.g. on Blogger) and 'blogs' that are essentially columns by regular contributors at reliable media outlets ,which undergo standard editorial oversight. LK (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion on Federal reserve

here CRETOG8(t/c) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Subject regarding Intangible Goods...

Good Day


After much reading and re-reading it has been brought to my attention that an "intangible-good" is quite possibly an oxy-moron. These texts refer to both a service(intangible) and a physical "good"....it has to be more defined than this, for sure. I think it could go into more detail and define "tangibility" to being created as opposed to transferred....just a thought..or maybe create a "service good"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)... I have notice a small confusion in all three of these articles: 1. In economics and accounting, a good is a product that can be used to satisfy some desire or need. More narrowly but commonly, a good is a tangible physical product that can be contrasted with a service which is intangible. As such, it is capable of being delivered to a purchaser and involves the transfer of ownership from seller to customer. For example, an apple is a tangible good, as opposed to a haircut, which is an (intangible) service. One usage that preserves the distinction between goods and services by including both is commodity. In microeconomics, a 'good' is often used in this inclusive sense of the word (Milgate, 1987). 2. The service sector consists of the "soft" parts of the economy, i.e. activities where people offer their knowledge and time to improve productivity, performance, potential, and sustainability. The basic characteristic of this sector is the production of services instead of end products. Services (also known as "intangible goods") include attention, advice, experience, and discussion. The production of information is generally also regarded as a service, but some economists now attribute it to a fourth sector, the quaternary sector. 3. An intangible good is a good that is intangible, meaning that it can not be touched, as opposed to a physical good. In an increasingly digitized world, intangible goods play a more and more important role in the economy. Virtually anything that is in a digital form and deliverable on the Internet can be considered an intangible good. A piece of music, a picture, or an article downloaded from the Internet are all examples of intangible goods. In ordinary sense, an intangible good should not be confused with a service since a good is an object whereas a service is a labor. So a haircut is a service, not an intangible good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owoolcox (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Central Bank

I just noticed the craziness that was the lead for the Central bank article. I've completely rewritten it along standard textbook lines,[5] but it makes me wonder, how many more 'top priority' articles are there with leads that are just plain wrong. Can we get a small project started to read the leads of all the 'top' and 'high' priority articles to check for weirdness? LK (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch.
There are 36 Top and 369 High articles:
Economics article ratings
Priority Quality
FA A GA B C Start Stub UA Total
Top 0 0 0 10 10 9 3 0 32
High 2 0 8 65 66 176 49 0 373
Mid 4 0 12 102 108 471 139 2 847
Low 2 0 10 63 66 469 570 44 1230
UA 0 1 6 51 44 573 1386 1388 3463
Total 8 1 36 291 294 1698 2147 1434 5945
Last updated: Tue Dec 28 01:40:03 UTC 2010
Is it consistently the same kind of craziness that appears in articles? If so that should make it easier to do a very quick systematic review and put the results in a table, but alas I'm quite busy with an almost identical task in another wikiproject (which has a very similar problem although, of course, the subject of the craziness is different).
bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Free Trade

Given the importance of the Free trade article I am really disappointed by its low quality. It is filled with POV material and poor writing. What can we do to improve this situation?Larrytheordinarydragon (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It certainly could use a stylistic edit, if nothing else. I might have a go at rephrasing some things, though I don't think I'll go about deleting all the stuff I don't think should be in there (just yet), which is in my opinion what needs to happen. Case in point, the last section on the 'Freedom to Trade Coalition?'. Perhaps notable, but certainly not a crucial aspect of free trade in my view. I don't think they've been mentioned in The Economist, so, they can't be that important ;). Have been deleting what's not needed. The article is too long for so little quality content.
I'll also have a go at referencing some of the theory. It might also be worth fusing the 'Literature' and 'Economics of Free Trade' sections.--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Subprime lending

Could someone look at Subprime lending? It's been tagged for cleanup for a long time and sounds like an important topic. RJFJR (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Economy of India FAR

I have nominated Economy of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable article Reverse trading

Is this an actual term? The author Juxo (talk · contribs) had previously created? now deleted Reverse financial instrument article, which appears to be unverifiable. The undeletion request was unsuccessful. The new article has almost the same content. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

On both User:Juxo/Draftspace/Reverse financial instrument and Reverse trading, the first line is really just a definition of short selling; the body goes on to overlap with Spread betting &c but doesn't offer any improvement, I feel. I don't see much else that I'd want to keep in an article. I think the numbers are silly, as is allocating blame for national economic crises in Iceland &c. I'd rather just redirect it. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic Inequality vs. Income Inequality

As I read through the Economic Inequality, I realized that large portions of the article use the terms 'economic inequality' and 'income inequality' interchangeably when they aren't interchangeable. While very similar, economic inequality and income inequality are different.

Economic inequality, unlike income inequality, takes into account different individual economic needs. The example Amartya Sen gives in From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality (2004) is that of a person with a disability: they would need a larger share of income in order to function at the same capacity as a person without the disability, so to be economically equal they would require more income. Income inequality is also rather narrow in that it only applies to numbers and amounts; it doesn’t take into account what the income is worth in the marketplace and how it translates to the cost of living at different economic levels. A rich person has to spend more in order to live decently in a wealthier environment, so what may be more than enough for a poor person may be worth considerably less in a richer environment.

I propose that the name of the article change to "Economic and Income Inequality" to better represent the information on the page and clearly indicate that the concepts, while both discussed on the page, are two separate things. I also intend on providing a new subheader discussing the difference, as well as altering the introduction some to make it clear from the start. Scb3 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that name change. Income inequality should be discussed at Income inequality; the article Economic inequality should discuss it only long enough to distinguish the two (and then, using summary style, link back to Income inequality). CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that is that Income inequality directs right back to Economic inequality. That is the only reason I proposed the change. Scb3 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
If they are substantially different - though related - concepts then perhaps they might deserve separate articles. bobrayner (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I was considering this as well, but that would take a more in-depth combing-through than I feel I'm able to do. Half of the article is talking about income inequality, but the two are so interrelated that I doubt I'll be able to accurately separate and tease apart every instance of misrepresentation. I also can't tell if the articles cited distinguish between economic and income inequality either; if the article cited used the two terms interchangeably, it could be difficult to figure out whether the author actually meant economic or income inequality, which would then make it difficult to decide which subheaders should go under which page. Does this make sense?
I'm all for the division of the two concepts, but I think it would be an undertaking that might require more than one person. Do you think that for now, while this is being worked on, simply including a subheader that clearly defines and distinguishes the terms would suffice until an income inequality page could be properly built up? Scb3 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'd love to help you with a split but I'm already overworked on other bits of wikipedia, sorry :-) I suppose this is the best place to find volunteers...bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic Development Incentives

In the current page on Economic Development there is no section concerning development incentives. The closest is the section on "Economic Developers". This section currently focuses on the organizations that influence and oversee economic development projects. The text specifically makes mention of "variations of economic incentives to the potential business such as; tax incentives, help with investment capital, donated land and many others" while providing no background on how the decision to use these incentives is made, under who's authority those policies are decided and implemented and gives no background details on the nature of these programs. Rather than expand this section or add on another section I believe that it would beneficial to create a new page for the development incentives. This page can even be directly linked from this current section.


The current “Incentive” page deals with the larger theories of incentives and does not focus on how they impact economic development. This new page will deal with the practice and examples of development incentives. It will first be focused on the US and urban areas but with time can b expanded to rural development and practices in other nations. For now the main focus of the page will be its relation to poverty and development in the US, specifically focusing on urban renewal and the incentives used to achieve these goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gherrrera (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Economics sidebar

Recent revisions to the methods section of the Economics sidebar are being discussed. Other opinions are most welcome! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative easing

The page on Quantitative easing is a mess – filled with POV, OR and SYN. I'm going to try to clean it up over the next few days, but expect some resistance, as edit warring is evident in the history. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks LK (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK; will watchlist it, and lend a hand if I have time. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is in a truly sad state. It needs to be organized first. 018 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

God - you are arrogant David J Johnson (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. If you're angry about something in particular, let us know what that is, and maybe we could find a solution. Also, it would be helpful if you indented your comments (using colons at the start of a line) to make the flow of a thread easier to read. bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Types of capital

I made a new navbox, {{Types of capital}}, but I'm not an economist, so I'm sure there's some further organizational improvements to be had. Edit away, or post on the template's talkpage. Thanks. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple (marxism sees capital as a historical not a universal phenomena, and so draws both analytical and historical categories); is it worth differentiating Marx's various conceptions of value in this template as opposed to in a value specific template? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Ghana

Hello. An editor repeatedly removes GDP stats from the infobox at the article Ghana. S/he provided an explanation at this user talk page, however, I know little about calculation GDP, and therefore I ask here. Could someone help correct the data, please? Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I think it looks like a "normal" content dispute (and slight civility problem), not yet a thorny economic puzzle :-)
I restored the latest sourced GDP estimate and have watchlisted it. Ideally, either the culprit will go away, or they'll respond on the talkpage instead of just hammering "revert". bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Money multiplier and the money creation process

