Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:24, 17 December 2003 editJrincayc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers1,372 edits Reply to no such thing as supply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors64,268 edits Undid revision 1264305220 by 2400:1A00:B040:D0C7:D10F:834D:1B36:11A2 (talk) rvTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	Old talk has been archived to ]
			{{Talk header}}
	----
			{{Not a forum}}
			{{British English Oxford spelling}}
			{{Article history\|action1=RBP
			\|action1date=January 19,2004
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_People_and_culture
			\|action1result=kept
			\|action1oldid=2804446
			\|action2=FAR
			\|action2date=April 21,2006
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Economics
			\|action2result=demoted
			\|action2oldid=49368028
			\|action3=GAN
			\|action3date=September 21, 2007
			\|action3link=Talk:Economics/Archive 2#Failed .22good article.22 nomination
			\|action3result=Failed
			\|action3oldid=159302341
			\|currentstatus=FFA
			\|maindate=August 3,2004
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Business\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Finance & Investment\|importance=High}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 9
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:Economics/Archive %(counter)d
			}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Economics/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Economics/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}

			== Criticism section ==
	Someone wrote a bad review of economics section at kuro5hin:

			The '''criticism''' section is an editor-collated assemblage of various issues that are typical of discussion, debate, and the process of improvement in any rigorous academic discipline. As such, virtually the entire section is ]. If there's to be a separate criticism section, it would need to be sourced to RS that survey "criticims of economics", which is what the section purports to present.]] 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
	http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/9/24/43858/2479/4#4
			:I agree. Criticism of particular view-points of specific economists does not constitute a criticism of economics as such, and should not be included in a general criticism section, which should be reserved for more fundamental, and properly sourced, critique, if any.--] (]) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Is it really a science if it has no predictive value? ==
	This comment could help the section to improve?
	]

			Just wondering. ] (]) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

			:Most science is inherently inductive, it's ] for some. ]] 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	:Not if it's from September 2001, as it appears to be. The economics section here now bears simply no resemblance to what was here then. It's now really quite good, and contains a wide variety of topic coverage. The main page ] is not good enough, among other things it simply fails to explain ] well enough. Someone should dig around in the older versions to find a better explanation.
			:Critics of economics seem to be confused about what "science" is and just how much of it is really "predictive." Economics is a social science. ] (]) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Seems like this is unclear ==
	----
	Some topics I think would be worthwhile (off the top of my head):

			Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science. Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. ] (]) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	] (linking to ] etc), ]ity, ] theory (pegged, float, dirty-float), ], ] school, ], the ], ], ], ], ], ] / ] theory and ], ], ]s, ]s, ], the concept of a ], ] and the concept of the ], the ], ]s, ] (linking to ]), ]s, and ].

			:What is unclear about it? ]] 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
	:Just linked 'em all to see which are here now (September 2003) - about half are, thankfully. Also needing to be worked in somewhere: ], ], ], and any discussion of ] and ] - we've got ] but no fundamental discussion of what it does - ] nor for ] or for ] which are different again, nor ]. Some of these are ] topics but there will be overlap between ] and ] on such basic issues. Both may need to be updated to include all of the ones that exist.

			== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 ==
	:Is ] good enough, or should there be a ]? Also is ] what you mean by ]?? ] 01:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Economics\|answered=yes}}
	Off the top of my head though - I might come back to do some of them if I've got the time. Haven't really thought about most of this stuff for a few years now ...
			In the "History of economic thought" subsection, remove Qin Shi Huang from "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas." To my knowledge, the emperor wrote no known treatises on anything remotely resembling economic theory. ] (]) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
			:In fact the entire sentence "{{tq\|Other notable writers from ] through to the ] which}}{{sic}} {{tq\|wrote on}} {{tq\|include ], ] (also known as Kautilya), ], ], and ] }}" is dubious since it is not supported by any evidence and consequently I have deleted it. Of course if anybody can provide a citation or citations for one or more of these, then of course reinstate it to that extent. --] (]) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Is criticism necessary? ==
	C

			I think a serious case could be made that the criticism section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. The fact is, economics is recognized as a legitimate field of inquiry and a social science by major academic institutions, and almost all of these critiques are coming from outside the field. Would we have a criticism section in an article about "history" or "sociology"? There isn't any on either page.
	-----
	Replaced scarcity, not because it isn't in the textbooks, but because "choices under scarcity" is just a verbose defintition of "trade". I vote for clarity.
	:I think the point of economics is to create those verbose definitions. It's not just "choice under scarcity" but also the NATURE of choice, the NATURE of scarcity. The Fundamentals section is good but has to make this clearer, and come up front.

			I shouldn't have to say this, but you could find criticism of just about any subject if you look for it. The rules are clear that sourcing should always be mainstream and criticism is only warranted in special circumstances. An example of a subject that has a valid criticism section is the ] article -note that the critiques are sourced to experts with backgrounds in either biology or psychology, not philosophers or scholars with no relevant background like we find in this article. I think the section should be removed. ] (]) 06:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	== Why insert the notion of scarcity? ==

			:The qualm is where we draw the line between reliable sources that are about the topic and those that aren't. I don't think the line is as firm as you describe. Maybe it can be presented differently, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that only economists get to be considered reliable sources for commentary on the field of economics. Perhaps the article should be weighted differently, but the logical conclusion of your argument is much more of an NPOV issue than the article as it stands IMO. ]] 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
	Why not the allocation of resources, period? Whether they're 'scarce' or not isn't really relevant and too often a matter of opinion. There are plenty of doctors in the US, for example, but their distribution is hardly optimal. It's economic, however.
			::The criticism section has, justifiedly, been criticized in earlier discussions, too, cf. ]. The parts of the section that consists of criticism of particular viewpoints of specific economists should not be listed in a general criticism section. As suggested before, if a separate criticism section should be upheld at all (according to ], such separate sections are generally to be avoided because they introduce issues of undue weight), a minimum requirement would appear to be that it would be sourced to reliable sources that explicitly survey "criticims of economics". ] (]) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
			::If this were a subject like genealogy you'd have a point, but economics? The line is very clear: people who are recognized as economists and who publish research in mainstream, refereed economics journals are RS. An activist working for a think tank, a philosopher, a politician or journalist with no obvious credentials in the field are not RS. So, there's the line. ] (]) 21:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
			Time to remove it. Any valid bits belong elsewhere.]] 23:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Intuitive writing ==

			Hi, I think the lead can be written a bit more intuitively, or at the very least have the intuitive writing first, and page links with technical language in brackets.
	:Because the allocation of non-scarce resources is generally rather trival. If the resource is non-scarce give everyone who wants it as much as they want. In situations where it is interesting like patents and copyright, the time required to create them is scarce. As an amateur economist, I would define scarcity as something that has an ] so in that economic sense doctors are scarce since there is something else that would be useful for them to do (say like be a doctor in a different county). ] 03:49, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

			I think there also needs to be paragraph summarising the history section, which summarises ancient study, classical, a separation into Marxian, then back to Keynesian, monetarist, and list the main modern day innovations/fringes like humanistic (the page for it needs to be edited to add the alternative humanistic proposals to homo economicus) and others. ] (]) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
	:This question is just stupid. Economics is solely and only about ways to compensate for scarcity and achieve optimal distributions of scarce resources. That's all it ''can'' be.

			:I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh ] (]) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	---------------
			::Yeah good point, but the body could include some more ] (]) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
	The first sentence has no verb: "Economics (formally known as political economy) the governance of the production, distribution and consumption of wealth and the various related problems of scarcity, finance, debt, taxation, labor, law, inequity, poverty, pollution, war, etc. " ...I am going to insert the word ''studies'' for now. Feel free to fix it differently. ] 04:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
			:I think the use of mathematics and models intended to capture reality and relationships between phenomenon needs to be mentioned ] (]) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

			:@] I just thought the quote provided a less technical definition that will be intuitive to a lot of readers. I also think "with emphasis on autonomous ]" should be in the lede because that isn't made clear since there isn't a separation between agents and elements. I also think there should be a paragraph summarising the history/progression of economics, and ] should be mentioned at the end because there's a lot of controversy around it within academia and we might be violating ] ] (]) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
	:A problem with this definition is that it is simply wrong to say that what passes for ] today includes all the studies formerly (and now in parallel) known as ]. While there is consensus on one concept of ] and its methods, and on ], the latter has yet to be completely integrated into ], ], ] and such - thus there are well-defined packages of ] and ] that seem to have no valid reasons NOT to happen, other than the fact that someone benefits from the inertia and failure to do so. In the ] this exact situation led to two very nasty wars, and a third nasty confrontation over economic systems, that between them, have characterized the whole global polity and most moves towards ]. Accordingly, we are obligated to present economics in its full depth, and with its full impact on human society, and the present page simply does not do that adequately.