User:Javalizard seems to have rather strange idiosyncratic ideas about how the money multiplier and the money creation process works. (e.g. he believes that a $100 cash deposit when the reserve ratio is 20%, can create $419430400 of new commercial bank money [6]). I've been involved in a slow edit war with him over it. Could people keep an eye on these articles for a while, as I'm not on regularly anymore? Sorry to continually come to this board with my troubles. Unfortunately recent work at the university has been keeping me busy, and I haven't been on as much as I wish. Thanks to all, LK (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What the...??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be an editwar brewing. bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
In terms of the actual content what I think he is saying is that the entire amount injected into the system gets recirculated at each step - i.e. a multiplier of infinity - so that at the "kth step" (which for some reason he picked k=10) from the initial injection of 100$ and a rrr of .25 you'd get an increase in money of 100*(1/.25)^10 which is how he gets the 419430400 number.
This appears to be a pretty basic misunderstanding of how the multiplier is supposed to function (at each step only a portion (1-rrr) is loaned out while rest is kept as reserves - of course logically it also makes no sense to say that the "multiplier" is (1/rrr) but then insist on the full amount being loaned out)). Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliometrics

I propose to rename New economic history to Cliometrics. Cliometrics is the standard term among practitioners. New economic history is not much used and is anachronistic, as it dates from the 1960s or 1970s. Another editor renamed the article the other way a while back, so I did ask that editor and received no reply/objection. If objections or comments please note so here or at Talk:New_economic_history.-- Econterms (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I got "bold" and just did it. It seems like a no brainer to me. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Globalization

Members of this project may be interested in participating in this discussion about recent changes to the globalization article. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

AEA 2011 Meeting

Any wikipedians going to Denver for this meeting? If more than 1 are going (excluding me) it might be fun to organize a meetup! Ping my talk page or shoot me an email (or just post here) if this holds any interest for you. Protonk (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It took a while...

...but I am done with tagging all articles in the Category:Economies by country as part of this WikiProject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Great job then, man. BigK HeX (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations Piotrus! --Forich (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Full reserve banking

Significant changes are occurring on the Full reserve banking article, and opinions would be appreciated -- especially on the matter of time deposits. Thanks, all. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma

Often used in mathematical economics, the Shapley–Folkman lemma concerns the approximate convexity of Minkowski sums of non-convex sets.

The article has received a substantial (Wikipedia) peer-review. The additional suggestions (including article assessment) of (mathematical) economists would be especially helpful now.

Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good article

The article was recently given Good-Article status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Review for A-class?

Would this project review the article for A-class standing? (Since the good-article review, the optimization and economics "application" sections have been substantially revised, to make them more understandable to Wikipedia readers.)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Annual average GDP growth to List of countries by average GDP growth (nominal)

I came upon the article Annual average GDP growth while doing new page patrol. To my non-economist view it appears to be more or less a subset of the data on List of countries by average GDP growth (nominal), so I've proposed a merge. Neither article looks well travelled though, and my knowledge of the subject is essentially zero, so I'd appreciate views from this project and perhaps some assistance doing the merge if carried. Also, the destination article has been tagged for multiple improvements since last summer, so could probably use an expert eye. Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, that's an interesting one; thanks for pointing it out. I agree in principle with your proposed merge, but List of countries by average GDP growth (nominal) has big problems of its own.
  1. The addition of a "debt-free GDP growth" column looks somewhat POV/OR to me.
  2. There is no explanation of why 2004 is chosen as a baseline rather than 2008 or 1998 or 1988 or whatever. Unexplained choices like that can often be cherrypicking, to make one particular row in the table look good or bad.
  3. "Billions of dollars" betrays a faint hint of USA-centrism at the time of writing - somebody comparing many different economies ought to be aware that "dollar" can have several different values.
  4. No reason is given for the omission of many countries (which are included in the original sources). The creator even deleted Ireland from the table in a later version.
  5. Dipping into the details, I note that both of the 2009 GDP figures for the first two countries in the table (Algeria & Argentina) differ from the figures in the supposed source, and Algeria's 2004 GDP doesn't correspond to the supposed 2005 source either - there's a few percent difference. That's just scratching the surface - presumably there are a lot more discrepancies, although the gaps I found are small so maybe it's a currency-conversion / deflator issue rather than PPP adjustment or sheer fiction.
I think it should either be rewritten from scratch (perhaps using a source which quantifies growth rates rather than leaning so heavily on WP:CALC) or simply redirected to some other, properly maintained, table of GDPs. Annual average GDP growth is woefully incomplete but at least it actually has a source which enumerates growth rates for a few countries. bobrayner (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical economics: Shapley-Folkman, Chichilnisky, & Mas-Colell

This week User:David Eppstein created articles on the mathematical economists Andreu Mas-Colell and Graciela Chichilnisky (yesterday).

Chichilnisky iher work on international trade, development, and environmental economics has received international attention; she is known for her development of continuous social choice theory. Further, she has received national attention in the USA because of a (now settled) sex-discrimination law-suit.

Also, another economics article started by David, the Shapley-Folkman lemma, received "Good Article" status today, thanks to the reviewing of User:Jakob.scholbach, who guided the needed revisions. Further editing, especially copy-editing, would be appreciated.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Shapley-Folkman lemma article is impressive. Good job there.--Forich (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! The earlier version had some economics howlers! "The road to wisdom, well it's plain: to err, to err, to err, but less and less and less."
Please consider making comments, especially complaints, on the article's review page: It's getting a peer-review, now.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Assesment Table outdated

This User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS table is outdated. Why?--Forich (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

New Palgrave

The present New Palgrave doesn't include some great articles that appeared in the first edition, notably the articles by Peter Newman on convexity in economics & duality and by Andreu Mas-Colell on non-convexity (economics):

  • Mas-Colell, A. (1987). "Non-convexity". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (PDF) (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 653–661. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.3173. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |newedition= ignored (help)
  • Newman, Peter (1987c). "Convexity". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.2282. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |newedition= ignored (help)
  • Newman, Peter (1987d). "Duality". In Eatwell, John; Milgate, Murray; Newman, Peter (eds.). The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.2412. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |newedition= ignored (help)

Can such articles be donated to Wikipedia?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

wow, the non-convexity entry written by Mas-Collel is absolutely brilliant. That's what I call great synthesis! --Forich (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
By themselves, Mas-Colell's graphics are worth a library's subscription to the (old) New Palgrave!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate some thoughts on the Chain store "paradox" discussion

Hi,

I ran into an interesting "paradox" article on Wikipedia called the "chainstore paradox". In my opinion, the explanation given for resolving the paradox, which uses a theory that is somewhat of an alternate to game theory, does not satisfy me. I believe this can be solved by game theory application. I have looked online and have seen several books written about this paradox but I see a very simple explanation: the actual game theory matrix for multiple games is just not presented in the article. Any takers on this?

Here's the discussion page: Talk:Chainstore_paradox

Thanks!

PS: Should this article be "moved" to "chain store paradox" instead? --Agamemnus (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no feelings about the name of the article, but the argument presented in the article is very weak, as you suggest. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I modified the article by adding a resolution to the apparent paradox. Care to take a look? I don't consider it to be original research as it simply explains the logical inconsistency in the description of the chain store game.--Agamemnus (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello-sorry I didn't comment before you went to all that trouble. I pulled out what you did, and tried to explain why on the article's talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 10:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Binary economics

I think more eyes may be needed over at Binary economics. It appears to be... well... we see heterodox economics articles from time to time which have a resident POV editor and a whole bunch of soapboxing & synthesis, and I think this article is a good example. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

prominent supply/demand graph

The supply and demand curves featured on the project page seem to be mostly inverted from the normal representations. Please see: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File_talk:Economic-surpluses.svg#logically_flawed The correct curve structure: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Supply-and-demand.svg If other economics-minded people here agree that it should be changed, I can invert the curves and update the graph.--Agamemnus (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request for "History of macroeconomic thought"

I have listed History of macroeconomic thought for peer review: here. Please let me know what you think of the article and what changes should be made.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hotelling's lemma

Forgive me if this not the appropriate place but I could find any other topic that discusses this precise entry.

From the outset, let me state that I know nothing about this subject - but I do know a bit about mathematics. The nomenclature used in the article is not correct. The symbol used in the article to denote the derivative is normally used for a multivariate function and is known as a [derivative]. For a univariate function, the correct symbol can be found in http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Derivative .

On a different note, the article would be more useful to people like me if there was a link that describes what a net supply and profit functions are.

Kmg952 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Oops, the links originally posted were incorrect

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Use "|isbn=0123456789, ISBN 1234567890123|" for multiple ISBNS.
There is an example on yesterday(in Europe, but today in American)'s Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page.
This facility is used in the reference to the book by Molchanov in the Shapley–Folkman lemma.
* Molchanov (2005, pp. 195–198, 218, 232, 237–238 and 407): Molchanov, Ilya (2005). "3 Minkowski addition". Theory of random sets. Probability and its applications. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. pp. 194–240. doi:10.1007/1-84628-150-4. ISBN 978-185223-892-3, ISBN&nbsp;1-85233-892-X. MR 2132405. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |address= ignored (|location= suggested) (help)
Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class review request: Karl Marx

I've finished major work on this article. Before a WP:GA nomination, I'd like to invite interested projects to do a B-class review. Please post any reviews on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate any assistance with prose copy-editing (I am not a native speaker of English). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find much wrong with the language - your English is very good! I'll do a few little copyedits & tweaks before reviewing... bobrayner (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax

A well-meaning user, Paul Hield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been adding unhelpful and/or wrong material to Tax. He seems to have valid concerns, though I can't fully understand him and unfortunately have been forced (alongside a number of other editors) to revert his edits.

Eyes on the article would be appreciated. There's extensive discussion on the Talk page for those interested. If someone can understand what the user wants and how to placate him, that would be excellent.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The price of money

Could you good people create a basic introductory article on the concept of the price of money? To a layperson in economics this sounds silly ("What does a dollar cost, and how much does an ounce of gold weigh?"), but to economists it apparently means something non-trivial, and the term is used without explanation in several other articles.  --Lambiam 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To a first approximation, Interest rate and Opportunity cost. An article might be nice, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article might be more likely to cause confusion (and possibly ideological debate). It would be better to search for 'price of money' on Wikipedia, and replace it, wherever it appears, by a more precise term (which will vary with context since it's used in a variety of ways). Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a dab page, then? CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Robbins is Austrian?

I've just noticed that Lionel Robbins, Baron Robbins, formerly of the LSE, is labeled as Austrian school on his page. Although he has similar politics, afaik, outside Wikipedia, he is not usually considered part of the Austrian school. Thoughts anyone? LK (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. Something like "sometimes associated with the Austrian school", properly sourced, would be the proper way to do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This issue comes up perennially every once in awhile, not just with regard to LaRouche. Basically, more or less, economists as a whole tend not to believe in any kind of 'certification' process so unlike doctors or lawyers there's no clear dividing line (bad unions! bad!). I'm surprised though that there are reliable sources that call him an economist. I'll take a look, but I'm guessing these are not academic sources - and that may be the relevant standard here. I think in the past, with regard to similar situations, we've used "economic commentator" or something like that, IIRC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


SlimVirgin started this thread here (and at at least three other locations) without advising editors on the LaRouche talk page of her actions. The effect has been one of WP:CANVASSING, because what she posted above, although she tried to word it neutrally, is factually incorrect. LaRouche has been independently published as an economist.

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts). The book is based on a course he taught, and it was reviewed [7][8] in the American Economic Review published by the American Economic Association. The review begins,

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [9][10]

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

According to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly damning) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you are reviewed in the AER, and end up influencing multiple governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book. --JN466 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee, this is turning into a multi-page discussion.
Is everyone who ever had a book (written under a pseudonym) reviewed in AER an economist? We don't know what they said about the book beyond that its analysis is "unprecedented". That could be a polite term for "really weird".
LaRouche has visited many world leaders but in some cases it was due to ignorance rather than knowledge as he billed himself as a Democratic presidential candidate and they didn't realize how little credibility he had within the party. None of the Latin American leaders took his primary advice of renouncing their sovereign debt. It's not clear to me exactly what other advice they may have taken.
King says that LaRouche became regarded as an economist in Latin America, but he also qualifies that characterization and does not in any way say that LaRouche is actually an economist. Not only does LaRouche have little or no formal training in the field of economics, he didn't even graduate from college. How many college dropouts from the mid-to-late 20th century do we call economists?
We already acknowledge that LaRouche has written on economics and many other topics. He writes about history, and physics, and politics, and culture and numerous other topics. While we should (and do) include that information in the article, we don't necessarily need to say that he is an "economist".   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See the discussion on User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#LaRouche.2C_LaRouche.2C_LaRouche_is_on_fire, please. The JSTOR hits are all to non-economics books, on politics, etc. I am beginning to get a bad feeling about such attempts to call LaRouche an economist.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The original note here about the discussion on the LaRouche talk page is not improper cancassing. It is entirely acceptable to inform a Wikiproject about an issue that they have expertise on and interest in. However, any further discussion here would be inappropriate. Could we please keep all discussion of this issue on the LaRouche talk page please. LK (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Canegrati

There seems to be a semi-walled garden of articles by or about Emanuele Canegrati, but I do not have sufficient expertise to judge the appropriateness of the articles. On one hand, the articles are of questionable notability and their author, User:Zauberit, seems to have COI; on the other hand, the articles are well-written and reasonably referenced (though I can't tell which, if any, of the references are peer-reviewed). The articles do make somewhat grandiose claims (e.g., "probabilistic voting theory... has gradually replaced the median voter theory"); the claim I gave as an example is not reflective of modern voting theory, but I'm not familiar enough with the fields of the other articles to say if the claims there are plausible.

Would someone check these?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are there are 4 works cited in Canegrati's formulae. The two works cited that are not written by Canegrati pre-date 'Canegrati's formulae', and so cannot establish it's notability. The two papers by Canegrati are MPRA papers, which are working papers uploaded to the Munich Personal RePEc Archive, and hence are not RS. I've nominated it for deletion here. The other two articles appear to be about notable topics, although they are so poorly sourced, it's hard to tell. LK (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Per my comment at the AFD The Canegrati's formulae one appears to be non notable (based on unpublished wps). "Probabilistic voting theory" - which should be moved to "Probabilistic voting model" - is a pretty crappy POV article, whose current aim also appears to be to hype Canegrati's formulae, however, it is a notable approach in political economics. Furthermore I think it does get the central fact right - pvt overcomes the possibility of no equilibria that can be presented in the standard Hotelling/Median voter framework in a multidimensional policy space by smoothing some stuff out. AFAIK though, the approach predates Coughlin (1992). Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know off hand about the single-mindedness thing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that probabilistic voting is an interesting and notable topic that has reliable coverage at least in primary sources. But it's not clear to me that the article Probabilistic voting theory is better than an empty article toward that end. (Please interpret this last statement literally.) What is your view? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, personally I would agree with that. In fact I've said before that there's a whole slew of economics articles that we'd be better off just deleting and starting from scratch. That's probably not a universal sentiment though and I'm sure we'd run up against some Wikipedia policies (articles don't get deleted when they're crap - even if they should - only if they're on non-notable topics. Even BLPs). Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
+1 bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Me too. BTW, from google searching, single-mindedness theory appears to be a Canegrati invention, and should probably be deleted as well. LK (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed Single-mindedness theory for deletion. The AfD discussion is here.[11] LK (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

Credo has donated 400 user accounts for its online reference service to Wikimedia. The accounts include access to a number of economics source including Wiley's Dictionary of Economics, Collins Dictionary of Economics, Snowdon and Vane's An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics, and The Penguin Dictionary of Economics. Of the listed items, I've only used the An Encyclopedia of Macroeconomics before, but it's a great source. There are 5 requirements for getting an account: No other free access to Credo, an email address enabled in your preferences, you have been continuously active over the past 12 months, you have at least 3,000 non-minor edits, and you are active in content creation like creating featured or good articles or being active in WikiProjects such as this one. There are still 250 accounts available at this time.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal income not part of economy?

Small problem down in the bowels of Wikipedia where us grunts are working!  :)

The US census (don't tune out, some of yours may do this too!) records personal income in various forms. Back in the old days, with no better place to put it, the bot merely dropped this information, along with the rest of census information, into "Demographics" in place articles. This made sense then.

As articles matured, we began moving "personal income" into "Economy", recognizing it as a key piece of information for that subsection. Recently, a Wikipedia GA Reviewer said that he didn't like that, and to move it for the article San Diego. I have questioned him on his talk page, but received no answer. I don't know how receptive he is to new ideas, but I would appreciate advice from knowledgeable editors on this matter. Once this gets frozen into concrete with FA articles, it gets impossible to change. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the mass-produced American place stubs articles are irritating - they'd have a paragraph of very dry income statistics plus a sentence about the town's location, and that's it. Still, if it's a starting-point for other people can use to build an encyclopædic article...
I feel that having strict sections applied to all cities is unhelpful. Obviously, over thousands of articles, we build up experience of what fits best in which section, but it's unhelpful for that experience to be set in stone - what matters more is that each new article is a nice readable encyclopædia article for the vast majority of viewers who have no knowledge of wikipedia's internal conventions. I'd be happy to see the personal income stats under either "demographics" or "economy" depending on how the article is written and how the stats relate to the existing prose in either of those two sections (assuming at least one of those sections exists, which might not be compulsory).
Structural conventions are fine, but they should not overrule content - good content should come first. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Labor Force

I propose to improve the Wikipedia page titled Labor Force. At the moment it does not present a global prespective, and to a great extent, it does not mention where women stand in the labor force. I want to discuss the overall topic of who is in the labor force and who is not. When considering arigultural versus non-agricultural work, informal and formal labor, paid and unpaid labor, there any many loop holes in which workers in other countries, specifically women, are misrepresented. Currently, there are many discussions about whether these various forms of labor should be included in the labor force, and if so, if the definition of the labor force should be changed into a definition that encompasses a greater majority of the world's workers. I think the presentation of these arguments (in a non-biased way) is important to remind people where women and workers outside the United States stand. Any comments or suggestions? MariaNunez (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, sounds great. Selma James and the Italians on housework of course. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I got several sources on the topic though mostly from a strictly economic or historical perspective. I can also make some graphs for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You might also want to look at Women in the workforce although that is also not a particularly good article and also over-focused on US and developed countries (and gets some of the history wrong).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think that even simplistic definition of the second sentence of Labour force is flawed - that may well be a definition used by one well-known organisation, but even in that case, the boundaries have often been blurred in other societies. If there are any historic sources which aren't on Volunteer Marek's bulging bookshelf, I probably have a copy instead, so just ask if you need a specific source...
The ILO has some relatively neutral definitions, docs, & stats, I believe. Individual countries often have a certain amount of political pressure to reduce "unemployment", and since job creation is not easily done by direct intervention, sometimes politicians might directly intervene in the paperwork instead, adjusting the definition of unemployment. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Household Bargaining

I am creating an entry on “Household Bargaining,” which will specifically explore the subject of gender relations in intra-household bargaining and decision-making. Wikipedia currently has articles on Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power but these articles only address bargaining in terms of the economic, labor and/or global market, and they fail to acknowledge the role bargaining plays within a household. Due to the market focus of these articles, an examination of traditional gender inequalities of intra-household bargaining is not evident in any Wikipedia entry I have come across. Additionally, the Family Economics Wikipedia entry is rather lacking in substance and does not address this subject at all.

The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining[12], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.

I wanted to consult with the members of the Economics WikiProject before creating this entry, because I have a few questions about the subject. I was planning on making an entirely new entry instead of including it in the Bargaining and Inequality of Bargaining Power pages because they seem to be rather market-oriented, while this subject falls slightly outside of the arena of traditional economics, but does anyone think I should do otherwise? Does anyone have thoughts on this subject or suggestions for related sources? Mfandersen (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good edit and a great area for encyclopaedia expansion. My suggestion would be to chase Agarwal's scholarly footnotes, and to chase Argarwal's academic biography to check for conferences or journals in the area. Sorry I can't be more helpful, but it is good expansion work. As you read sources, you may find items worth including in more labour / market oriented bargaining pages. As far as I am aware, the domestic relationship is a current research area of interest for Organisational Studies, more varied Human Resources Management academics (from sitting in some department seminars). My recollection is that the work has been primarily discourse theory and qualitatively oriented here. Historians of gender and domesticity may also have something to contribute broadly. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds good. Besides looking at Agarwal's footnotes as suggested, a Google scholar search turns up some good-looking stuff. My only piece of advice would be to not let comprehensiveness block you-there's going to be a lot to write about this, and from different perspectives, so don't wait until you feel it's complete before putting it up. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also agree that creating an entirely new article on Intra-household bargaining (or a similar title) would be the best way to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Glass Ceiling

On the Wikipedia page for the Glass ceiling, I found an issue that there is no mention of any differences in the pay for women versus men. I find that formal and informal sector of work have been left out completely in this page. The different work sectors seem important to me because I feel like a major reason that women are discriminated against in their workplaces is the burden of raising a child is mainly put on a women, among other things. Motherhood is something that keeps women away from work for a certain period of time in which they have to care for their child, and when they return they may be too soft to follow through with their job. This pay gap based on gender has become a major issue of the glass ceiling. Any suggestions or comments to help me? Clwilson91 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This google scholar search appears to have some articles of interest. There are transnational and comparative studies, as well as non-first world studies in the search, so your improvements could be world-wide in focus instead of being single society specific. I'm not sure how much this contributes to the theoretical conception of a "glass ceiling" though. Searching on "glass ceiling" may produce more specific results. One problem with your interest is that Motherhood and Domesticity have generally been monopolised as areas of research by blue collar manual working class interested economists, for obvious reasons; whereas the concept of a "glass ceiling" is related to the white collar and professional areas of life. As I noted above in relation to Household Bargaining, this is a live issue at the moment in HRM and Organisational Studies. I am aware of some preliminary research I observed coming forward at the University of Sydney in Work and Organisational studies. Perhaps searching the publication biographies of the Organisational Studies / HRM staff at WOS at USYD may assist. From what I recall family life cycle in professionals was connected to failure to progress beyond a certain level. I'm also aware as a Trade Unionist that academic trade unions have made strident claims about life cycle and child bearing in the context of advancement of academic professionals. Your best bet here is to interrogate the journals of academic trade unions and feminist scholarly journals in sociology. I'm aware that the Australian NTEU makes Vestes/AUR available online with title searching. AUR is available here online for free and is a peer reviewed scholarly journal. (Though from brief title searching the interest appears to be student mothers, not academic worker mothers). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Glass ceiling article does have a good bit on the gender gap and there's also a separate article on the Income gender gap. Both articles are pretty sloppy thought. Also, although the latter article has a table with the wage gap in manufacturing it is pretty US-centric. I think you need to be a little more specific about what exactly you want to write about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New Page: Work Intensity

I am proposing to create an entirely new page on “work intensity.” This new article will primarily focus on developing nations, and it is important to note the nature of said circumstances largely affect women. Work intensity falls into the realm of economics for a variety or reasons. A large component to work intensity is multitasking, both at home and on the job. Quantifying multitasking, such as care work, has become a source of much debate between philosophers and economists alike. Measuring work intensity and multitasking will forever change the field of macroeconomics, and it is important to show Wikipedia users the significance of the issues plaguing work intensity. In addition, the newly formed work intensity page will cover topics such as time poverty and policy options, which have strong economic ties. Not only will the article discuss potential ways to measure work intensity, multitasking, and time poverty, it will also discuss similar measures such as the GDI and the GEM. The article will draw from many works published by the journal, Feminist Economics, further demonstrating its economic ties. Currently, no page exists to tie in the interconnectedness of gender, development, and time use. I feel that the creation of the page will further educate people and give the subject the attention it deserves. Abolivar3 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is poorly served in terms of work intensity and pace. "Sweated labour" currently redirects to the sweatshop article. Speedup makes no mention of managerial labour tactics. The series around Time and motion and Taylor are concerned primarily with detailing uncritically the thesis and its applications.
One limitation with presenting the feminist analysis of work intensity is that the encyclopaedia article "work intensity" would be misshapen as a result. You would have to put stub headings in for Marxist analysis of work intensity, Labour Process theory, working class contest of speed ups, speed ups, Taylorism, the length of the working day. Additionally, the article would probably lack the historical analyses present, in for example, EP Thompson's essay on time. I'd encourage you to go ahead with presenting an encyclopaedia article on gendered theories of labour intensity, but remember to put appropriate headings and "one liner" explanations of other perspectives if you think the article should sit at "work intensity". Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Remember the policy about original research---which is that OR should go elsewhere. Your sketch sounds like a plan for an interesting project for a course, but such projects are rarely suitable bases for articles, alas.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as adequate reliable sources exist (to show that the topic itself is notable, and so that all positions and arguments can be properly cited), I see no problems with such a 'project' – it is what one does when writing an article. LK (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Both Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Lawrencekhoo are correct. The article does need to be based out of the literature on the article title itself, rather than being synthetic. Seek seminal and magisterial analyses of the topic to structure the article. Review Articles, as systematic reviews of literature on a topic usually found in journals, are a key to the process. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I shudder to think that this classroom is going to relive the sectarianism of the 1960s and 1970s, with so many dissertations on the labor theory of value and housework: Ask anybody who experienced a study group on the Grundisse whether that was a worthwhile experience, or whether they would have been better off jogging or organizing: You can volunteer to help at a women's shelter or set up voter-registration tables or help organize protests against the anti-union laws being pushed in the USA. Please use your brains and read Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, and Jean Drèze and some hotshots from the Cato Institute and just ignore not the totalitarian dullards of Monthly Review: Paraphrasing Harry Braverman really is not worth anybody's time. In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 05:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics classes and expanding gendered economic articles on Wikipedia

It would be nice if the course coordinator or lecturer who has encouraged their class to expand the articles on Economics on wikipedia would drop by and say hi. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I don't think the articles could get any worse.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it will make the articles better, and I'm very impressed that new editors began by "sounding" their contributions with the relevant encyclopaedic community. It shows great collaborative potential on the part of the new editors, and its nice to see where people want to expand the project. When a University project encourages new editors to collaborate with the existing community as their first point of contact, it is a tremendous sign regarding the quality of work. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
A friendly reminder: Editors new and old should remember the neutral point of view and encyclopedic-tone policies of Wikipedia. This reminder would apply to students enrolled in a feminist economics course taught by a member of URPE as well as me. Thanks! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 07:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's an area where wikipedia is weak, so I'm really glad to see people joining the community and trying to write good articles. I'd echo the previous points about sourcing and NPOV, but if anybody else on the course has any queries, just drop in here; other wikipedians welcome improvements, and we won't bite, but there are some rules that have to be followed in the course of building an encyclopædia. With a bit of luck, maybe a few talented contributors will stick around after the end of their course? bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Cash Transfer page needs changes

While looking at the Conditional Cash Transfer page, I noticed that many of the facts were very out-dated. Most of the specific programs mentioned were cited as still functioning, even though-- especially after the 2008 financial crisis-- they had to be terminated. One of these in particular that was a critical model for CCT's but that is only briefly listed in the article was Nicaragua's Social Protection Web. I believe that in order for people to gain an understanding of CCT's, the specific programs and their downfalls, particularly Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, should be updated and elaborated on. With a section elaborating on some of the more critical programs, as well as what mistakes in design or implementation caused them to be terminated, the CCT model can be more fully understood and improved upon. If anyone could suggest where I could find some unbiased information regarding these programs, specifically Nicaragua's Social Protection Web, I would greatly appreciate it! Loretteb (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that in order to best study the success and feasibility of programs such as CCTs, we need to update information on the status of programs so readers can make comparisons on the best CCT approaches. The most interesting part is that CCTs are being implemented by a broad range of countries, from developing, like Nicaragua, to some of the most developed, like Opportunity NYC in the United States. I feel I could add a section on CCT programs in Africa to describe some of the programs in countries like Malawi, Zambia, and Egypt. Is anyone interested in adding this section and helping me develop it? What list of countries could present good examples of CCTs?
Also Loretteb, check out this UNDP paper on Nicaragua’s program. It’s got some great analysis of the program. Its titled "NICARAGUA'S RED DE PROTECCIÓN SOCIAL: AN EXEMPLARY BUT SHORT-LIVED. CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMME." The UNDP has a few other interesting papers on other countries as well. Sbh2 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Projected jobs, contributions to economy

One statistic that I have managed to keep out of place articles is the projection of how many jobs a particular business creates (for anyone new to economics, this is NOT how many the business employes or intends to employ) and how much "product" in cash, it generates in the community (again, indirectly, not their payroll nor accounting). Normally, if you add these up for anybody, they way outstrip the local product and the number of adults in the area. Great for chamber of commerce pitches. Seems lousy for reporting in "fact" articles. Student7 (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund regulation

For anybody who may come across this, I have written a draft section for the Hedge fund page about regulations in the U.S. and abroad (that version here), with the aim of bringing the current section (the current one here) up to present day. Right now it's definitely out of date, in fact it doesn't even mention the Dodd-Frank rules going into effect. Because my day job involves me in the financial industry, I'd like to get someone else's view of it, before I consider moving it myself. And since the hedge fund article falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I figured I would ask here (as I will ask at others) in case anyone has thoughts to share on the subject. Please respond to my post on the Hedge fund Talk page, if you like. Thank you. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Economic history of Christianity

I'm working on a draft of an article on the economic history of Christianity (here). I would appreciate feedback on the article. I'm trying to figure out how to organize it (i.e. chronologically or by topic). Also, another user (User:Savidan) has suggested that Economic issues in Christian theology might be a more appropriate topic. He wrote " It does seem that by organizing it by topic, you are really talking about theology as it affects economic issues. " I'd like to hear more opinions before changing the title. Thanx. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just read through it. I think it fits in better in the 'Christian views on ...' series of articles e.g. Christian views on magic, rather than a 'Economic history of ...' article. An economic history article is usually about the economic condition and situation of a people, region or country during a certain period. It is not about views held by a group about certain economic activities. LK (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think LK has made a good point here. "Christianity" is not really a coherent body (though there's probably some scope to write good articles on "Economic history of Church X" &c). bobrayner (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the draft, I think it's very good, but I think it mostly approaches the subject from one angle - a top-down one of how theology has affected the principles of economic life for people in history (regulation, if you will). Would it be possible to add some different perspectives, either in this article or in a related one?
  • Maybe look at the church's direct day-to-day role in commerce; for instance, churches have acted as storehouses for merchants, places to meet and draw up contracts, &c. Churches have sometimes held very substantial assets and may have played a more or less christian role as a landlord to peasant farms or thousands of slum houses &c. In some cases, some of our best records of commerce (and regional transport of goods) are actually a monastery's records of which markets they went to (on which dates) to buy various provisions for the year... in terms of sourcing, you don't even have to go looking for sources about christianity per se; just grab a few sources that cover commerce in premodern Europe (don't forget Braudel!) and the church will surely play a prominent role in each.
  • Why not mention the sale of indulgences to fund church building programs, or the role of church income from wills & bequests?
  • What about the trade in holy relics?
  • The section on colonialism again seems to be about principles - didn't christianity play a key role in specific colonial economic events? Some mission stations became trade hubs; some priests were complicit in abuses of encomienda or reductions whilst others voiced opposition on theological terms, and so on.
  • Don't forget that there have been economically-interesting cases of christian communities living in predominantly nonchristian areas, and vice versa. Surely there are some interesting economic constraints placed on jews in medieval Europe, for instance (and, famously, opportunities; if jews were allowed to practice usury whilst the christian masses around them weren't...). I'm currently writing some Ottoman economic stuff, and in that case there are taxes which would apply to christians but not muslims (and one ruler made courts treat christians leniently to discourage mass conversions which would have undermined his tax base); there are cases of priests "buying" a church position from the muslim authorities and then recouping their investment through tithes, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. Bobrayner, in particular, has given me a lot to chew on. It may take a while but I will try to incorporate these various suggestions. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There's probably more than one good article out there waiting to be written. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - there's one other point I should have expanded earlier - it doesn't really fit into your draft, but it's not very well covered in existing articles. Christian holy relics have, historically, attracted prestige, patrons, and pilgrims (and hence wealth), which not only made them a valuable traded good, but also encouraged counterfeiting (and arguably inflation). Calvin famously observed that there were enough parts of the true cross to fill a ship; although only one of John the Baptist's fingers was supposed to have survived his burning, four instances of this finger were revered in French churches alone, plus another in Florence. Some saints were even capable of bilocation, with entire bodies being preserved in multiple locations; Toulouse was the last resting place of six apostles, of whom all six left additional bodies in other cities. All this was surrounded by a lot of very mundane political & economic activity and there's a fairly large pile of primary and secondary sources...
Since different strands of christianity will, historically, have been working in different economies; that might be a good place to draw a dividing line between articles? bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Template: Ideologies

Would a large majority of economists support the removal of "economic ideologies" from the template? (This content has a lot to do with political ideologies and other ideologies, but little to do with the mainstream economics profession.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Hell, I'm just gonna do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice to find some agreement! :) I am glad that you noted that such ideologies could be collected in a political-economy ideologies template, for example. They just don't deserve a place on the sidebar.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Noam Chomsky would have our heads if he knew that you were doing this, but I suppose it is OK, since I think it's true that economics doesn't seem to really study ideologies so much. Economists would say these involve value biases. Critics would say economists just ignore their own implicit value biases. More study in this area is certainly within the scope of economics, and will no doubt become more relevant as we see economies continue to not be able to fully employ their able-bodied citizens. II | (t - c) 06:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Make a navbox on ideologies that complies with WP policies. Just don't put it on the economics sidebar, okay?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Complexity economics

WP's "Complexity economics" and other soft intellectual trash, on the enfeeblement of economics articles by

There is an increasing amount of crap on this project's articles, pushed by POV cultists of heterodox economics. This project tried to deal with the enthusiasms of the Austrian economics cultists before, and I wish you luck dealing with articles like Complexity economics. It is like nursing articles being hijacked by fans of Jean Watson. Perhaps this article has problems complying with NPOV and RELIABLE policies?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) (updated to be sugar and spice and everything nice ... 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

yep, it doesn't smell good. The reference to the Santa Fe Institute has been verified? It seems like a strong source to me, how does it connect to the complexity stuff?.--Forich (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The Santa Fe Institute has certainly done influential work in economics, and some first-rate economists have been associated with it, like W. Brian Arthur (Stanford), Steven N. Durlauf (Wisconsin), Scott E. Page (Michigan), Blake LeBaron(Brandeis) just to mention some that come to mind. And for some years they ran a summer school on computational economics for grad students in top PhD programs (not sure if they still do). Nonetheless, the viewpoint they represent certainly remains 'heterodox', so it should not get undue weight in most economics articles. But for an article on 'complexity economics', they are more or less the gold standard. Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor rightly reminded me that I should strive to speak the truth in a more seasonable manner. Sorry about being opinionated, before.
Arthur and others have written about path-dependence, etc., making interesting observations about past events. I am not concerned about Arthur, but about articles written with evangelical zeal that fall short reflecting the most reliable sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Err, yeah. I recommend that you slow down and do more background reading. Pretend that you are in a scholarly, professional environment and act accordingly. Complexity economics might be "heterodox" - but it's not really "soft" and it's certainly not fringe (see, e.g. Arthur's 1998 article in Science). Really, with the computing power now available, computational simulations of economic activity are just an obvious next step. II | (t - c) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote, where I cited Arthur with approval. The concern is the article's horrible quality, and similar horrible passages in e.g. Economics. Published complexity research is not soft intellectual trash, but the WP article and related rants are.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I just flagged two claims in the lead paragraph of complexity economics as original research. For example, saying that "a new paradigm is emerging" is a very strong claim which many economists would dispute. If someone believes that, it would be better to quote that person, instead of reporting their opinion as if it were a fact.Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hysterical giddiness over Arthur or over "chaos, complexity, catastrophe, and another c-word (but not that c-word!)" may reflect a misunderstanding of economics. I have given up correcting the falsehood that general equilibrium theory yields uniqueness of an equilibrium (sufficient conditions for uniqueness should be known from M.A. economics at the level of Varian), or that equilibria are stable in general. Nobody has thought that equilibria were unique for 60 years, under reasonable hypotheses. If equilibria lack uniqueness or stability, isn't it obvious that some kind of path-dependence occurs? (Balasko has interesting related comments on his GE textbook.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
They're locally stable unique though (more or less), but I think your general point is right. Strangely enough, lack of uniqueness is one aspect that I have seen as a criticism of GE made by heterodox economists (because they really like the Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem) - but when the "complexity" is part and parcel of a their own model all of sudden it becomes a feature, not a bug ;).17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If y'all don't mind, I would suggest saying that complexity economics 'questions the usefulness of regarding the economy as a system in equilibrium'. The way Kiefer wrote it suggests that 'economic equilibria' are the object of study of complexity economics, and that they simply emphasize nonuniqueness or instability. But I think a more accurate (if perhaps vague) way of describing their viewpoint is simply that the reject the notion of equilibrium as a relevant framework for economic analysis. Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a fair comment, although one supposes that they regard equilibria of supply and demand as useful for some applications and not for others---unless they want to burn Princples textbooks?!!!
You made a number of constructive edits, for which my thanks are due. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Scope of article

The article seems to reflect reliable content and strives to have NPOV phrasing. The scope of Complexity & Economics is considerably broader than the topics currently discussed.

  1. As mentioned above, the 'Journal of Complexity made an attempt in the 1980s to include a lot of economists on its editorial board---this attempt may have been abandoned, if my memory is correct.
  2. Leonid Hurwicz led an effort to discuss the complexity of information processing in economics. A student (Xavier de la Casiglia, cited by Geoff Heal in the article on non-convexity) proved that non-convex mechanisms need infinite dimensional message spaces. Related results were discussed by Stanley Reiter and others.
  3. Amarty Sen, Robert Groves, Leyard, Peter Hammond, and others have discussed the information (privacy) issues of economic decisions.
  4. Kantorovich, Dantzig & Phil. Wolfe discussed decentralization procedures in optimization and economics. See Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition.

As a bonus, these are all fascinating topics and worth writing about on WP! (They provide greater substance to the interminible discussions of socialist calculation debates and Hayek, etc.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Should it include information on, e.g., computational hardness in ordinal voting systems, e.g. Kemeny-Young? CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that (Turing-machine style) computational-complexity theory and economics would be a great article. Christos Papadimitriou has had a lot of great articles on complexity and game theory, as has Nimrod Megiddo. Craig Tovey and others proved the NP-hardness of computing the yoke in spatial games. There are also articles on approximating a mixed strategy with a sparse strategy (Althofer, Lipton, Young, and Megiddo, again!), which are related to the (anachronistically imho) hot topic of remote sensing. There are also results in information-complexity theory, following Judin, Nemirovskii, Nesterov, Traub, Wozniakowski (sic.) and others: The results of Hurwitz and hist students are closest to the information-complexity approach (using approximation theory and real-number models of computation). Another important topic is the entry of Stephen Smale to numerical analysis and computability theory via global-analysis economics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think all of these complexity ideas are worthwhile to address, but are also conceptually very distinct, and so shouldn't be agglomerated in a single article. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Another area of complexity economics would be the "mysticism" (Chapter 16 in the 3rd edition of Catastrophe Theory by V. I. Arnold) of catastrophe theory as well as "chaos theory" and "complexity theory" as used at the Santa Fe Institute, physics, and Jurassic Park. I think Barnett and a few others may have mined this vein, also. This may have inspired the material featured in the complexity economics article. Some of this material is related to the work of Benoit Mandelbroit on fractals and heavy-tailed distributions.
Maybe have one article on "Complexity theory (economics)" or "Complexity (economics)", which provides an overview of these various topics, and then specialty articles?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Kiefer for his 'constructive destruction' of the earlier version of complexity economics. There were too many unsourced, imprecise assertions. But I would oppose creating summary articles on big topics like "Complexity theory (economics)" or "Complexity (economics)"... that could be an act of 'destructive construction'. Topics like those deserve Wiki articles only if they are well-established fields of study (heterodox or orthodox, but well-established). If they are well-established fields, then Wikipedians should be able to create articles on them by drawing from authoritative sources (like the Santa Fe Economy as a Complex Evolving System series). If we are unaware of authoritative sources on which to base such a summary, we should wait for someone else to do it. Otherwise we run the risk of summarizing (i.e. inventing) a concept nobody recognizes. Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm inexpert at all these complexities, so I have to speak around my ignorance. My understanding is that "complexity in economics" (like "complexity" in general) has several very distinct meanings. As such, my preferred end state would be a separate article for each of these distinct meanings, and if there's a general page, have it be little more than disambiguation. Throwing computational complexity and chaos theory into one article will be more confusing than enlightening. But that's my preferred end state. If it gets there by developing a big article and later breaking off sections, that doesn't seem optimal for me, but I'm being very wiki-lazy so far be it from me to put up road blocks for productive editors. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletions by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Much of the recent changes have been deleting stuff that's arguably true and can be sourced. We seem to be seeing the effects of ganging up by a number of editors that aren't familiar with the field - note the edit summaries. There's nothing wrong in this context with talk about a new paradigm, emergent behavior, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions, neoclassical economics as having been developed by imitating physics prior to the development of the second law of thermodynamics, and the suggestion that mainstream economics can gain by drawing on information-theoretic ideas of entropy, for example. Although I disagree with some of the details that was in the deleted table, I think it has a point. I'm personally intrigued by the idea that economic theory should pay more attention to constructive mathematics. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

Please source the contentious material to the most reliable sources, per WP policy---please find invited surveys in the Handbook of Economics or in the best journals (AER, Econometrica, JPE, etc.). We are not allowed to add contentious material that is "arguably true and that can be sourced", otherwise we would be over-run by the hoi polloi! The JEL often sponsors interesting discussions of hot topics, often inviting controversy. (Serious discussions of entropy in economics goes back at least to Paul Samuelson and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Can any body try to talk Kiefer Wolfowitz out of deleting sourced and easily sourced (e.g., advocates of complexity economics see it as a new paradigm) material out of mere dislike? Personally, when I come across somebody who writes, "intelligent economists who did not fail their qualifying examinations even at the New School" [13], "I am beginning to wonder whether this page is a trolling hoax" [14], "Complexity economics and other soft intellectual trash" [15], and "Hysterical giddiness over Arthur or over 'chaos, complexity, catastrophe, and another c-word (but not that c-word!)" [16], I'm inclined just to point and laugh. But then, reliable sources (e.g., Frederick Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century) document that mainstream economists are socialized into unlettered bullying. 209.217.195.112 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

I think that there needs to be a lot more sourcing at that article, so I have no particular problem with the removal of what you call "easily-sourced" material -- just source it when you have the time and restore it from the history (it's not like it's gone). Do you have diffs for the removal of sourced material? I'd be happy to review those if you'd like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Removal of sourced material: [17], [18], [19], [20]. 209.217.195.196 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)RLV
Actually, I invited this user to contribute such material to more appropriate articles, such as heterodox economics and mainstream economics, both in my edit summary and in a friendly note on the person's talk page. I also tried to explain the WP policy about the addition-deletion-discussion cycle of editing, in which the editor adding material has a special burden to gain consensus.
Also, please note that other editors have flagged off-topic sociology of economic heterodoxy on the article talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also note that, far from censoring this editor, I took the trouble to attribute properly the quote to Horgan, citing the original sources, and to clarify that Horgan was ridiculing complexity economics as a latest "failed fad". The IP editor mispresented Horgan.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Finally, any comment that mainstream economics relies on linear models is wrong, and shows a serious misunderstanding of even a first course in economics principles, which typically discusses a production possibilities set.
On the contrary, linear models were emphasized by heterodox economists of various Marxist (e.g. neo-Ricardian) affinities. Indeed, the New School and a few decades ago NYU and MIT (urban planning) were places that you could study input-output models and dream of indicative (or hard core) planning ....
What is wrong with replacing the extremely controversial Kuhnian term "paradigm" with NPOV and encyclopdaeic "approach"?
"Unlettered bullying"! I haven't heard anybody use "unlettered" since Michael Harrington died. Maybe the "not unwhite dog" will appear in the next personal attack?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore the silliness and confusion above. I find this [21] amusing, when it comes to the topic of Brian Arthur and Santa Fe. 209.217.195.203 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

If you are interested in "increasing returns", please help with the article on non-convexity (economics).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the four diffs provided. They consist of two different sections. One [22] was sourced but reverted, the other was unsourced and reverted. So content aside I don't see evidence of anything other than a dispute over a single section. Looking into the content I see a section that is sourced, interesting, and extremely heterodox (that is, an unusual analysis of economics; sociologically rather than economically heterodox). I'm curious to see the justification for the addition as well as the removal of the section. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the other three diffs are of deletions of sourced material. The deleted table is introduced with now deleted text (but it is in the diffs). That text states, "The first five categories are Beinhocker's synthesis, the last four are from W. Brian Arther as reprinted in David Colander." References are provided with the now deleted text. (I did not check to see whether the deleted text accurately represented references.) You yourself suggested a modified table on the talk page for the article. Additional deletions of the Davis material, which I think you are misreading, can now be found as [23] and [24]. If you look at Kiefer Wolfowitz's interventions in the last few days, you will find continual emotional non sequiturs, which anybody not used to how mainstream economists are now socialized, would find odd. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

Davis: Complexity econo as mainstream heterodox

The relevant part of the section is this: "Complexity economics is a mainstream heterodox field in economics.". The rest of the section is explaining Davis' meaning of the terms. I've looked through both sources (reading relevant parts and skimming the rest) and I find support for only one of these two claims. In particular, from the 2007 paper (section 3):
Note, however, that two of the new approaches in the mainstream, behavioural and evolutionary economics are also established heterodox approaches and, more recently, heterodox economists have begun to make use of complexity theory.
So Davis suggests that complexity theory is heterodox (in his meaning of the term), but he specifically avoids calling it mainstream (else he would have included it in the previous sentence with behavioral and evolutionary economics). Further, I don't find the claim anywhere in either article. (To check, after my first read I went back and searched both articles for "complexity"; none of the mentions stated or implied the claim.) So setting aside for the moment the explanation of the (admittedly fascinating) Davis terminology, and removing the unsourced claim, the section becomes: "Complexity economics is a heterodox field in economics.". So I've largely changed my mind: when I look at the sources I don't find support for the claim, and when removing that part of the claim and the supporting prose the section becomes little more than Category:Heterodox economics. On the other hand, I imagine there is some sort of article like Sociology of economics where the Davis material would be relevant, and I suggest you add it there! I'm by no means convinced that his analysis is itself mainstream, but it appears in at least three articles in good peer-reviewed journals so it can't be all that far out. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No. The relevant part of the deleted section certainly includes the tabular presentation that complexity economics is not committed to the principles listed for orthodox economics. (Whether Davis' analysis is mainstream seems totally irrelevant to anything.) Furthermore, the first paragraph of the CJE Davis article is, at least in the working version I have access to:
It has recently been argued that mainstream economics is in a process of transformation driven by the emergence of a collection of new research programs over the last two decades all of which make important departures from standard neoclassical economics... These new research programs – including classical game theory, evolutionary game theory, behavioral game theory, evolutionary economics, behavioral economics, experimental economics, neuroeconomics, and agent-based complexity economics ...
This surely groups complexity economics with mainstream heterodox trends. I have no idea why one would think an encyclopedia article on a topic would not describe how that topic fits in with trends in the field. (I know mainstream economists are socialized to have a emotional and frankly ignorant and unscholarly attitude to any mention of sociology, Science and Technology Studies, etc.) Furthermore, Davis' view of trends in the field is hardly unique - you can read Colander, Holt, & Rosser or Gintis saying fairly close to the same thing. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
Your "surely" is OR, and aside from that I don't even draw the same conclusion -- he clearly calls it a new research program, but it's not at all clear he's calling it mainstream.
Do the other sources actually make the claim (on which I have no opinion) that complexity economics is mainstream? I'm not about to read the entire academic output of four economists just to settle a dispute between you and Kiefer.
As for the table: it's not enough that Davis attributes those positions to orthodox economics (and actually I'm not sure that he does -- it seems more that he claims those for *traditional* economic theory): if you want to claim that complexity economics doesn't share those positions you'll need to back those assertions up. (OK: 'complexity economics not X, Y, Z'; not OK: 'orthodox X ... traditional Y ... neoclassical Z' -- the latter requires original research *and* synthesis.)
The former claim, that complexity economics is mainstream, doesn't seem sourceable to me (though feel free to attempt!). As I wrote above, Davis seems to go out of his way to avoid making that claim. The latter should be easy -- but Davis doesn't seem to do it, another source (one actually talking about complexity economics!) would be more appropriate.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
A dispute about the reading of a passage in a source is not Original Research. Davis doesn't even talk about "traditional economic theory". (He talks about traditional heterodox economics, that is, what is labeled in the table as "non-mainstream heterodox economics") So you cannot be correct about your source.
Davis claims the negation of the last three principles in the table are "substantive principles" that "characterize the main concerns of most of traditional economics and constitute critiques of neoclassicism." So I have sourced the claim (mod trivial arithmetic) that these three principles are adhered to by neoclassical economics. Elsewhere, he references others making the claim about modeling.
Section 4 of Davis 2008 is titled "Synchronic and diachronic research programs in recent mainstream economics". He explicitly includes "agent-based complexity economics" (as diachronic). So I have sourced the claim that complexity economics is mainstream.
Further in Section 4, he states, "The new synchronic approaches, then, all maintain fundamental assumptions at odds with neoclassical orthodoxy... the three diachronic forms of explanation - evolutionary game theory, evolutionary economics, and agent-based complexity economics - have even less in common with neoclassicism". So I have sourced Davis' identification of neoclassical economics with orthodoxy and of complexity economics as non-orthodox.
Davis says that "Each of these" "principles operates in the new mainstream approaches taken as a set". He talks about differences of emphasis in their opposition to the principles of mainstream orthodox (i.e. neoclassical) economics. 209.217.195.131 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV
First, Horgan noted and Rosser agreed that the complexity economics haven't come up with anything approaching a theory or discovered any interesting fact by 1999. Now 12 years later, there still doesn't seem to be any claim of accomplishment, or validation of Rosser's speculation that they were on the cusp of the yawning heights---make that, they had just learned how to test their hypotheses: Now, 12 years later, there still is no claim to have learned anything? How is this different than claims of UFO cults or messianic Christianity, that we are living in the final days before the rapture?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
IP: I am emphatically not talking about Davis' traditional heterodox economics but rather what you had called "principles listed for orthodox economics", so you are misreading me there.
I still don't see how your claims about Davis' claims are true, let alone sufficient for WP:V. (Explicitly: it does not seem that he claims complexity economics as mainstream in either paper.) Discussing X in a section labeled Y is quite a stretch, IMO. (If you'd like you can look for yet another uninvolved party to give an opinion... but so far it looks like no one agrees with you on this point.) But let's look at it a different way. Suppose, as is plausible, that complexity economics is mainstream, and further that Davis thinks it is so, and further that he's saying as much in the paper. Why, then, should we use it as a source for the claim? An oblique reference (at best) from one economist speaking for himself does not engender much confidence. Much better would be some standard textbook saying something like 'mainstream economics studies many things, like ..., complexity economics, ...'. Failing that, at least find some source that states it directly, ideally from a mainstream economist outside the field (presumably most people think their own field is mainstream; indeed Davis says as much).
CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are on about. I am aware that you cannot see that in listing principles for orthodox mainstream economics - at least for the last three principles, the table merely lists the negation of principles that Davis says are adhered to by non-orthodox, that is, heterodox economics. (He further breaks down heterodox economists into "traditional heterodox" and "mainstream heterodox" economists.)
In section 4 of Davis (2008), Davis explicitly lists agent-based complexity economics, along with evolutionary game theory and evolutionary economics as "diachronic research programs in recent mainstream economics." That is, Davis explicitly says agent-based complexity economics is mainstream. I don't know that anybody commenting on the talk pages besides myself has read Davis. So I don't know who is this group that supposedly disagrees with me.
Davis is one of a group of economists (e.g., Colander, Holt & Rosser and Gintis) arguing that mainstream economics is pluralistic and open to new ideas. Those who argue, in contrast, that mainstream economics is closed to innovation and non-pluralistic are hardly likely to approve of mainstream economists. I don't know why you suggest Davis is a complexity economist or don't recognize that among the audience Davis is addressing, saying an approach is mainstream is not necessarily a compliment.
All sides in this argument categorize orthodox mainstream economics as adhering to some such principles as I give. They do not all recognize a category labeled as "mainstream heterodox". For example, Colander ("The Death of Neoclassical Economics", Journal of the History of Economic Thought, V. 22, N. 2 (2000): 127-143), proposes that contemporary mainstream economics be labeled "New Millennium Economics". I do not know how all of these historians of economic thought categorize complexity economics. Colander, in the above reference, explicitly states that "the work of complexity theorists" is one of "two complementary directions research" in New Millennium Economics "pure theory" "is taking".
I think Davis is quite prominent in the discussion I am referencing, and I like how his work lends itself to a tabular breakdown. I have no objection to expanding on how complexity economics fits into wider trends in economics and to using additional references. I suppose one should also then include those who argue that mainstream economics will not be able to accept and absorb complexity economics (e.g., Bausor 1994).
I also think one should be aware that intro textbooks in economics lag research trends in economics by decades or, maybe, half centuries. Nevertheless, I have added some specialized textbooks to the references in the article. I suppose one could also look at discussion of complexity economics in specific mainstream contexts, e.g., John Geanakoplos' article, for the 2nd edition of the New Palgrave, on the "overlapping generations model of general equilibrium".
Anyways, I am tempted to restore the table to the article since nobody has proposed an alternate reading of the reliably sourced material. 209.217.195.187 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)RLV
This is an encyclopedia not a blog or a journal. Don't add disputed content of tangentail relevance to the topic. How is the sociological classification of "complexity economics" (which doesn't even have a definition) NPOV and reliable and verificable---Is the typology of orthodox versus heterodox and (methodologically) conventional versus weird established and recognized by the most reliable sources?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (new example [25]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? 209.217.195.147 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC) --RLV

You should review WP referencing, particularly for contentious material. You have been adding Original Research, which may or may not be synthesis, because your scholarship is so bad nobody can check the 100 pages you cite to support your claim. Provide a page reference and learn to cite properly. Provide doi and url information to help other editors, instead of being combatitive. Have you read the policy that you should seek consensus first on talk pages before re-adding contentious material?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the anonymous IP editor (at neighboring IPs) is the only one adding the chart and digression about mainstream or heterodox economics. Please alert me if my impression is mistaken. (Other editors are not shy in correcting me when I'm wrong or need correction, so the IP editor should consider whether I am guilty of edit warring or whether I might perhaps have a point, in suggesting that the IP editor first propose additions on the talk page and get feedback and consensus before putting MOS-violations and poorly referenced stuff on the article.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I welcome Kiefer Wolfowitz's thanks for having added over 80% (16 of 22) of the citations now in the article -- RLV 209.217.195.145 (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You have failed to cite page references for the quote you attribute to at least four economists. Your gross mis-use of Horgan inspires extreme scepticism about the bona fides of your vague attributions. Please review the edit-warring policy, and note your culpability for re-adding material that has been questioned by other editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Kiefer Wolfowitz's misunderstanding of Rosser's 1999 JEP article justifies his violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --RLV 209.217.195.124 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC):
"The main commentator on the 'four C’s' appears to be Rosser (1999). A few years previously, science journalist John Horgan had branded them a series of 'failed fads', in opposition to the opinions within the Sante Fe Institute. Rosser takes a more positive view while conceding that it was still difficult when he wrote to identify a concrete and surprising discovery that had arisen due to the emergence of complexity analysis.
'Rather, complexity theory has shifted the perspective of many economists towards thinking that what was viewed as anomalous or unusual may actually be the usual and expected, especially in the realm of asset markets where the unusual seems increasingly commonplace! Indeed, there is a strain of common perspective that has been accumulating as the four C’s of cybernetics, catastrophe, chaos and complexity emerged, which may now be reaching a critical mass in terms of influencing the thinking of economists more broadly'" -- Hans Hoegh-Guldberg, "The Changing Economic Paradigm", Background Paper 3, National Atomspheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), 21 July 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.195.124 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (a slow-motion example [26] [27] [28]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? -- RLV 209.217.195.124 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add page references so that others can verify your references: 20-30 editors monitor and comment on this page, and nobody has stated that your references meet WP standards and that I am wrong: Consider that you need to improve your citations.
The sections you added (attributing their content to Rosser) sound so close to the cited (apparently unpublished) manuscript that one worries about the manuscript or your paragraph(s).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If Kiefer Wolfowitz were to ask a definite question that I could see related to the text of an article; didn't have some odd aside; and apologized for his past violations of, say, WP:NPA, I might consider answering. I don't see page numbers elsewhere in the article. --RLV 209.217.195.190 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting on-topic, reliably sourced material? This morning's slow-motion deletions are complicated enough that I don't provide diffs in this comment. Kiefer Wolfowitz has also moved his odd gyrations over to the talk page of Complexity Economics. Apparently Stalin and Mao are on-topic for this conversation, as are Solow's and Stigler's comments of the first edition of the New Palgrave. It is also apparently Wikipedia policy that, in the text of an article, one refers solely to the journal name of a citation without mentioning the authors. Also a supposed attribution of mine is "shoddy". I guess it's mine; I always have difficulty in figuring out what Kiefer Wolfowitz's animus is directed against. -- RLV 209.217.195.175 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what I wrote:

An article in the Review of Political Economy stated that contemporary mainstream economics is "moving away from from a strict adherence to the holy trinity---rationality, selfishness, and equilibrium---and to a more eclectic position of purposeful behavior, enlightened self-interest and sustainability", and attributes part of this change to the increasing recognition of complexity economics, along with dynamical systems and recursive methods.[1]

  1. ^ Colander, Holt & Barkley Rosser (2004, p. 485): Colander, David; Holt, Richard P. F.; Barkley Rosser, J., Jr. (2004). "The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics". Review of Political Economy. 16 (4): 485–499. doi:10.1080/0953825042000256702. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I provided a page reference and a non--cherry-picked version of the quote quote, which is now linked for the reader's convenience. I noted that the word "pluralism" does not appear in the article tendentiously cited by Adelphi's IP editor.
WP has a policy that the sources should be reliable; this journal is a rather marginal journal. WP editors should be concerned about the uncritical WP mausoleum to Paul Sweezy, the notorious totalitarian propagandist and apologist. A tribute to Sweezy appears in the same issue of this journal.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (example:[29]) on-topic, reliably sourced material? And, by the way, what is the policy about accusing living people of "blasphemy" on talk pages? --RLV 209.217.195.162 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent improvement in addressing the concerns raised by other editors by providing some page references has been welcomed.
Nobody supports your continued adding of an OR table about Davis to this article: Didn't you read the kind comments by CRCGreathouse? Try developing a table to the relevant articles on mainstream and heterodox economics, where it might belong. The complexity economics article would benefit from an appropriate table, but yours is not ready for the mainspace, as others have told you.
Aggressive whining on this page does not seem to have been a productive use of your time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Junk is back

Some inaccurate material has been put back into the page. See my comments: Talk:Complexity_economics#Completely_inaccurate_description_of_mainstream_economics. Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I again removed the true-believer section with its comparison of complexity economics (good) and traditional economics (strawman). I copy-edited the rest (to sedate the manic phrasing).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Just one quibble. I will put back the comment on 'lack of universal controller'. In context of the Arthur et al list, it's less relevant as a possible critique of other theories than as a key description of the way Agent-Based Computational Economics models are structured. DSGE models typically impose some aggregate restrictions (e.g. prices adjust so that markets clear), whereas ACE models typically impose consistency only on the transactions between individual agents (e.g. what one guy buys equals what the other guy sells). Assuming this is done correctly, it does impose logical consistency at the aggregate level too, but it's a much less centralized way of imposing it.Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Your correction of my mistake is an example of how editing is supposed to work.
On the other hand, I thought that an achievement of real general equilibrium theory (as opposed to DSGE simplifications) was to eliminate such ad-hockeries (as auctioneers, as anything but devices in mathematical proofs)?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Ummm, I prefer to think of DSGE as the real GE theory, and traditional GE theory as the increasingly baroque study of old-fashioned static markets ;-)... But anyway there are versions of both that allow for more game-theoretic details about how agents actually interact.Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I tried to provide a gloss. I assume that everybody (on the project) knows about Walrasian auctioneers, so I didn't provide a source. I also summarized your explanation above, again without a new source or checking the old cited source.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I also think that DSGE is not "really" GE in that the assumptions usually made there - for the sake of tractability - pretty much "kill" everything that is interesting about GE models. I'm not sure if your problem with traditional GE theory is that it is "baroque" or that it focuses on "static markets". Anyway, the first one I don't think is really a criticism (or at least you should be more explicit and specific here), the second is not really all that true (for example the literature on incomplete markets).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I provided some references to the articles on mathematical economics (general equilibrium theory, non-convexities (economics)) to general equilibrium theory on vector spaces. Infinite-dimensional spaces are required to handle dynamic models and uncertainty (stochastic processes). This was one motivation for Kreps (Bewley?) to introduce Banach lattices to GE theory. These models are summarized in Vol. 4. of the Handbook of (math) econ., in the articles by Donald J. Brown, Zame,Mas-Colell, etc. There has been further advances using Mordukhovich's subdifferential calculus, which does enable a better treatment of "nonlinear pricing" and "nonconvexities" like "increasing returns" than previous results. (All of this seems ignored in the low-brow literature on "dynamical systems and complexity economics", which seems more interested in raising a flag and urging graduate students once more into the breach than accomplishing anything in theory or practice. )  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Economists have increasingly studied non-convex sets with nonsmooth analysis, which generalizes convex analysis. Convex analysis centers on convex sets and convex functions, for which it provides powerful ideas and clear results, but it is not adequate for the analysis of non-convexities, such as increasing returns to scale.[1] "Non-convexities in [both] production and consumption ... required mathematical tools that went beyond convexity, and further development had to await the invention of non-smooth calculus": For example, Clarke's differential calculus for Lipschitz continuous functions, which uses Rademacher's theorem and which is described by Rockafellar & Wets (1998)[2] and Mordukhovich (2006) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMordukhovich2006 (help),[3] according to Khan (2008).[4] Brown (1995, pp. 1967–1968) wrote that the "major methodological innovation in the general equilibrium analysis of firms with pricing rules" was "the introduction of the methods of non-smooth analysis, as a [synthesis] of global analysis (differential topology) and [of] convex analysis." According to Brown (1995, p. 1966), "Non-smooth analysis extends the local approximation of manifolds by tangent planes [and extends] the analogous approximation of convex sets by tangent cones to sets" that can be non-smooth or non-convex.[5][6]

Mas-Colell has also contributed to the theory of general equilibrium in topological vector lattices.[7] The sets of prices and quantities can be described as partially ordered vector spaces, often as vector lattices. Economies with uncertain or dynamic decisions typically require that the vector spaces be infinite-dimensional, in which case the order properties of vector lattices allow stronger conclusions to be made.[8] Recently researchers have studied nonlinear pricing: A "main motivation came from the fact that Mas-Colell's fundamental theory of welfare economics with no interiority assumptions crucially requires lattice properties of commodity spaces, even in finite-dimensional settings."[3]

  1. ^ Heal (1999, p. 4 in preprint): Heal, G. M. (1999). "Introduction". The economics of increasing returns (PDF). The International Library of Critical Writings in Economics. Edward Elgar. p. 640. ISBN 978-1-85898-160-4. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
  2. ^ Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell; Wets, Roger J-B (1998). Variational analysis. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Vol. 317. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xiv+733. ISBN 3-540-62772-3. MR 1491362. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  3. ^ a b Chapter 8 "Applications to economics", especially Section 8.5.3 "Enter nonconvexity" (and the remainder of the chapter), particularly page 495:

    Mordukhovich, Boris S. (2006). Variational analysis and generalized differentiation II: Applications. Grundlehren Series (Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences). Vol. 331. Springer. pp. i–xxii and 1–610. MR 2191745. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

    Cite error: The named reference "Mordukhovich2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Khan 2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Brown, Donald J. (1991). "36 Equilibrium analysis with non-convex technologies". In Hildenbrand, Werner; Sonnenschein, Hugo (eds.). Handbook of mathematical economics, Volume IV. Handbooks in Economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. p. 1966. doi:10.1016/S1573-4382(05)80011-6. ISBN 0-444-87461-5. MR 1207195. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); More than one of |pages= and |p= specified (help)
  6. ^ Algebraic topology has also been used to study convex and non-convex sets in economics:Chichilnisky, G. (1993). "Intersecting families of sets and the topology of cones in economics" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (New Series). Vol. 29, no. 2. pp. 189–207. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1993-00439-7. MR 1218037. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  7. ^ Florenzano, Monique; Gourdel, Pascal; Jofré, Alejandro (2006). "Supporting weakly Pareto optimal allocations in infinite dimensional nonconvex economies". Economic Theory. Vol. 29, no. 3. pp. 549–564. doi:10.1007/s00199-005-0033-y. MR 2272312.
  8. ^ Aliprantis, Charalambos D.; Brown, Donald J.; Burkinshaw, Owen (1990). Existence and optimality of competitive equilibria. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. xii+284. ISBN 3-540-52866-0. MR 1075992. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics/Archive_6&oldid=1137386066"