	:Hell, we're talking about distribution potentially of air, water, and food here. Hard to get more important than that.

	----

	"Economists are sometimes referred to as Methodological Individualists."

	Hmmm... It sounds like you're saying that the two terms are synonyms, which is certainly not the case. Are you saying that all economists are MIs? Or that some people say that all economists are MIs? From the 5 minutes of Googling on the subject, I don't see why economists should necessarily be MIs. ] 23:54, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	:I agree that it doesn't make sense. Striking: ''Economists are sometimes referred to as ]s.'' from the page. The link to ] fills the role that I think they are trying to get much better. ] 03:36, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

	::It's good that ] exists, because one can posit ], ] and other basic motives for what humans do.

	-------

	The article as it stands in December 2003 is now balanced by "framing economics", an introduction that lays out the reasons why economic models do not fully explain human behavior (failing to deal with ], ] and ], how ] and ] are actually produced, etc.) This could be abbreviated and some of it moved as criticism to ]. However, these qualifying statements need to be made, and stronger qualifying statements can be found at http://natcap.org - somewhere in there you can find a list of "the 15 bad assumptions made by economics itself."

	The question of ] as questioning the assumptions versus ] as putting them into models is also dealt with in that section.

	Unfortunately, after the "framing economics" section, the "economics is real" view kind of takes over. It's telling that there is no article on ] or even ], ]. There's some on ] and some on ] at ], but, all told, these subjects are not taken seriously enough.

	It would be good to see them treated as carefully as ], ] and ] are. Even if most of what is in these older theories (], ], ], ], and Karl himself) is now subsumed into the more recent theories, they remain of historical interest. ] is broadly considered the founder of ]... and very recent figures like ] associate themselves with ]. So you cannot have good coverage of economics without at least explaining what these theories are and how they settled the social/economic and ethical/economic questions.

	] should also be mentioned as a way to apply economic models to law. It may be that these methods do not describe choice in the real world at all, but only in artifical/industrial/legal worlds created by humanity. If so that would explain why ] has become such a popular study lately. And where is ] and the fact that most of the classical theory evolved in a world where most of us were farmers?

	: These parts of the article remain in the minds of those who, while prepared to comment that they are missing, are unprepared to add them to the article. You could do us all a favour by adding them yourself. Cheers -- ]

	Actually, I believe this anonymous IP is banned user ]. If so, he could do us all a favour by trying to getting Jimbo's permission to edit, instead of trying to poke holes in our soft security. It's soft, but it ain't weak. -- ] 20:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

	== Controversy over Economics ==

	Removed:

	:There is very great controversy about how ] questions, ] questions, and ] interact to restrict and frame economic questions. ''These questions are usually dealt with in the field called ].''

	:''The article on ] deals with what constitutes an economic, rather than a ], political, or personal type of choice.''

	I agree sorta with the premis, and there has been a controversy over applying economics to various decisions. On the other hand this is not balanced as written, and I am not sure what a supply and demand question is. I personally think that controversy over economics should not go as part of the initial summary, but should instead go into a seperate section on the page if such is considered necessary. ] 21:57, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

	::Cyan has moved/censored the article to ] and you should review what is said there. Incorporate as desired. ]


	:I'd like to stress that there is substational information about alternative and in many cases obscure approaches to economics on Misplaced Pages. In fact, the alternatives are overall given more attention than mainstream economics in a variety of articles. The problem with the article on economics has always been that it has tended to be dominated by people who dislike the subject. I'm fine with criticism of economics, but the subject should first be given a clean, uninterrupted presentation, just like all the alternatives (green economics, natural capitalism and what have you). -- Galizia


	::While there is an admirable set of articles on a lot of important questions like ] (one way to assess economics is whether it values the things that humans actually value), the idea that this is somehow "given mroe attention" is just not true. The few such topics covered are absolutely basic, and even essentials like ] were only covered recently.

	::If anything the material overall is still balanced towards the neoclassical view you wrongly call "mainstream", which is by no means accepted or acceptable in pure form in most forums outside the US. In the UK all economists must learn ] and the Marxist critique of ]. ] is covered, etc..

	::But test what you say another way: If what you say were true, there would be articles on the vast fields of ] and ] which have been leading even to Swedish Bank Prizes lately (] the most obvious example). There'd be attention paid to ] and ] being about the same thing, and, there'd be discussion of ] as having founded that theory, not just a firm politicized dismissal. These errors aren't corrected, so if anything that shows systematic bias against the less quantitative and technical economics.

	::Everyone dislikes scarcity. But it is not just ''dislike'' that drives most criticism, it's a basic belief that economics assesses scarcity falsely and thus its basic constructs are ''irrelevant'' - there is '']'' and ''no such thing as a product'' and ''no such thing as supply'' and ''no such thing as demand''.

	:::Of course there is not any such thing. There is also no such thing as a person, no such thing as a light bulb, no such thing as a tree. But we have words for them because we find the concepts useful. Supply is a useful concept, demand is a useful concept, and concept of supply and the concept of demand exists (maybe not in your mind, but certainly in mine). Unless you are interested only in the philosophical concept of nihlism, stateing that they don't exist is not productive. All models are false, and we precieve the world by making models of it, so you can take the extreme view that everything that we precieve is false. Many of the models of economics are useful, as in they are true enough that they can be used some of the time. You just have to understand that what you have is a model, and then decide, is this the right model? Supply and demand is a fairly good model for wheat but a lossy model for love. Most of the ideas that have been thought of for economics in the past hundred years have been to figure out where the failings of economics is and then incorporate that into a new model. Explain exactly where the models of economics fails and you may have something useful, claiming that they fail in general is completly true and completely useless. ] 16:24, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

	::You only believe in these things if you are taught to take a ] of them. The "alternative" position is that quantifications applied in the contracts on ] etc., are simply based on ''nothing'', utterly ''ungrounded'' in anything but the authority that writes and enforces them. What is a "soybean" when there are breeding, genetic manipulation, pesticide use, and other ] differences that ''really and truly matter even to the consumer'' but aren't reflected in the numbers? There have been street protests by economics students in Europe on this grounds - that what they are taught is pure nonsense. No one believes, for instance, that ] has any valid economic basis whatsoever. There is NO argument for that - its ''creators'' argue that it is not relevant for the purposes politicians and bankers use it for.

	::There are no more "alternatives", if you look at the discourse taking place at the UN and even at the ], it is a question of deciding which of the ecology-driven approaches is the "mainstream"... the term ] for instance is now in wide use at both institutions.

	::Also, look at the lack of detailed articles on subjects such as those linked from ] - there is no detailed discussion of how an ] differs from a ] for instance, or even what ] is. So the neoclassical assumptions that all contracts for all services are equally commodifiable, and that perfect competition assumptions can apply to imperfect/real situations of unequally distributed power, are both being baldly accepted. Else "we" would surely "need", and "have", articles on these detailed differences.

	::As it is such considerations are ghetto-ized in separate articles on ] that don't have the detail on how the energy trading mechanics of the real world actually work. This doesn't mean that energy economics is "alternative", it means that the impact of energy on the rest of economics has been censored/ignored. It means that energy has been treated as if it were no different than any other "commodity' - but of course "we" don't seen to be starting any foreign wars for control of oh say soybeans... nor putting trillion dollar budgets together for military devices that burn solar power... These issues dominate the ] today, so it's pretty clear that economics articles that pretend these things are just part of some "]" where people are making voluntary choices, is idiotic at worst, and ideological at best. ]

Latest revision as of 12:33, 21 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Economics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Economics at the Reference desk.

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Economics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
April 21, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
September 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former featured article

This

level-2 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section

The criticism section is an editor-collated assemblage of various issues that are typical of discussion, debate, and the process of improvement in any rigorous academic discipline. As such, virtually the entire section is WP:OR. If there's to be a separate criticism section, it would need to be sourced to RS that survey "criticims of economics", which is what the section purports to present. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism of particular view-points of specific economists does not constitute a criticism of economics as such, and should not be included in a general criticism section, which should be reserved for more fundamental, and properly sourced, critique, if any.--Økonom (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it really a science if it has no predictive value?

Just wondering. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Most science is inherently inductive, it's a real problem for some. Remsense诉 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Critics of economics seem to be confused about what "science" is and just how much of it is really "predictive." Economics is a social science. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this is unclear

Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science. Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What is unclear about it? Remsense诉 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "History of economic thought" subsection, remove Qin Shi Huang from "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas." To my knowledge, the emperor wrote no known treatises on anything remotely resembling economic theory. Theoskhthonios (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact the entire sentence "Other notable writers from Antiquity through to the Renaissance which wrote on include Aristotle, Chanakya (also known as Kautilya), Qin Shi Huang, Ibn Khaldun, and Thomas Aquinas" is dubious since it is not supported by any evidence and consequently I have deleted it. Of course if anybody can provide a citation or citations for one or more of these, then of course reinstate it to that extent. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Is criticism necessary?

I think a serious case could be made that the criticism section violates the rules of the encyclopedia. The fact is, economics is recognized as a legitimate field of inquiry and a social science by major academic institutions, and almost all of these critiques are coming from outside the field. Would we have a criticism section in an article about "history" or "sociology"? There isn't any on either page.

I shouldn't have to say this, but you could find criticism of just about any subject if you look for it. The rules are clear that sourcing should always be mainstream and criticism is only warranted in special circumstances. An example of a subject that has a valid criticism section is the Evolutionary psychology article -note that the critiques are sourced to experts with backgrounds in either biology or psychology, not philosophers or scholars with no relevant background like we find in this article. I think the section should be removed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The qualm is where we draw the line between reliable sources that are about the topic and those that aren't. I don't think the line is as firm as you describe. Maybe it can be presented differently, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that only economists get to be considered reliable sources for commentary on the field of economics. Perhaps the article should be weighted differently, but the logical conclusion of your argument is much more of an NPOV issue than the article as it stands IMO. Remsense诉 06:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The criticism section has, justifiedly, been criticized in earlier discussions, too, cf. Talk:Economics#Criticism_section. The parts of the section that consists of criticism of particular viewpoints of specific economists should not be listed in a general criticism section. As suggested before, if a separate criticism section should be upheld at all (according to Misplaced Pages:Criticism, such separate sections are generally to be avoided because they introduce issues of undue weight), a minimum requirement would appear to be that it would be sourced to reliable sources that explicitly survey "criticims of economics". Økonom (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If this were a subject like genealogy you'd have a point, but economics? The line is very clear: people who are recognized as economists and who publish research in mainstream, refereed economics journals are RS. An activist working for a think tank, a philosopher, a politician or journalist with no obvious credentials in the field are not RS. So, there's the line. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Time to remove it. Any valid bits belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Intuitive writing

Hi, I think the lead can be written a bit more intuitively, or at the very least have the intuitive writing first, and page links with technical language in brackets.

I think there also needs to be paragraph summarising the history section, which summarises ancient study, classical, a separation into Marxian, then back to Keynesian, monetarist, and list the main modern day innovations/fringes like humanistic (the page for it needs to be edited to add the alternative humanistic proposals to homo economicus) and others. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont think the fringes deserve mention in the lead tbh VineFynn (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah good point, but the body could include some more Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the use of mathematics and models intended to capture reality and relationships between phenomenon needs to be mentioned Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy I just thought the quote provided a less technical definition that will be intuitive to a lot of readers. I also think "with emphasis on autonomous market forces" should be in the lede because that isn't made clear since there isn't a separation between agents and elements. I also think there should be a paragraph summarising the history/progression of economics, and economics imperialism should be mentioned at the end because there's a lot of controversy around it within academia and we might be violating WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: