Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:16, 5 June 2009

History of economic thought was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 10, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Economics B‑class Top‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've started this page in its own right, and as people can see at the moment, slowly working through the ages - only up to Adam Smith so far. I've also realised it might already be getting a bit long (and it doesn't even have all the authors it could, or go into adequate detail) so perhaps down the road it could be separated according to period. However, everyone can see I've already laid out a basic structure, so if anybody wants to jump ahead and edit that stuff, please do! Wikidea 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a separate page from History of economics?

I don't see any reason to distinguish the two, given that the existing page is already about economic thought, and given that there was already an existing consensus that that was the proper place for it. THF 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say "thank you" for this page about the history of economics. It's really clear in its layout and I've learned a lot by reading it. Cheers!Fuzzy180 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge of History of economics into History of economic thought JQ 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge, History of economics into this page. --lk (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Remarks

Some remarks per Wikidea's kind request for a very interesting article:

• First, the problem mentioned above: we have two articles overlapping. Merge them!  Done
• The lead

• The lead is nice but I have some doubts (maybe about my different approach of the lead, which also was clear during our dialogues about the Law article):

• A large part of the first par. is about Adam Smith. I think this may be too much. And he is mentioned again in the second par.  Done
• "the prevailing consensus broke down". What consensus? Was there ever a consensus?

I had in mind the post war Keynsian consensus; like Nixon saying "we're all Keynsians now" - made it clearer. Wikidea 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Men like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek caught the imagination of western leaders, warning of The Road to Serfdom and socialism." They didn't just do that. You should make clear in the lead what they represented, and IMO the magic word is Monetarism.  Done
• "Yet the twenty first century begins and the history of economic thought continues in an increasingly globalised economy." Far too vague even for a lead. And, since you speak about globalization, then you should also I think make a quick mention to some critical approaches, like the one of Joseph E. Stiglitz. In one sentence. At least, IMO he is more important in economics than Fukuyama!  Done
• "Economic thought has evolved through feudalism in the Middle Ages, through mercantilist theory in the renaissance". Again a very brief mentioning in the lead of the Early Economic Thought wouldn't hurt.  Done

• Early Economic Thought

• Where from is Aristotle's excerpt? Politics, probably ... You should make clear that in the citations as well ... And include the book in the References, where I do not see it.  Done

• Mercantilism

• Try to cite all your assertions. Even in sections like the one about "Mun", where there is a main article, you should again have citations.
• The section about "Philipp von Hörnigk" is as long as the main article about him! Where is WP:SS? In general, you follow a structure putting one theorist after the other, and presenting their ideas. Personally, I would create more concise sections, e.g. Mercantilism in an article written by me would have no sub-sections, and I would include all the theorists of the era in one concise section. But again, this may be a different approach ... One result of your approach is that the article tends to become too long. Think about it ...
• The quote in Hörnigk is uncited (and possibly too long per my above remark).
• More for Hörnigk than for Colbert? Hmmmm ....

• British enlightenment

• See also "Thomas Hobbes", but nothing about Hobbes in the text! And he spoke about property before Locke. Again, my comments about the section's structure stand.

• Maybe The Wealth of Nations could also be a bit more concise, keeping what it serves the needs of the broader topic of the article. Per WP:SS the reader can go to The Wealth of Nations article for further details.

• "Limitations" is a section full of quotes. I do not like in a section most of it to be quotes. I prefer narration that flows well. But again you can also listen to other opinions.

• Classical Economy

• In Bentham:"The aim of legal policy must be to decrease misery and suffering so far as possible while producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number..." It is not clear for me in the analysis of all this paragraph the connection of Bentham's legal theory about misery-happiness, and prisons' reform with economy. The section should be clearer, and more to the point.
• Malthus: What does he propose to tackle population growth? The main article is clearer here: "Malthus favored moral restraint (including late marriage and sexual abstinence) as a check on population growth. However, it is worth noting that Malthus proposed this only for the working and poor classes. Thus, the lower social classes took a great deal of responsibility for societal ills, according to his theory. In his work An Essay on the Principle of Population, he proposed the gradual abolition of poor laws."
• "David Ricardo"'s section is one of the best of the article. It flows well, and presents in an excellent way his theory. But again no citations!
• "Mill was a child prodigy, reading Ancient Greek from the age of 3, and being vigorously schooled by his father James Mill. " Do we need in the article biographical remarks like this one? Maybe this is one of the results of the "structure problem" I analyzed above, by presenting one theorist after the other, by arranging biographies in rows.

• Marx

• "Capitalism" as the section's heading? Maybe social economy?

I thought Capitalism is a good title because that was the focus for the Marxian critique (and he made the word up!) Wikidea 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again in the sections about Marx I think you overexpand. "Context" belongs IMO to an article about Marx's philosophy, and here could just be a short paragraph of the next section.
• To the contrary, "After Marx" could have some more analysis. And even something about "Before Marx"! I think there were businessmen and societies in England who tried to implement "socialist" ideas, but without success. For instance, you say nothing about Robert Owen.  Done

The stuff about Owen is already in the context section for instance; point taken about the overall length. Wikidea 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keynes

• "He helped formulate the plans for the International Monetary Fund at the Bretton Woods conference." And for the International Trade Organization as well.  Done

And again you have so much more to write, and I cannot imagine how long is this article going to get! Think about the structure ... And think also about the structure of you references: many sub-categories. I am not sure they are necessary.  Done --Yannismarou 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article status?

How about putting this article up for review for Good Article status? As a complete aside, shouldn't Robert Solow and 'Growth Theory' be in the article? --lk (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came to the article for the first time and had the same though. I'm going to nominate it. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was always still getting around to finishing this, because as you can see, some sections are still stubs, at the bottom. I just haven't had the energy. Come June I will! But glad to watch how the GA nomination goes. Wikidea 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say what an outstanding article this is, as an Economist I highly respect the effort and time that has been spent to create this, and if I could I would recommend it as highly as I could. Very well done, A+! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.36.171 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Portions of this article are now horrible. What happened?radek (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The General Theory.gif

Image:The General Theory.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic thinkers

Unfortunately Jaggard85 seems to think that some people that nobody has ever heard of warrant an extra three paragraphs and a reworking of the introduction. This is supported by references (which I also deleted) from minor articles from unknown economists supporting the view. It isn't noteworthy.

I suggest that the links to these people in the see also titles across the tops of the sections are sufficient. The content which was there on Chanakya and Ibn Khaldun were flimsy, and really said very little about what they said or thought that has anything to do with economics - some waffle about which King they served and so on.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a compromise - perhaps the Duns Scotus paragraph could be expanded slightly and changed to include 'other mediaeval thought' to include this lot. But you, Jaggard85 have to make the case. It's not enough to say 'this guy came up with the labour theory of value' when of course it was material rediscovered AFTER a few centuries of people from Locke onwards talking about it. So far as the introduction goes, it's truly ridiculous to say "a competitor as the father of modern economics" is soandso. Give me one single introductory course on an Economic history programme which gives the weight you're trying to to these people and I might change my mind. Otherwise, I would settle with the links. Wikidea 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Duns Scotus deserves a mention, then Ibn Khaldun certainly does. Ibn Khaldun touched on ideas that presaged modern growth theory, the labor theory of value, the functions of money, and the Laffer Curve. lk (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Karl Marx

I reccomend that the section currently entitled Capitalism should be renamed Karl Marx. The content of that section centers on his economic thought, so entitleing it Capitalism is only confusing. Worse, it may be come off as an expression of neo-classical POV. If there is no objections, I will make the change my self. Comte de Maistre (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the section, I think (or at least it should be in there!) that you'll find Karl Marx invented the word Capitalism. It's a good name for the section, because the term only came about through its most avid critics - and it's not just about Marx, but about Engels, Luxembourg, and other socialists. Wikidea 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first point: I certainly understand your reasoning; but I still think it's confusing to discuss Karl Marx and other socialist thinkers under a section entitled "Capitallism". The main object of these men's work was creating a critique of the capitalist system and formulating an alternative vision of how society should work. Placing them under "Capitalism" would be like placing Adam Smith and the physiocrats under a section entitled "Mercantilism".

In response to your second point: I recognize that it does not speak only about Karl Marx, but the others are mentioned primerily in their relation to Marx himself, either as predicessors or as successors to his body of work (Engels being the exception). Further, it should be noted that Karl Marx is the central figure of the section's opening paragraph, and two of the subsections that follow are entitled "Das Kapital" and "After Marx".

If you do not like the name "Karl Marx" as a section heading, would "Challenging Classical Orthodoxy" be a more acceptable option ?

      With Respect,
      Comte de Maistre (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean some other name could do a better job - challenging classical orthodoxy just strikes as a touch cumbersome though. Any other suggestions? On the other hand, "capitalism" is a really misunderstood word, because we don't live in a capitalist world and haven't for a long time. It means private ownership of the means of production. We have a big public sector, on average 40% across developed nations, and even in the "private" sector, the largest stakes of investment capital derive from people's pensions. The company/corporation (depending on where you're from) is a method of socialising wealth, albeit that the methods of distribution of power through company law may favour certain groups over others, favouring managers over shareholders, for instance. In other words the latter half of the Nineteenth century was the high watermark of capitalism, when this was not the case. A large public sector only developed around the turn of the century. Company law wasn't in existence until 1865 in Britain, the first country to introduce limited liability and separate legal personality in a modern company act. So maybe the analogy to calling the Adam Smith section Mercantilism isn't too strong, because that had been around for 200 years before, and he spoke for the generation that was burying it. I know what you mean about confusing people, but of course the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people about things they mightn't have known before.

Are you an economist? Can you finish off the later sections for me on the modern economists? I have much less time outside of term break to do a proper job! Wikidea 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just on a note of interest, here's an interesting myth buster about "Marxism": a list of demands that the Communist Manifesto made in 1848:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Now how many of those demands have been achieved, wholly or partially? I'd say (with a bit of leeway, depending on your country) 2, 5 and 10 wholly; 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 partially (think of social housing and local council planning for the land ones) and only 4 and 9 that have not, for obviously good reasons. Marx's critique of capitalism was tremendously effective and influential. Even the cold warrior style politician that denounces "communism" as if there were no tomorrow would unwittingly agree to much of this. Oh the irony! Wikidea 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the question of the titles: Here are some suggestions I thought of: "19th century Socialism", "Rise of Communism","Socialism", "Marxian Economic". Personally, I would prefer to make the current section wholly about 19th century-early 20th century Marxism, and create seprate sections focusing on other radical economic movement in the 19th century (Anarchism, Utopian Socialism, etc.

On your questions about editing this article: Sadly, I do not have a degree in economics, nor am I currently studying in a college economics course. The kindest desription of my expertise in the field would be "informed layman". So I am not the to write about current debates and thinkers. However, I think I could write section about the Neo-Ricardians (who I did'nt see mentioned at all in this article), The Cambrage Capital Controversy, and a more detailed exposition of Praeto's economics.

On Capitalism: I agree somewhat with your declaration that we no longer live in a capitalist system. You are quite right in pointing out how the industrialized/post industrial economy has developed what could be called socialist features since the late 19th century. However, I think that declaring capitalism dead would be quite premature. Some of the economic roles performed by states, such as the national bank, would better be described as protections of the capitalist economy, rather than as forces which have supplemented the privite economy (see State Capitalism). Moreover, I belive historically that modren capitalism and the modren state have enjoyed since the beginning close relationships of mutual dependence(See Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th centuries]]. I am puzzled why you would think coporations (particuly large, publically traded coporations) are not capitalist enteprises. The fact that the lion's share of profits and power withen most such entities is concentrated in the hands of managers and stock owners, not the workers themselves makes them fit Marx understanding of capitalism perfectly. Finially, are you suggesting that cooperations were created after what you identify as the "highpoint of capitalistm" ? I was under the impression that joint stock companies had existed since at least the High-Middle Ages.

Don't interpret this as a challenge; the differences between my POV and yours need not lead to conflict on the content of this article, which has maintained a tone of neutrality throughout.

P.S I am not French, despite my username. Comte de Maistre (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg

Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Western world POV

The article lacks the needed global perspective. There's no mention of any islamic thoughts of economy, nothing about Assyria nor anything about any other cultures' thinking in economic matters. Therefore the article clearly is POV, that is, biased towards western thinking. Popperipopp (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some stuff that was put in before because it overemphasised some scholars, just talking about them generally but saying little about what they've done. It's not true there's nothing in the article; there's lots of links to authors in seealso headers. I'm concerned that it's emphasising something for the sake of it. This article is clearly not POV on this basis at all. I fail to see what constructive suggestions you have. Also keep in mind that the islamic stuff is distinctly mediaeval, and on that basis alone is marginal. I did however suggest before, perhaps the section on Duns Scotus could be generalised to concern mediaeval scholarship. Wikidea 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the fact that the "islamic stuff" is medieval make it marginal? There's no suggestion in the title that the article is limited to modern thinking. And even if that would be so, islamic thoughts on economy still plays a crucial part in many modern states. Our corresponding Swedish article include sections about Assyria, ancient Greece, the Bible and the scholastics, and islamic thoughts. The constructiveness in this perhaps lays in that I'm willing to write som of the topics mentioned, granted we can agree that it's relevant. Popperipopp (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that mediaeval thought is marginal because if one wants to understand economics today, there are some periods that have contributed more, and some less, to modern thinking. I'm not saying at all it's unimportant, which would of course be completely wrong. I'm afraid I don't speak Swedish, but I'd suggest that giving twice as much weight to what Mohammed said in 700 AD to an explanation of Keynsianism is unbalanced, if not plain silly. The fact that it doesn't seem to mention even Ibn Khaldun would also seem odd. May I refer you to the main page, under that section: Ancient economic thought, where there is much room for expansion: for instance this Assyrian things (which I don't understand from the Swedish page I'm afraid!) doesn't appear at all there. I'm just concerned about making a long page even longer. Some people are necessarily left out, and it'd be wrong to say that's being done out of a Eurocentric, Anglo American or pro-West POV. Wikidea 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this article is horribly immersed in a Western POV. There must be a wealth of economic thought that came out of the development of the Silk Road during the Tang Dynasty in China, "the most important pre-modern Eurasian trade route," whose impact on the understanding of economics isn't even discussed in this article. -Miskaton (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vote for this to be a good article!

...and help to get it finished! Wikidea 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Veblen info.

Expanded the information on Veblen.. as it left out some of his important later work with the Technical Alliance. It was in this period that Veblen presented ideas for social change related to economic system. Made a link to a book he wrote during this period and an academic paper discussing economics and engineering. skip sievert (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sumer economic code beginning info.

Added some basic info on Mesopotamia and economic thought, which the article seemed to lack. Also made it more clear... that the two Pysiocrats mentioned were French economist of the Physiocratic school in their article box beginning right after their names are presented. Also moved that monk story a little down for continuity with the Sumer info. as it related more to the former written info. by it before. skip sievert (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The (earliest known) treatise on economic principles was the Arthashastra by Chanakya, in ancient India. In Ancient Greece, Socrates and Plato discussed the natural process of specialisation of labour and production in The Republic. Plato's pupil, Aristotle, deepened the discussion from the point of view of a slave owning society, but also a city-state that produced a primitive (democracy). He examined household spending, market exchanges, and motivations for human action. Some of this was changed because these statement are not factual.

All of these were in a sense early economic treatises. Earlier collections of economic laws or codes include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

It is not the earliest known and is in itself controversial as to when it was even written. Also primitive democracy... is not accurate or a proper description. It is considered by many to be the only real actual democracy... as it was invented and carried out by them. Primitive is not a good term and implies a value given by an editor that is purely not connected with the thing itself. skip sievert (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all I meant was that the Arthashastra was the first piece of academic work (rather than a law regulating economic activity). I only say that we should probably put this in because it is a page about the history of economic thought.

As for the term primitive democracy, I think that you're right that a lot of people do consider it the forerunner. But then, what do you mean by democracy? Surely slavery is not democratic? If it was, then you could call a country democratic which didn't allow women to vote either; or for that matter, the poor! I don't think it's really a point of view, it's just up to par with modern conceptions. My own view is that the first democratic country was little New Zealand from 1902, because everyone was allowed the vote. Does that answer your concerns? As I said all the stuff you'd put in was really good, but I think inevitably on such a long page, things have to be left out, and put where they can be given proper attention on the specialist main pages. Wikidea 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

Wikidea, you are shortening the article in a way that reduces importance given to Chicago school of economics. Along with Classical, Keynesian and Marxian schools, Chicago school had the greatest impact on development of economic thought. Milton Friedman is considered to be the greatest economist of the second half of 20th century, and together with John Maynard Keynes the greatest economist of the 20th century. Economists from Chicago school have received nine Nobel Prizes in Economics and their work is discussed here less then Das Kapital. -- Vision Thing -- 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't deserve an explanation. But since other people might want to know, the point is that I trimmed parts (like too much on Coase, which you can find in the subpages, most of which I also wrote) and put more in on Hayek.

You consider that Friedman is the greatest economist, but I don't care what you think. You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know very much. You repeatedly demonstrate that you're only interested in shoving in some rubbish from the right end of the spectrum. You don't know anything about Arrow, do you. Or Samuelson. You probably have heard of him, but I think you probably don't know much about Galbraith. I expect you don't know much about Friedman either. As I have said on the law and competition law pages, I wish you would go away, and find something that you're good at. Wikidea 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not only my opinion that he was one of the greatest economists, that conviction is shared across spectrum. Maybe you should read what Paul Krugman, neo-Keynesian, wrote about Friedman: "In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived." . -- Vision Thing -- 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Vision thing... you should perhaps not be editing this if you bring this much baggage here and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. That is pretty ridiculous. Not because I like or dislike this person, because you are apparently are a believer and not a neutral editor. You just lost any credibility in the above argument with wikiidea. You are not neutral and He appears to be trying to be neutral. skip sievert (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I restate what I said; I don't care what you think about Friedman. I just don't, because I don't have any respect for your opinions anymore.

Oh, and, by the way, notice that there's more in there about Friedman than the others? Notice I didn't cut a word? No? That's because you did not read it, and I wish you would go away. Wikidea 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You did cut explanation of Friedman's work on permanent income hypothesis and his critique of the Phillips curve. Anyway, it's not important what you, I or skip think about Friedman, but what other economists think, and general consensus is that he is one of the greatest economists of all time. That claim is easily backed by reliable sources. -- Vision Thing -- 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith / father /etc

I don't think it's worth debating this in two places, so see the argument about whether Smith is seen as the father of economics at the Adam Smith talk page. Cretog8 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith is not the father of economics... he is though someone that should be portrayed accurately. Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the father of modern political economy...... Now that is the reality of this argument. I would change it slightly though also so it does not sound so ridiculously paternalistic. Like Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the originator of what is viewed as modern political economy. That is then good and accurate info. skip sievert (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It so doesn't matter you two. I'm guessing one of you doesn't like Smith and another does! I'm happy to change the sentence to something like "the first person to systematically discuss economics in the modern way was Adam Smith". I think that you can find a whole bunch of phrases that'll say the same without using the metaphor "father". Whatever you think, you've got to admit, he put quite a lot of new and old ideas together, and a lot of his ideas have stuck. I'd just leave it as it is. Wikidea 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic approach is appealing. Saying "Smith is widely seen as the father of economics" or something of that like is very handy short-hand which is easily understood, and clearly true. It also has the advantage that it's not a statement about exactly how important Smith's contributions actually were (as is your phrasing above), which would be open to lots more debate, but about how his contributions are generally perceived. Wikidea, I'm not going to undo your change just yet, but "is sometimes seen" is too weak--if it's only "sometimes" or "seen by some", it probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article. What makes it belong there is how widely accepted it is.

(Since there's debate on this very topic going on over at Talk:Adam Smith, I'd really like to keep it in one place, so I'd rather continue there than here.) Cretog8 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is still not right... and I have nothing against Smith. He was an interesting character. His ideas are not currently modern in any sense Wikiidea... except for people locked in the 18th century... so your argument is not making a lot of sense. Smith is not widely viewed as the father of economics... and the tag that was added ... as the first one put on is bogus... and does not lead to any thing but a pathetic book review which is an advertisement... and a forced citation put on by an editor above to make it seem like the statement is sourced... by an authority of some kind. Neither belong in the article. Cretog you scrounged up the citation which is not connected to the debate. The citation you put on is not a magic symbol that makes every thing ok. --- Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the originator of what is viewed as modern political economy. That is then good and accurate info. He is not a father or the originator of economics That is gibberish or nonsense. Cretog.... I think the basic approach is appealing. Saying "Smith is widely seen as the father of economics" or something of that like is very handy short-hand which is easily understood, and clearly true. No... it is not true... and that is the point here. By the way... this is a different page with different editors... so why encourage people to not debate here?

I would take it a step further and say something like Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics Why perpetuate bad information... better to explain it reasonably so it can be understood... instead of turning it into an Urban myth that Smith originated something as a father... mother.. etc.... which was only recycled information.. cleverly recycled. If nothing else that sentence should be permanently dropped from the article as written now (my opinion). It appears to have been written by the Smith devotee`s club. By the way... according to that garbled nonsense of a sentence... does Smith remain the father of economics for all time, and can economics ever evolve or change into something unrelated to Smith ??? or can a new father or mother come forth one day? skip sievert (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, I don't want to respond to this at all, because once again you're accusing me of dishonest sourcing. If you have a problem with the reference I added, explain what that problem is. Cretog8 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate editing. The source is not good because it is not related... it is not connected to the sentence in question. You can not just throw up an economics article, and call that a reference in general for something. It is supposed to ref the sentence in the article. But it does not. There is no connection to the sentence. The other ref. is a book review... and the sentence reference is an offhand comment that is not done by anyone in particular but tossed of unrelated really to any thing serious. Dishonest no.. just disconnected... or not connected. skip sievert (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hoaas&Madigan article is a survey of "10 of the top-selling principles textbooks in the field". In the article (p.528) they say, "In general, the texts are quite ready to give Smith credit for being the father of economics...". That's extremely precisely related. The book review I agree was not adequate as a main source, which is why I found another one. However, when saying something like "widely accepted" I figured it couldn't hurt as a second source. Cretog8 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like weasel words to me. For starters take off the times book review/commercial. Also just because something is poorly written with a paternal nonsense aspect does not mean it is good or accurate. In general.... quite ready again weaselish. It is a poorly phrased sentiment that is an antique in conception. Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics That is neutral and not patriarchal.skip sievert (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, if you want to push your arguments why don't you provide sourcing for your statement (i.e., Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics). That would be a lot more persuasive than simply beating up Cretog's citations over and over again, which appear to be valid and NPOV. Remember (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying my sentence is perfect. Just that what is there now should be either dropped entirely because it is gratuitous, or rewritten to have more meaning. The sentence I proposed is just tossed off.... and could be written any number of ways... to get at a better meaning for the article. My only interest here is to not mislead people reading the article. The current phrase should have not been used in the first place... Weasel words are not neutral or encyclopedic. What is valid about a book review advertisement in the New York Times... making an offhand statement? Or a vague... some people imply other source? Why don't you source it as I wrote it?... or rewrite it? Or drop it from the article entirely? Because it is taken down repeatedly... I have not had a chance to source or cite anything... but.. as a statement who can disagree with it? It is merely factual. Because, if you can find one real argument against the change, make it. Many arguments can be made against the current edit. That is why it is being content disputed. It will be tagged shortly with the weasel words sticker.

Just about any thing is better than what is there now... Example Smith was an 18th century Scottish moral philosopher, whose impulses led to (many of) our modern day theories; his work marks the breakthrough of an evolutionary approach which progressively displaced the stationary Aristotelian view. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Smith.htm skip sievert (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that on the Adam Smith page (where this contention originated), the edit was modified as to the contention above. This should also be modified now on this page. Cited as the father was used ... instead of widely seen so... change it or I will. That is still poorly phrased in the rest of the sentence... but it is some improvement. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The new classical assumptions

I placed the {{POV}} tag on the section, so I'll explain what I feel is wrong:

• "In a competitive economy, said the marginalists, people get what they had paid, or worked for." Kind of a vacuous statement.

It's not vacuous at all! This is in the context of Marx, remember who was talking all about alienation and exploitation. I'm trying to find the exact quote from Daniel Fusfeld's book, if you give me a bit of time; I'll give you a reference. Wikidea 22:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Then Leon Walras (1834-1910), again working independently, generalised marginal theory..." No mention in this section that almost the entire basis for General equilibrium stems from this notion. Also, markets aren't required to be competitive in order for an equilibrium to exist.

Just put in another sentence then on what you mean. I'm sure you're right. Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "After finding a statistical correlation of sunspots and business fluctuations and commenting on Mill's assertion of crisis being "the destruction of belief and hope in the minds of merchants and bankers", Stanley Jevons wrote..." Heaps WP:UNDUE weight upon this failing of Jevons.

I don't agree. All the rest is about the things they got right. I think it's interesting and notable, because people were serious about these kinds of things, and it's important to understand people's mistakes. Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest is not about what Jevon's did or didn't get right. All we see from this article is that jevons was some guy who thought that sunspots made bankers crazy and that correlation was causation. The only hint we have to the contrary is a picture and a caption noting offhand that he was basically the father of neoclassical economics. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sunspots are staying, but yes, perhaps you're right that it's a bit unfair on Jevons, because there isn't anything else about him. Could you write a sentence adding another specific contribution he made? Also, I haven't put in his birth and death dates yet. Wikidea 22:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, nothing. If you want the sunspots to stay but don't want to add more details to ensure that they aren't undue weight then the tag can stay. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me put that differently. I think that if we balance out Jevons work with another sentence or two on his work with equilibrium theory, then it'd be better. Wikidea 10:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This version of the Jevons sunspots theory is wrong (though he might have said something about bankers acting crazy). Basically at the time people believed that sunspots caused fluctuations in the weather. And weather affects agricultural output. And agriculture at the time was a large part of the economy. Hence, sunspots caused fluctuations in the economy. It's not correct, but it's logical (one of the premises (sunspots --> weather) is just false) and you can see how he made the mistake. And yes, it's a bit undue weight what with the quote and all. Maybe just a mention that Jevons had one of the earliest theories of the business cycle or something.radek (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "...best known for developing the concept of the circumstance under which nobody need be made worse off, and nobody better off through wealth redistribution. When this situation exists, the economy is said to be "Pareto efficient"." Not really NPOV, but this isn't really accurate.

So please adjust it to make it so. Wikidea 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Pareto devised mathematical representations for this optimal resource allocation, which when represented on a graph would yield a curve. Different points along the curve represent different allocations, but each would be optimally efficient." Also not NPOV, but I think the credit for the contract curve goes to Edgeworth or more precisely to Arthur Lyon Bowley in The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics: an Introductory Treatise (1924).

Perhaps you could put this in yourself? You seem to know what you're talking about! Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it in once I've brought the mathematical econ draft I have in my userspace into the mainspace. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Rather than using the persuasive language of classical economists like Mill, the Pareto efficient curve could be represented with a precise mathematical formula" How or why is Mill's language "persuasive" but Pareto's formulation not?  Done

So that's about it. Sorry for not detailing this earlier. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we are past WP:BRD. that tag should be put back up until the issue is cleared up. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When you said something "is not really NPOV" do you mean there is a neutrality problem or there isn't? Because "not NPOV" meants "not neutral point of view". Maybe I'm just reading you wrong but did you mean there is "not a point of view" i.e. those points are fine?

I just put that there to note that the specific problem I mentioned on that line wasn't a problem, sorry. Those points are/were fine for NPOV but weren't accurate. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Condensing, subsections by area/time period, and less focus on philosophers

There are a lot of biographical details on this page. Is it necessary? Also, there are often quotes, which I don't think are necessary. Unless the quote is especially succinct or enlightening, the information should be summarized. For example, Hörnigk's 9 principles seem really redundant, and come down to basically just standard protectionism. Quotes belong more on pages devoted to concepts or the philosopher's thought. This page needs to be condensed -- which was also Tom's comment in the GA assessment. The shorter we can say something without losing meaning, the better. (Unfortunately repeating myself.)

Each section could begin with a summary of the succeeding subsections (this is done OK so far). The subsections could be time periods or geographical areas rather than people's names. For example, the "Early economic thought" section might have, say, "Ancient Asian", "Ancient Greek" and "Medieval economics". I'm pretty sure we could find enough to fill all 3 of these proposed sections. We could probably also find some early Arabic economics; scholarship was flourishing in Arabia during the Middle Ages.

I added Xenophon to the early economic thought section, where he was entirely missing, which suggests there are others who are missing as well. I'm also not sure the focus is right. There's relatively quite a bit of information on philosophers like Aristotle, John Locke, and Bentham. I don't mean to denigrate the work done here, though; lots of interesting, well-written content here, Wikidea. II | (t - c) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate; I really have just been waiting to getting around to the condensing stuff. The Marx section for instance could be a lot more compact. I just haven't found the time yet. The problem as always with big topics like this is "who do you select"? Smith, Marx and Keynes are usually the "big three" that people deal with (e.g. Heilbroner's book, which I believe is the best selling short History of economic thought text, does this). I suppose I went into Aristotle, because I think that part about the public/private dichotomy - and the profit motive idea - is a source of debate, that is still with us in almost exactly the same form as today. What I'd like to have is each main section with subpages, that really cover all authors, and do it a little more fully, e.g. there are already fairly good attempts for the Chicago school of economics and the Classical economics page is ripe for that. So is mercantilism for putting in the extras (that's where Hoernigk, for example, fits in). Btw, have you also put Xenophon on the Ancient economic thought subpage? Wikidea 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Aristotle belongs on this page, but I don't see that compelling of a reason to give him so much more weight than people like Chanakya or Xenophon, and rather think the latter two deserve more weight. I hadn't looked at the Ancient economic thought page prior to making that edit, and Xenophon is covered pretty well there. I may start condensing this page; stop me if you see something you don't like. I'd prefer to adopt a summary style and not choose who to cover. The major figures get a bit more weight, but everyone significant gets a sentence or two. II | (t - c) 05:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

POV in the lead

I find this portion of the final lead paragraph somewhat POV and, well, inaccurate;

"Men like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek caught the imagination of some western leaders, warning of The Road to Serfdom and socialism, focusing their theory on what could be achieved through better monetary policy and deregulation. However, the reaction of governments through the 1980s has been challenged, and development economists like Amartya Sen and information economists like Joseph Stiglitz are bringing new ideas to economic thought in the twenty first century."

First, the flow of the paragraph makes it seem like Friedman and Hayek had influence very early on after WWII, whereas they didn't really have any impact on policy until late 70's/early 80's (I'm not sure if Hayek ever had effect on policy. He was famously shunned by both academics and politicians during the peak of Keynesianism). Second, who are these "western leaders" the article's talking about? Thatcher and Reagan to be sure, but other than that? Mitterand? Willy Brandt? Helmut Schmidt? Don't think so. Third, the last sentence is unclear and misleading. I take it that "the reaction of governments through the 1980's has been challenged" refers to the challenge to the liberalization and deregulation of Reagan/Thacher years. At the very least it's just not written very clearly. Also the general "governments" is inappropriate here as mentioned above. Finally, why only focus on development and information economists like Sen and Stiglitz? And only left wing at that? What if someone wrote "...and macroeconomists like Edward Prescott are bringing new ideas to economic thought in the...". That would be just as relevant. Overall the whole lead's written a bit like it's trying to tell a nice, literary story - but this is an encyclopedia.

I thought I'd bring it up on talk page before making any major changes.radek (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about the sentence: it doesn't read very clearly. Hayek was influential though: Margaret Thatcher famously slammed a copy of one of his books (either the Road to Serfdom or one of the Law Legislation and Liberty volumes) on the top of the despatch box during PMQ's, booming "this is what we believe!" So it's from 1979 for the UK and 1980 for the US that they became influential, but also, I'd say, for Australia (John Howard), Canada (is it Stephen Dion??) and I expect the conservatives in NZ. Also, I think it's v. important that the policies of the IMF and World Bank, on the back of the Washington Consensus were shaped by the new conservative thinkers: this is what much of Stiglitz's work was about. Through those two, quite a lot of the planet was affected because to get loans, you needed to fulfill conditions: Argentina is I think the classic case. You're right that the French and the Germans weren't so much affected (although Sarkozy seems to be catching on)! Maybe you could alter that, while staying concise? It's all about being concise. It was written quickly, but I do think that it needs to be written like a nice, literary story (of course, not literally!). Britannica authors are pretty good at this, though it will always depend on the article and its nature. Wikidea 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on other authors, I don't know about Edward Prescott, but as you can see, the bottom of the page is still very incomplete. Perhaps you could put a few "see also"s down there for now - and more contemporary authors if you have more in mind? Wikidea 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trolls should stay in their caves

Deleting large amounts of good material without explanation, as Vision Thing is characteristically doing, is unacceptable. I'm just posting a note about it, to let everyone know that he's a real jerk. He's pursuing a petty agenda across several pages, and despite my usual approach of at first being nice to him, he just proves himself to be an absolute creep and not worthy of any form of reasoning. He's a troll, and should stay in his cave. Please do help, as some of you already have been doing to revert the trolling in future. Wikidea 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't call other editors trolls unless you are actually in a venue to ask them to stop trolling and you have obvious diffs of behavior. I don't agree with his content removals but he doesn't need to be subjected to personal attacks in order for us to improve the article. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the mass deletions are uncalled for, even if some shortening of the article in general might be desirable. In reverting my reverting of his deletions VisionThing has asserted that the reasons for his/her deletions have been explained. Well, looking over the talk page I see no such explanations, and until they are provided (and accepted by consensus) I will continue to revert these deletions.radek (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Vision Thing's edit to some degree, and certainly object to calling him a troll. I think the Context is a little bit undue weight. This article needs to aim for a comprehensive summary, with a summary style, rather than bogging itself down with individual details. These details belong in subarticles. At the same time, the content is good, and it would be better for it to be moved into another article than deleted. II | (t - c) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, you'd need to observe the pattern of behaviour over a long period of time to see why I call him a troll. He's a dirty, ugly troll. It's not really a personal attack, because he's part of a species. I aim to offend all trolls. Yours is absolutely the right approach II! This is the sort of stuff that people who give a little thought to their actions say. Notice, he's also pursuing this agenda about putting the Chicago school into separate paragraphs, when one of the things I did before I shortened that part was to expand the Chicago school of economists page. Trolls should stay in their caves. Wikidea 09:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Context and Chicago sections

I removed context sections because I don't think their content is relevant for the topic of this article (as I said in original edit summary). Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx have well developed articles and are well known so I don't believe we need special context sections about their work and ideas. At the same time this article has many holes but it is already longer then appropriate for Misplaced Pages article.

I see that nobody is discussing this but my revert (btw, properly described as such unlike Wikideas's who gave a false edit summary – always a red flag for me) also undid changes to "Chicago's conservationists" section. If we are going to have separate sections for the most notable economists then Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek deserve their own. -- Vision Thing -- 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The context section on Adam Smith in this article is quite different from the article on Adam Smith (for example, neither Pitt nor Burke are mentioned in AS article) and I happen to think that it provides a useful, well, context. At the moment I have no opinion on the Chicago thing.radek (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the troll persists. The appropriate place for elaboration on Chicago is in the page on Chicago School of Economists. Wikidea 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask nicely. Again. Please don't call other editors trolls. I don't care what your opinion of Vision Thing is. Don't make personal attacks. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

radek, my understanding is that context should provide us with better insight into something (in this case that would be Smith's economic ideas). I'm not sure how well The Wealth of Nations context section does that. Also, there is a question of length. If we are going to be consistent we need to provide context sections for all major subsections of the article. However, that would cause problems with article size. Any proposals? -- Vision Thing -- 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, get lost. Stop vandalising the article. Wikidea 11:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, Wikidea? He's talking about the article, and you just call him a troll and vandal. How does this look to people joining the debate? Incidentally, "Chicago's conservationists" seems to be an invented title. I suggest using "Chicago school," which has a known meaning. Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article seems to be suffering from overly cutesy section headings. Let's make them descriptive, eh? Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not sure who the troll here is supposed to be. But anyway, Vision Thing, yes, I'm sympathetic to shorter but better articles and I can see why you want to cut the section. But there's some good, useful info in there, and it is not duplicated in other articles. So either we should split that particular material off into a separate section or (better, imo) rewrite the context section to make it more concise, keep the main points and integrate it with other sections. In fact, having a separate "context" section is pretty much like having "this stuff is important too but we didn't quite know how to include it" section - again, I'm sympathetic. But I don't like deleting it wholesale. I'll give it a try but in the meantime if you want to combine the two sections and propose a combined version it here on the talk page I'm quite happy to listen.radek (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for your proposal. -- Vision Thing -- 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Globalization and the Nobel prize winners

Well, first I'm not sure this section really belongs here. Maybe it'd be better to have something broader which covers the 90's+ in terms of development of economic theory. Second, if it is going to be globalization, shouldn't Robert Mundell be here as well? And in fact Stiglitz is really related to the topic only through his criticisms of the World Bank, but his academic work is really on subjects other than globalization. Also, I don't want to assume some kind of POV in bad faith here but it strikes me as odd that out of all the semi-recent laurates the three most left wing ones (all very deserving of the prize, btw) had been picked to be included here. Why not, say, Prescott and Kydland? In fact, since this is a HoET article it's pretty weak to end with Monetarism (which ended like 25 years ago) and then skip to Globalization, skipping folks like Robert Lucas or the whole DSGE macro which has been veru influential.radek (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All your points are useful: in fact you can see those sections aren't finished, as I said a number of times. But I was organising as much around the three very distinct subjects that have really grown in importance (development, information and international economics) as much as the three, as you say "left wing" guys. But I think they are all the most widely read, known and popular, outside economic fields as well as in. The more contemporary you get of course, the more people there are that everyone will go "oh s/he should go in". Are those you mentioned well treated in appropriate sub-pages? The title, "global times" was just to refer to the thinking that became accepted after the Berlin Wall fell, with the end of a bi-polar world. Funny that Krugman got the Bank of Sweden prize though. That makes all the last economists recipients. Wikidea 20:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he must have gotten added right before the prize was announced. Prescient.radek (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Split

When I edited the article, a message warned that "This page is 126 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Misplaced Pages:Article size." I suggest splitting this article into three articles:

1. History of early economic thought: from the beginning untill Smith
2. History of modern economic thought: Smith untill 1945 (including Keynes and the Austrian school)
3. History of contemporary economic thought: after 1945 or after Keynes

I am ready to contribute to this move, if it is needed. --Pah777 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already an early economic thought page entitled ancient economic thought. This article doesn't need to be entirely split. It needs to be converted into summary style. So individuals get a couple sentences, and the details are forked off into separate pages. II | (t - c) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove the quotes and some images. Some sections are too much long, such as that about the American way. The lenght of this section is disproportionate, comparing to the importance of this school of thought. The section about Adam Smith is also too long. Traditionnaly, Smith is classified as a "classical economist", along with Ricardo and Mill, I propose to merge the two sections Smith and the classical. Rather than writing very long section about few authors, maybe we should cite as many as possible economists and only say some words about, i.e. their major contribution to the economics. No need for biographies, images, long descriptions. --Pah777 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's useful to split the articles like that. There are already pages which you can put material in (e.g. Ancient economic thought, Classical economists, etc). I would work with those things. On the American stuff, can I recommend the page, Institutional economics, which you could move material to? Adam Smith should really stay, in his own right. Economic historians (e.g. Heilbroner) usually centre the story around him, Marx and Keynes, as three pivotal figures. You should know, by the way, that the length thing is only a guide. Also, taking pictures away is not really useful, it won't get rid of that message. Also, you will never be able to cite every economist. This is going to be a perennial problem on a page like this, because every idiot will want their pet love of a theorist to get some special mention (I'm sure you're not an idiot, but that's exactly what you've done with Schumpeter. No he did not say anything much that was new or interesting. His most interesting work was doing history of economic thought itself). That is precisely what the subpages are for. I've had a break from trying to defend this article from the encroaching whims of the ignorant, so I'll leave you with that. My advice for you if you want to be productive, is have a go at writing something in detail on one of the specialist pages. Wikidea 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, broadly, with Pah777. This should be a broad sketch of the history of economics, with a brief mention of many of them and their contributions. The people themselves and the in-depth descriptions of their work, and context, should go in other articles. It's not a guide to a few great economist. And while Schumpeter might not have been a revolutionary theorist, his intuitive grasp of economics was brilliant, and he was the thesis advisor for several great economists. He's also known for applying the term "creative destruction" to economics. Wikidea, you could copy this article onto your own website as a guide and claim it as yours, since you've largely written it. But it needs to be trimmed and turned into a narrative rather than a string of biographies.

Pah777's recent addition isn't a step in the right direction, either. It's too detailed and focused on the Kondratiev stuff, which is Schumpeter's most dubious contribution. II | (t - c) 03:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the theory of business cycles is really questionable, but it is an important theory in economics, and we must at least mention it. We can specify in the article that the theory is criticized today. I will rewrite the section. --Pah777 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I say split it. Most of Mathematical economics right now is a history of 19th century economics (minus Marshall, Fischer, the italians, ricardo, malthus, and some others.). If this were split up I could feel good merging most of that content over and summarizing the bit there. It would also help us clean up Marginalism#History. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• As an addendum, while I agree with splitting it, we really shouldn't get this into "cite as many economists as possible". We can split this and retain the basic structure. Also, we can split this article, then remake a "HOET" article as a summary of the three. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you what this looked like before I started, here. Wikidea 09:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article is very good untill Keynes (included). The main problem is about the economic thought after Keynes, because there is no dominant theories. About Schumpeter, I insist that we should at least mentionned him, because of his important works about innovation (I agree he is mostly an historian who mostly took existing theories, and that the theories about cycles are disputable). The main problem of the end of the article is that there are many economists who deserve to be mentionned, such as Buchanan, Lucas, Barro, Romer, Laffer, Solow or Kuznets. It seems that their contributions are not less important than that of Arrow, Krugman, Coase and Sen. Perhaps we do not need to shorten too much the sections or to split the article, either we should add longer introductions, some transitions and mention more post-1945 economists.--Pah777 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The end of the article is a real problem. I think we should avoid writing about any developments in economics in the last 15 years because we lack historical perspective to determine their relevance. -- Vision Thing -- 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We should rearrange sections about post-1945 economics. In particular, the section about the American way is very disputable. The contribution of Veben to economics was very limited, he was a sociologist, not an economist, I propose to delete the whole text about him. Berle and Means' works were not very important for the economics, they do not deserve to be mentionned (and Chandler's works about the corporate structure are much more renowned, with The Visible Hand). I propose to shorten a lot this section. --Pah777 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Period stereotyping

The article is filled with stereotypes drawn from common periodisations. I removed some sentences about the dark middle ages and ignorance of this period. (A lack of sources should not induce us to judge). It is just as unclear what the "troubles" of the 17th century (fires and pestilences) have to do with economic thought presented here. I would like to read something on Isaac Newton and John Locke and their considerations of how a currency could be stabilised, on Bernard Mandeville and his thought of healthy circulation of money. Simply less sterotypes taken from handbooks of history and more talk directed to problems and solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Simons (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mandeville appeared later on (why not as part of the British Enlightenment?) I cut away some of the stereotyping, yet remain helpless. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also removed the parable - as it was put into the article without source (to prove how decent but stupid people were in the early middle ages... I leave it here, in case that someone finds a better integration. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Macro bias

I think there's a good bit of a bias towards Macroeconomics, at least in the lead. Surely the development of game theory and its application (mostly in IO, but in pretty much all economic subfields) and econometrics should be talked about. I'm not sure how to cleanly incorporate it so help would be welcome.radek (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much of a historian, but I think the history of economic thought has a macro bias itself, so it might be appropriate for this article. On the other hand, I agree with you that there really should be a section on game theory given its importance in the last 30 years. I'd also be curious what people think about including experimental economics. It's my field, so my perspective may be skewed--I'm sure it mentions a mention, but I don't have a good feeling for how much of a mention. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I agree that HoET generally has a macro bias and that the article reflecting this is fine. But there's a pretty much a complete absence of micro stuff. Game theory and its apps have been around for awhile so it should be in there somewhere. Experimental econ is still somewhat new so I don't know how "history" it is. Maybe there should a section of "Recent developments" to replace the "Global times" section where Exp Econ and other stuff could go. Reasons for this would be that, first, only a small part of new econ since 80's was concerned with globalization. Second, we could include stuff on New Growth Theory, New Trade Theory and such, which would subsume the globalization stuff. Third, it would permit us to cover more than just Sen, Stiglitz, and Krugman.radek (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the lead section, I propose adding something like this, please improve or rewrite it:

As for the recent development of the economic thought, I think that the last sections should be rewritten. For the last decades the scope economic thought has been so broad, there have been so many economists and economic schools, the various schools and disciplines have been so specialized that we must not contented ourselves with citing the theories of three economists. I am ready to contribute to the revamping of the section. I can write about Kaldor and post-keynesian economy, Buchanan and the school of Public choice, the NCE, NKE and suppply school (Lucas, Barro, Romer, Laffer). There are also a lot of specific but notable theories we may mention: I suggest keeping a section about protectionism and free-trade debates and adding one about business cycles and economic growth theories (Solow, etc). Pah777 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll rephrase what I think you're saying about the last sections: In recent times, there hasn't been a dominant theme to economic thought, such that the era can be characterized simply. So, public choice, globalization topics, game theory... The era might need to be characterized only by time rather than concepts. If that's what you're saying, I'm with you.

As I say, I'm not much of a historian in these matters, but I disagree with your rankings of importance. I suspect that's our different backgrounds showing up in our perceptions. I'm never sure where to place econometrics, but if it's part of the history, it's a hugely important part. Game theory has become extremely important, with almost every topic in economics being re-imagined from a game theory perspective, and it's also been a major part of information economics.

All of this is just my gut: If there was a theme of the late-20th century it seems to have consisted of information economics and the feeling that macro was futile (a feeling which is now fading). From my perspective, neither NKE or supply-side econ has been as important as the micro trend of information economics/industrial organization/microstructure.

However, I really am getting out of my depth here. I better just shut up now until/unless I come up with things more solid than my gut. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dangit, failing to follow my advice, here's more gut: Again, because it's not my area, I've neglected finance, which can be tied in with information economics but has been significant in its own right. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For sure the various theories you talk about must be mentionned (so many Nobel were awarded for game theory, research on asymetrical information and financial studies). However, they are not mainstream economics, only branches of economics, we should not insist too much on them. When we speak about "economics", we generally mean "macroeconomics". Microeconomics, finance and information eco are also mathematics (John Nash, etc). In addition, it is difficult to judge what is important or not because it is too recent. Lets just write a section for these theories. Pah777 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

The edits you can see are the following:

• added video links for all the most recent economists, and updated photos
• deleted Schumpeter paragraph, because it had no sources or references
• put Hayek with Coase and Friedman, because in terms of when their theory became popular, it's chronologically after Samuelson and Arrow; during the 1980s
• shortened a paragraph on JM Keynes, which was unreferenced, and it now says the same
• gave Galbraith his own header
• starting to write the bottom section, but interrupted

Wikidea 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think that adding Youtube interviews in the captions is not a good idea. Links normally to be avoided states that “a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.“
• If you think that Schumpeter section needs citations, ask for them. Lots of paragraphs in the article doesn’t have citations, like sections on Keynesian economics and The General Theory.
• Hayek doesn't belong in Chicago/monetarism section. He was not a member of the Chicago school and the main difference between him and the Chicago school/monetarists was in his views on monetary policy. -- Vision Thing -- 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But chronologically it makes more sense to include Hayek with Friedman, as I said. It's history, and besides Schumpeter's thought is pretty far away from Hayek in thought. Just because they were both originally Austrian and wrote in similar styles does not make them similar. We can integrate Schumpeter into the section on American thought. I asked people concerned about both Schumpeter and the Youtube links, and they were fine. Perhaps you'd like to add the caveat about Hayek not being part of the Chicago School? - oh wait, it's already there. Wikidea 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this works, Schumpeter now appearing as a contrasting figure with the Chicago section. I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't satisfied, however, but I live in hope. Wikidea 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Schumpeter and Hayek were not just Austrians, they were the most prominent Austrian School economists of the 20th century. I don't see any chronological problem because the age difference between Schumpeter and Hayek is roughly the same as the age difference between Hayek and Friedman or Hayek and Coase. -- Vision Thing -- 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an issue of chronology. Hayek should be with the Chicago school. You've breach the 3RR. Wikidea 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the two of you.. V.T. and W.I. having an ideological difference or is it purely a formatting issue about what should go where and how to put people in a time or category? It looks like Wikiidea is trying to edit neutrally about information. Do one of you feel that the other is not editing neutrally or editing with a certain..., or type of pov that is over weighted or not accurate? Just curious looking at the page and all the reverts. skip sievert (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the main issue is whether or not to have a section on Austrian School economists. Perhaps we should refer to a few textbooks on the "History of Economic Thought"? LK (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Some resources on the History of Economic Thought

Following through on the suggestion I made above, I've been looking at various textbooks and syllabuses. Here are some resources that are available on the web.

• A HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT an entire textbook online from Weslayan U (a bit dated).
• The History of economic thoughtBy Mark Blaug, the textbook I was assigned in graduate school.
• The History of Economic Thought an excellent recent text.
• An outline of the history of economic thought an even more recent text.
• HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT WEBSITE at the New School
• This search on google for history of economic thought syllabus brings up a whole host of syllabuses from various universities.

If you browse through these resources, I think it's clear that a whole section devoted to the Austrian school would be WP:UNDUE. Hayek is usually mentioned, as is Menger, however, there is almost never a chapter devoted to the Austrian school. I think Hayek and Menger merit paragraphs. The Chicago school is not the right place to put Hayek, as his best work predates the Keynesian revolution. I think they should both be in the section on neo-Classical economics.
LK (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your advice, and we can paste those resources into external links. Would you say we should put Hayek after the mathematical analysis section then? I'm just thinking about how we link the two - or how we write it so that one section reads logically into the next. Can you give an example of how to write that? I know Hayek follows on in the liberal tradition (in the proper sense of the word liberal) an his spontaneous order doctrine essentially defends the self correcting conception of markets, along with equilibrium. The difference, perhaps, is that he is notable for eschewing mathematical reasoning. Also I'm thinking, The Road to Serfdom (1942), and then later his major works like Law, Legislation and Liberty (1972) really took hold in political discourse through the 1980s, ie after Bretton Woods breaks down and Thatcher and Reagan are elected. Also, he seems to be more reactive to Keynes, and lived much longer than Keynes. What do you think though - how should we situate him, so it reads logically? Wikidea 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

LK, first and third source have only four main sections so a fact that they don't have a chapter devoted to the Austrian school is irrelevant unless we are going to follow their example. I don't know for Blaug's History (it is not available online), but his more recent Economic Theory in Retrospect has a chapter on the Austrian theory of capital and interest. Fourth source has sections on Menger and Schumpeter and a subsection on the Austrian School. New School's website has a section on the Austrian School and a section on Schumpeter. On the other hand, I have noticed that none of the resources you have listed has a section on Global times, and that means that having such section in this article is not in line with Misplaced Pages policy. -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You confuse a page on schools of economic thought with a page on the history of economic thought. Wikidea 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea, you make a good point about Road to Serfdom, which is in some ways a response to Keynes. It is difficult to situate Hayek, as he writes both before and after Keynes. Perhaps right after the rest of the neo-classicals, and right before Keynes? And include a note about his work in relation to Keynesian economics?

On the Austrian school, how about as a subsection of the section on neo-classical economists? Include Menger, capital theory, and Hayek in that section? LK (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to have a special subsection on the Austrian School. However, I see Schumpeter (sub)section as a must. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Schumpeter should be mentioned. IMO, he was as important in his heyday as Milton Friedman was in his. However, can we demote the Austrian school to a subheading? LK (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. -- Vision Thing -- 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what I did, and you reverted it four times. Wikidea 00:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some excellent sources listed above suggestive of bounding . I'll add them to 2ndary Refs + 1 more to the HOET article at end. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube and Marxism

Other two changes I have reverted are external links in the captions and the name change of the Marxism section to Capitalism. First change is not in line with guideline on external links which states that "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article". I don't see why we should violate that standard for random selection of interviews. Second change doesn't make sense to me. -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is no reason that the youtube links are wrong. They are not random. They are the economists on tape. And please read the first sentence of the section. And please stop reverting changes. If there was a 4RR you would have broken it. Wikidea 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Youtube is occasionally used to link information on Misplaced Pages. Sometimes it is the only presentation of material for some aspect... and depending on, it can be an excellent way to get obscure,.. or, information not recorded elsewhere, onto some article, when it is not formatted to a pov or has other baggage so I would say use them. skip sievert (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you or Wikidea can show me just one featured article that uses Youtube links in the captions, I will agree with you. -- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The good reason to include Youtube links is so that readers can see what Hayek, Arrow, Friedman, etc actually look and sound like. It's not clear what your objection is, other than there's a rule. But the rule is not absolute. It says, as I highlighted "normally". Here's one with links: Coronation of the British monarch. Wikidea 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't use Youtube links in the captions. It has one Youtube link in the external links section. I understand your argument, but if the readers want to know more about certain authors they should go to their individual articles. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neoclassical

I changed "New Classical" to "Neoclassical". The term "New Classical" is applied to ideas based on rational expectations and real business cycle theories, most prominent in the 1980s. We should have a section on this, leading on from Friedman and monetarism.JQ (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a section called "Contemporary Thought"? Including both New Classicals and New Keynesians, (and also game theory, Behavioral economics, etc.)? LK (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the article, it struck me that the page concentrates too much on people and not enough on ideas. I know it's easier to source biographical details, but I think we should try to concentrate more on the development of economic thinking, rather than the economists involved. LK (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but like you noted, that is a harder approach. Do you have some ideas how to start? -- Vision Thing -- 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe... but, ideas come from people and the article is more interesting and creative when it brings attention to the people who had the ideas also. Finding out a little about them... even snippets of their life experiences tells a story also of their influences from life and circumstances, like where they came from, who influenced them, groups that they were involved with, their teachers, and area they were from in the world, when they changed their minds on something and what information caused them to rethink something, etc. I like the dual approach of a bit of bio on the notable people along with their notable work. I like the way the article weaves these aspects together. This seems like a creative presentation because of that currently. skip sievert (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think LK makes some good points. The page is too much of a biographical narrative. This kind of makes sense for early economic thought where large sets of ideas can be isolated to certain individuals (e.g., Smith and Marx). This page should be more of narrative about the changing landscape of economic ideas over history instead of a list of biographical paragraphs. This is somewhat hard to do because economics now has distinct subspecialties with little overlap, so a single narrative would get convoluted. The present page is already long, but it doesn't cover a lot of the more recent movements in economic thought including New Keynesianism, the New Classicals, and other rising groups like the behaviorists. Certain other significant groups, like the post-Keynesians, are also ommitted. We need to come with a way to break out this information into subarticles by specialty (A history of History of international economic thought, History of Macroeconomic thought, History of Microeconomic thought), and have these articles summarized at a high level in this article. I'm open to other suggestions, but I don't like the status quo. We have an already long article that doesn't cover everything it should. Something needs to change.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds like a good idea to me (but a lot of work): why not start by creating those articles? Wikidea 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than that, how about a cut near the bottom. Move everything after Keynesian Revolution to a new article called "Contemporary Economic Thought". With a very short summary at the bottom and a link to the new article? This new article can cover all the myriad of developments that have occurred over the last 50 years. LK (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a start on contemporary thought. I'm open to ideas on how to organise the article, but I agree with LK that a list of the big names is not the best approach to contemporary thought. OTOH, there's a lot of useful material here, and it would be a shame to lose it, or try to merge it all back into the individual bios. How about breaking out the biographical stuff into an article called something like "Leading economists since 1950". JQ (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, roughly, a concept-based approach is better than a famous-economist-based approach. In addition to Ratex, RBC and NKE what are the other "big" concepts since the early 70's in Macro? I'd throw in Ricardian Equivalence, Time Inconsistency, Endogenous Growth and New International Macro, just off the top of my head. The Equity Premium Puzzle should probably make an appearance. The Micro section needs to be substantially expanded as well of course.radek (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

With this article getting quite large, I also agree with writing split-off articles on History of Modern Macro, etc., and using this page for just a summary. In fact this article could use a lot of that - which I think was suggested before but in between all the edit wars I've lost track of whatever happened to that idea.radek (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be OK with doing a History of modern economic thought article, but I think Macro history to warrant it's own article. We might eventually have to split a "Modern economic thought" article, but it might be awhile before we have to deal with that.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a bridge to be crossed when it's reached. So what should the scope of "modern economic thought" be? Post-marginalism? For macro; Keynes to present, or Lucas to present. For micro; Arrow-Debreu to present or ... game theory to present (?)?radek (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For Macro, I'd start with Keynes. Everything since then has been a reaction to Keynes in one way or another. Not sure about micro.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- So basically

• Early Keynesianism (Keynesian cross, Hick's IS/LM, Fiscal policy + historical context)
• Monetarism (MV=PY, Monetary Policy, Expectations augmented PC, AD/SRAS/LRAS, monetary rule - some Tobin maybe + historical context)
• New Classicals (Lucas critique, Rational expectations, Lucas' "Surprise supply curve", RBC, time inconsistency, microfoundations)
• New Keynesians (microfoundations, menu costs, staggered price setting, efficiency wages, monetary rules and IS again)
• Other; Endogenous Growth (Romer, Barro regressions, Aghion and Howitt) and New Inter Macro (6 puzzles of Inter Macro, from Obstfeld and Rogoff might be a good starting point).

Not sure where Equity Premium Puzzle should go in but it definitely hang over a lot of this stuff as a dark cloud. So called 'great moderation' should be mentioned if only for historical reasons. John Q might want to throw in the Efficient Markets Hypothesis which probably also belongs somewhere in this time period. I think the above would be a good scaffold to begin the development of new article. Thoughts?radek (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I think that looks like a great list. I'd also throw in something on the Post-Keynesian. I'd also exclude finance and most international economics topics since these generally aren't considered macro and often have a close relationship with micro. That's my two cents. Others may know better.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that much about Post-Keynesianism, except some of the stuff related to the Cambridge Capital Controversy (like I don't know what they do or what the major contributions are). I think New International Macro certainly falls under macro, and before it the Mundell-Fleming model. I agree with finance for the most part but the Equity Premium Puzzle has some pretty big implications for macroeconomics so it needs to be worked in somewhere, though that may be difficult. I'm going to stub the article and I hope others join in expanding it.radek (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've stubbed it here History of Modern Macroeconomic Thought. It's very very rough as I am just trying to get it going. Please contribute and expand.radek (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A related question is, as the split-off article(s) take off, what are we going to take out of this one, in order to shorten it? I fully agree with the tag that Gary King added.radek (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Six reverts???

Can someone help me here: Vision Thing has just reverted a whole series of changes on this page for the sixth time. Wikidea 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. It looked to me like you and L.K. were ... are, on the right track with the article... and sticking with guidelines. Looking as an overview it seems uncalled for to just revert as was done. Skipsievert 08:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

VT, Wikidea, you guys have to stop reverting each other. It'll only lead to this page getting locked, and reprimands all around. Can we hash this out here? Wikidea, what about VT's edit disturbs you most? What about his edit can you accept? Can you do a further edit where you restore all the parts acceptable to you? And then paste here the additions you object to? Then we can discuss on this page what you find objectionable, and maybe come to a compromise about it. LK (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't editted anything. He's simply been reverting the edits I've made. As I say, six times if you look at the history. Please don't lump me together with him. Wikidea 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences

Ok, I stand corrected. But lets go through the dispute, and see which topics are acceptable, and which are causing the disagreement. Following are the major disputed sections. VT, Wikidea, which of the following do you object to, and which of the following do you object to the deletion of? --LK (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:MultiCol

Version A

In VT's version, but not in Wikidea's:

1. Chulavamsa records that Parakramabahu I of Sri Lanka had debased the currency of Ancient Sri Lanka in order to produce monies to support his large scale infrastructure projects. Parakramabahu I also pioneered free trade during his reign, a war was fought with Burma to defend free trade.
2. Knowledge of western and northern European economic thought in the early Middle Ages is scarce. The value of money was perceived as metal based, and that supported notions of "just prices" and objective evaluations. The economy itself remained based on a system of feudal land distribution which included the granting of rights to have an income from them (through taxes and duties). The inspiration to develop and discuss more complex theories of economics and money values rose with options to borrow money (on interest rates), with investments in trade (on the speculation of successful trading missions) and with the rise of the modern banking system in northern Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries. Questions Europe had to solve were: Could it be fair to lend money on interest (if the value of money would be the same, when it came to an evaluation of metal in coins). Could it be justified that Jews and a growing banking sector made money simply by trading with money. It remained unclear how a trade of money could work, though it worked practically and to the mutual benefit of all parties, answering needs and yielding profits both to those those who borrowed money and those who offered their services.
3. Neoclassical economists had a somewhat different conception of what economics should be than that of classical economists. While classical economists considered economics as a science which accounted for economic phenomena like output, consumption, value of commodities, distribution of income, neoclassical economists defined the economics as the science which additionally could be capable of studying all human rational actions. All humans can be modeled as agents who search for getting the maximal satisfaction from their actions. The marginalist neoclassicals tried to develop general economic laws, imitating the rigorous methods used in physics. Neoclassical economists were above all involved in the development of microeconomics, a science they have founded, even if the idea that all human pursued their self-interest was already mentioned in Smith, Ricardo and Mill's works.
4. The use of mathematics and the construction of a rigorous and consistent microeconomics model led to the developpement of two important theories by the economists of the Lausanne School. Léon Walras (1834 - 1910), a French economist, designed the general equilibrium theory, which led then to further analysis. According to this theory, demand and supply can adjust automatically on a competitive market. Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), an Italian economist, is known for developing the concept of the circumstance under which nobody need be made worse off, and nobody better off through wealth redistribution. When this situation exists, the economy is said to be "Pareto efficient". Pareto devised mathematical representations for this optimal resource allocation, which when represented on a graph would yield a curve. Different points along the curve represent different allocations, but each would be optimally efficient. Rather than using prosaic persuasion of classical economists like Mill, Pareto used the persuasion of precise mathematical formulae for Pareto efficiency. It was showed that a situation of general equilibrium was Pareto efficient.
5. As the classical economists, the neoclassical economists supported free-market economy based on private property and individual freedom. While they admitted the perfect competition was an unrealistic model, they argued that the real economy should tend to be as competitive as possible. Therefore, they condemned the intervention of the state within the economy. Like Smith, they wanted the role of the state to be very limited, i.e. focused on assuring the defense and the security of the territory and the citizens, the functioning of justice and the production of common goods. They argued that in a deregulated economy, a lasting crisis was impossible, as Say had explained some decades earlier. However, the English neoclassical economists concentrated on advocating for a moderate economic liberalism. Notably, Arthur Cecil Pigou, in Wealth and Welfare (1920), insisted on the existence of market failures. Markets are inefficient in case of economic externalities, and the State must interfere. However, Pigou retained free-market beliefs, and in 1933, in the face of the economic crisis, he explained in The Theory of Unemployment that the excessive intervention of the state in the labor market was the real cause of massive unemployment, because the governments had established a minimal wage, which prevented the wages from adjusting automatically.
6. While the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth were dominated by the mainstream neoclassical theory, the followers of Carl Menger broke from the mainstream, mathematics intensive economic theory and founded the heterodox Austrian School. The third and fourth generations of the Austrian School included notable economists Joseph Schumpeter, who broke with the school early in his career, and Friedrich Hayek, a leading thinker of the School. These two economists are the heirs of the Vienna marginalist school, which worked separately from the math-based Lausanne neoclassical school.
7. Section on Joseph Schumpeter
8. This is why a lasting situation of unemployment is possible for Keynes. And a situation of recession or deflation can last for a long time, because prices are not flexible: employers prefer to fire employees and reduce their output than reduce prices, because the circulation of the information is unperfect, so that employers cannot know if the price fixed by other investors will also increase. According to Keynes, the only solution to prevent a recession is the government to interfere in the economy. The state must invest itself, so that investors are more confident in the economic outlooks. Moreover, the investments of the state naturally provoke a growth in the general income in the economy, because the income distributed by the government to the companies are distributed to employees, who will increase their own consuption: this mechanism is called by Keynes the spending multiplier. The intervention of the state makes it possible to quit the situation of unemployment.
9. One year after the publication of Keynes' most important work, John Hicks designed the IS/LM model, which summarized a Keynesian view of macroeconomics. He presented his works in 1937, in an article named Mr Keynes and the Classics: A suggested interpretation, published by Econometrica. The model was to be used by most governments of developed countries after WWII. The model suggests economic policies which governments should follow in order to ensure full-employment and steady economic growth. It advocates a policy mix, i.e. a monetary policy combined with a budgetary policy. When a government increases its spending (spending deficit) to induce investment, interest rates necessarily increase, because there is a higher demand for money to buy the additional production. The government must prevent interest rates from rising (otherwise investment is deterred) by providing additional money (expansive monetary policy).

| class="col-break " |

Version B

In Wikidea's version, but not in VT's:

1. "If someone would be greatly helped by something belonging to someone else, and the seller not similarly harmed by losing it, the seller must not sell for a higher price: because the usefulness that goes to the buyer comes not from the seller, but from the buyer's needy condition: no one ought to sell something that doesn't belong to him."
2. Aquinas discusses a number of topics in the format of questions and replies, substantial tracts dealing with Aristotle's theory. Questions 77 and 78 concerned economic issues, mainly relate to what a just price is, and the fairness of a seller dispensing faulty goods. Aquinas argued against any form of cheating and recommended compensation always be paid in lieu of good service. Whilst human laws might not impose sanctions for unfair dealing, divine law did. One of Aquinas' main critics was Duns Scotus (1265-1308) in his work Sententiae (1295). Originally from Duns, Scotland he taught in Oxford, Cologne and Paris.
3. Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) was an Italian economist, best known for developing the concept of the circumstance under which nobody need be made worse off, and nobody better off through wealth redistribution. When this situation exists, the economy is said to be "Pareto efficient". Pareto devised mathematical representations for this optimal resource allocation, which when represented on a graph would yield a curve. Different points along the curve represent different allocations, but each would be optimally efficient. Rather than using the persuasive language of classical economists like Mill, the Pareto efficient curve could be represented with a precise mathematical formula.
4. Arthur Cecil Pigou in Wealth and Welfare (1920), insisted on the existence of market failures. Markets are inefficient in case of economic externalities, and the State must interfere. However, Pigou retained free-market beliefs, and in 1933, in the face of the economic crisis, he explained in The Theory of Unemployment that the excessive intervention of the state in the labor market was the real cause of massive unemployment, because the governments had established a minimal wage, which prevented the wages from adjusting automatically. This was to be the focus of attack from Keynes.
5. On 9 November 1989 the world watched as the Berlin Wall which had become symbolic of the divide between West and East, was torn down by German citizens from both sides. Thousands of people from the East wanted to leave, and the pressure led to the total collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It appeared that with the fall of communist dictatorships across Eastern Europe, that liberal democracy had triumphed. One academic even made a name pronouncing that history itself had ended. With the threat of nuclear conflict subsiding, the environment and international development emerged as a new priority, represented by the Kyoto Protocol and the Millennium Development Goals. From 1994, the West was on a path of unparalleled economic boom, with a blip in the Dot com bubble. The Asian crisis of the late 1990s, however, halted the development of much of East Asia. Engineering national growth in a global economy, was more difficult than before. Similar problems are now evident in the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, as governments around the world have been forced to buy ownership of, and give vast grants of money to, their banking networks.

Template:EndMultiCol

Discussion

1. is in the page ancient economic thought 2. and 3. are unreferenced monologues; 4. is already in another section on the page 5. is the same in part as what I put in 4 - but as you can see I took the trouble to update. 6. an 7. are what you can still find (but expressed more succinctly) in the page currently 8. 9. were put into the page on Keynesian economics. As for my own additions, Aquinas was deleted for some reason along the way, and the stuff about Fukuyama was just trying to get around to that last section, when I was interrupted. Vision Thing is just sitting there reverting, and probably just for the sake of it. Suggesting that there is a disagreement is far too flattering to him, because he hasn't thought about any of the above stuff (except 6. and 7.). Wikidea 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He may have or he may not have, but that is not so much the issue. Mostly just the information. It could be an issue in a request for comment if some kind of disagreement has somehow gotten out of hand... but probably with other people looking at the page, and just neutral presentation neutral weight... I am guessing everyone will contribute and cooperate. skip sievert (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• A1, B1, B2) This section on the early economic thought is almost completely centered on the Western economic though, while ancient economic thought has a relatively large sections on ancient Indian, Chinese and Islamic economic thought. By his edits Wikidea only made discrepancy worse.
• A2, A3, B2) I also think it is better to focus more on development of ideas and less on people.
• A4, A5, A9, B3, B4) There are no major issues here; this content just gets shuffled around.
• A6, A7) Wikidea removed Austrian School and Schumpeter sections without any explanation. I already stated my opinion on these changes and I still stick by it.
• A8) I don't see any good reason for removal of only direct reference to spending multiplier on the whole page.
• B5) This is a bunch of POV OR. -- Vision Thing -- 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

B5) What do you mean when you say... This is a bunch of POV OR. Is this an ideological concern you have..?.. that the article is trying to project o.r. as 'truth'? I like the idea of focusing on people, as interwoven with the ideas presented... as they are the ones that had the ideas and the ideas are the product of these peoples experience and influence. It seems like Austrian School has been talked about by L.K. and WikiIdea... and both thought you were undue weighting it. How big is that... as a concern here? skip sievert (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with VT on B5. The section is more economic history than economic thought. It is very fluffy, and only cites Fukuyama, who is a poliscientist, not an economist.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't economic history tied into economic thought? What is fluffy specifically, and how would you change or improve that? Would not a Political scientist be important as a person that may or may not be notable in connection with economics?. Could you make a proposal for that area then, that would reconcile these two editors, which have been reverting each other? Just questions.. and you do not have to answer any of them. Just trying to get a dialogue going. skip sievert (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Economic history can provide context for economic thought, but it doesn't here. The section mainly dances around the fall of the communist east, but the article doesn't say anything about communist economics after Marx, so the topic is kind of out of the blue. It is fluffy because makes questionable, general statement without reference or evidence (such as thousands wanting to leave Eastern Europe, or was it millions, or did they want to stay and liberalize?). A political scientist could be relevant, but I don't think Fukuyama is. His work hasn't influenced economics and is losing importance anyway. Moreover, we have to pick and choose what to leave in and leave out. There are many things that should be in the article before Fukuyama. For the lead to the global times section, I would mainly discuss the growth in international trade maybe something on development. Most of the economic theory in the section has more to do with trade than political form. Also, China isn't even mentioned in the current version and it obviously plays a huge role in both trade and development.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with VT about A1 and B1, this article should have a balanced summary of what is on the ancient economic thought page. I don't necessarily like either version now, but the new version does seem to skew the balance even further. LK (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Because, Lawrence, there are already clear links for a variety of different authors. There is no reason why everything here has to be a summary of the ancient economic thought page. Why should that be the case? Is that page really brilliant? I don't think so. It's more a mishmash of things pasted up at random, over time. And ancient economic thought wasn't terribly important. Because ancient "economic" thought did not exist. Lots of people read the classics, which is why Aristotle was influential. This is a matter of WP:Weight. Wikidea 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I went through the listed sections and here's my two cents.

• I favor keeping A1 (counter western bias)
• Dropping A2 and keeping B2. B2 talks about some of the same topics as A2, but actually gives a cite and source for ideas. Some biographical info could be paired from B2 and some content from A2 could be merged in.
• A3 is an unrefed monologue and should be cut unless it can be cited and trimmed.
• Sounds like VT is willing to compromise on A4, A5, A9, B3, B4
• I think A6 is a pretty good section on the Austrian school and should stay
• A7, there should be a Schrumpter section, but it can be cut down
• Spending multiplier can be folded into Keynes
• I've discussed getting rid of B5 or modifying it above.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I might refer people to the top of the page where somebody went out of their way to say how useful they found it. Don't tell me it's a bunch of "POV OR". This isn't just an economic history page either. You just haven't read through carefully enough. It provides context for the ideas of the economic authors; a very short background - that's all - with a few links. The reason that Chinese economists, etc, are not mentioned is simply that you don't find them on any of the history of economic thought books which serve as introductions. We simply cannot include everything - and not including Chanakya, or whoever doesn't automatically mean "western bias". Lastly, maybe this is just a typo, but it's Schumpeter, not Schrumpter, and a reference is there for him. I don't understand why, if you cannot spell his name, you think he must be so important. I don't understand on what basis you have come to this viewpoint. Wikidea 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify what comment said B5 was "useful." I'm not sure which one you're talking about. I never said anything about Chinese economists; I said China (and east Asia generally) should be included in a "Global times" lead. The current GT lead mainly talks about the collapse of the Communist Bloc, and leaves out the majority of countries involved in globalization (aside from the mention of the financial crisis, which isn't really connected with the rest of the narrative). You may think the section provides context for the theories, but that's why it's OR. Moreover, Sen's and Krugman's most noteworthy works were published in the 1970s and early 1980s. A connection between their ideas and B5 is unclear and OR. You could argue that their ideas laid the ground work for globalization or were tied together with some nebulous globalization zeitgeist, but its hard for this section to avoid falling into OR without a substantial change. I think there's agreement that the article needs to be trimmed, and I see this is as a good candidate to be cut or cut down. It;s not that the ideas are wrong or poorly written, but they are speculative and uncited, and that is compounded by the fact that they are recent. On Schumpeter, I don't think an article's content should be determined by my spelling abilities.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I just mean the article generally! Sorry, I was trying to respond to everything above. As a matter of chronology, it's more important I think to group ideas for when they became popular/dominant: so you're right that Krugman and Sen were writing, well, since they finished their PhDs. That last section (before this new unreferenced New Keynsian stuff, which doesn't tell anyone much!) was certainly unfinished. But I think it's important that an internationalist perspective has certainly become dominant since the Soviet Union collapsed. Ug. I'm a bit bored with all this. I think everyone's got good intentions, except one. Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiIdea quote.. And ancient economic thought wasn't terribly important. Because ancient "economic" thought did not exist. end quote... Huh?

I mean economics was not a separate discipline till the 18th century; it was just a part of philosophy. Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are very wrong about that. Aristotle is way second hand as to economics... which were mostly worked out a couple thousand years prior to him. Ok... settle down. Not everyone can spell or think spelling is important in talk pages as to being perfect. I like the over all picture or big picture approach that WikiIdea is using though.

L.K. says... this article should have a balanced summary of what is on the ancient economic thought page. Yes, the link to that page is there and that area and History are intertwined. That is the area where most all of of our economic thinking comes from. Maybe a connector to information like this...

This paper seeks to establish that interest‑bearing debts were introduced to the Mediterranean lands from the Near East, most likely by Phoenician merchants in the 8th century BC along with their better known innovations such as alphabetic writing. Contrary to what was believed until quite recently, such debts — and for that matter, commercial and agrarian debts even without interest charges — are by no means a spontaneous and universal innovation. No indications of commercial or agrarian debts have been found in Early Bronze Age Egypt, the Indus valley, or even in Ebla, much less in Mycenaean Greece. They are first documented in a particular part of the world — Sumer — in the third millennium, and can be traced diffusing from southern Mesopotamia upward along the Euphrates and westward into the Levant as part of the Sumerian commercial expansion. Originally documented as being owed to temple and palace collectors, interest‑bearing debts became increasingly privatized as they became westernized.

Or something like this above written differently of course, that actually gets at the heart of the economic systems past... http://phoenicia.org/interest.html ... ideas about the who, what and what for of its early incarnation. From what I can figure out, as the Sumerian system moved from east to west, it developed a different approach as to debt in general, and that would seem like a good point to make in that early or ancient part of the article. The Greek and Italian city states seemed to play a key role in that transition to the type of economy we use today. Comments? skip sievert (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea, no one is disputing the effort and good work you've done. You've created an excellent page essentially by yourself. But you must know that we all have our biases, which is why we need o collaborate on pages. I quite agree with Bkwillwm's assessment of the changes, and with Skip's suggestion for the introduction to ancient economics. I think that's the way to move forward. The reason I insist on consistentcy between articles is because I belive it's important not to allow Misplaced Pages to be balkanized into little fiefdoms, where people with particular interests express their particular biases on 'their' pages. We should mark ancient economic thought as a sub page to this page, and work on consistantcy between the two pages. LK (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're not Lawrence (and nobody else is), but Vision Thing has been consistently. That's why I posted this section, and this is what started off the latest spurt of talk page activity. Ancient economic thought already is a subpage, isn't it? Or do you mean as, for instance contract law is to law? If so, yep definitely. If I could think of a clean way I would've liked to divide it all up into say five main pages. But that's really hard. It works for classical economics, marxian economics and ancient economic thought; it probably works for keynesian economics too. But the rest is a bit difficult, because things overlap and aren't so clean. Of course, history isn't clean! Wikidea 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Starting to reorient the article

This image is still in the article. The top one is removed in favor now of the Economics sidebar... which is chocked full of information.

It looks like WikiIdea and the various others that have commented the last couple of days... Bkwillwm, L.K. V.T. etc... are interested in re presenting the material differently.

For starters I took off the old Wealth of Nations picture and the side bar that was up about 'science' and put on the Economics sidebar instead, which seems more apt. The image of Wealth of Nations book, was already in the article lower down anyway... so it was duplicated at the top and down the way... so that is gone now on the top and the image to the left here is still in the article in the Smith section.

I am particularly interested in the ancient history of this, and the Greek early euro history, and maybe some aspects toward the end of Energy economics... and that is what I will probably work on. I changed the lead around a little because of a number of unsourced statement like sentences. I am going to try for economy mostly with everything as to length. It still seems like the lead is probably too long and other parts are also too long. Probably the best way to change things here is to Misplaced Pages:Be bold and get feed back for changes and make new changes then.

Lets hope that old feuds, if there were any will now go away... and the article will morph again into something interesting and creative as to ideas and presentation.

I also took off the too long tag since it looks like a concerted rewrite is happening presently... and we all know it is too long... and the economics sidebar looks better up there for now more alone. If anyone thinks the tag really should be on ... put it back on... but I think the idea is to concentrate on re presenting the material with an eye for word economy which means, lets make the article shorter. skip sievert (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy in economics

This is an area of interest to me... and the history of economic thought is tied up with it particularly since the 1920's on.

I am thinking of adding this at the end of the lead to cover that idea also which in some form is integral.

Start ...From the early 20th century on to the present biophysical economics connected to energy economics have played a role in human economic systems as these are modeled as thermodynamic systems. This concept attempts to develop theoretical economic analogs of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Burley, Peter (1994). Economics and Thermodynamics – New Perspectives on Economic Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-9446-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) In addition, the thermodynamic quantity, i.e. measure of the useful work energy of a system, is one measure of value. In thermodynamics, thermal systems exchange heat, work, and or mass with their surroundings; in this direction, relations between the energy associated with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services can be determined. http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision making, Science and Technology. End - skip sievert (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems like its extremely undue weight. I don't think modeling economies as energy systems has made it into the mainstream. I don't think I've ever seen a textbook cover this type of modeling. Moreover, this focuses on a single application of thermodynamics in economics, giving a lot of weight to a minor work (Burley and Foster is 4 millionth in Amazon sales rank). This topic definitely shouldn't be a paragraph in the lead.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... you may not like the information... and you yourself may not be aware of the importance of Energy economics in the 20th and 21st. century Bkwillwm... but it has to be covered in the lead because it is the undercurrent from the 30's onward and is of extreme importance and connected with the history of economics. Energy conversion has changed the basis of economics... scarcity value systems leave us at Adam Smith... and that is an antique... and leaving it at J. Stiglitz having thought up some new ideas is rather lame... or just not getting at what the article is supposed to be at for an overview. So ... I will try for a third time below.

Rapidly advancing technologies now provide the means to achieve a transition of economies and concepts of economics, energy generation, water and waste management, and food production towards sustainable practices using methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology. Kay, J. (2002). [http://www.nesh.ca/jameskay/www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/IE/ie.pdf Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology." In Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B. (Eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, pp. 72-107. London: Spon Press. Retrieved on: 2009-04-01. name = Quest> Bakshi, B. and Fiksel, J. (June, 2003) [http://www.resilience.osu.edu/CFR-site/pdf/6-03perspective.pdf "The Quest for Sustainability: Challenges for Process Systems Engineering." American Institute Of Chemical Engineers Journal 49(6): 1355. Retrieved on 2009-04-04.

How about the above then? You can not have a Economic history article without talking about what is actually going on in the real world or not so much the political world which many so called economists are apologists for... things like industrial ecology and Systems ecology. These are the new technological basis of economics and economic thinking... and they revolve around energy and energy conversion and and . I have redone this section twice now and will do it a third time with different information each time but getting at the same idea. Rather than revert this can you tell me what you think it should look like or re-edit some part of it?

To say that energy economics is over weighted ... may be a mistake in general and could cripple the article as to information presentation... not being interesting or creative... or pertinent... or observing what is actually going on with economics currently and sustainability... and earths closed system... etc. etc. - skip sievert (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to go with Bkwillwm here, mention in the lead is undue weight. Also, remember, the lead summurises the article. Until and unless there is a major section on Energy economics in the article, it should not be in the lead. LK (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You can not have an article like this without mentioning energy economics or it would be a sham as to information providing and not encyclopedic... Period. I rewrote it again and it is much smaller in the lead... and there has to be a section that will deal with this in the article and will be. Remember we are in a rewrite here L.K. and if you have a problem put a tag on the article saying it is in a rewrite. Common sense would say that the article is under construction right now... but you can tag it to say so... so please do not use an argument like that... about a formatting issue right now, when an article is being rewritten. - I hope that because we may have some people here that are not familiar with some of these ideas that they are not going to pov the article a certain way with only a certain aspect of things. That is not creative nor does it cover the actual information.

Rewrite ... again.

Rapidly advancing technologies provide the means to achieve a transition of economies in the 21st century using Environmental economics and Ecological economics. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics Nadeau, Robert (Lead Author); Cutler J. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2008. "Environmental and ecological economics." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). . Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now integral to economic conception. Kay, J. (2002). Kay, J.J. "On Complexity Theory, Exergy and Industrial Ecology: Some Implications for Construction Ecology." In Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., Guy, B. (Eds.) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, pp. 72-107. London: Spon Press. Retrieved on: 2009-04-01. name = Quest> Bakshi, B. and Fiksel, J. (June, 2003) "The Quest for Sustainability: Challenges for Process Systems Engineering." American Institute Of Chemical Engineers Journal 49(6): 1355. Retrieved on 2009-04-04. End.

It actually is just a couple of sentences in the lead.

Rapidly advancing technologies provide the means to achieve a transition of economies in the 21st century using Environmental economics and Ecological economics. Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now integral to economic conception.

The reason we are redoing the article is to present the information differently... more creatively and closer to a larger overview and obviously there is going to be a section in the article on these issues or mention of them... and obviously to me anyway... they are important. skip sievert (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the text you added to the lead above (except "integral to economic conception" may be a bit strong), and adding something environmental/energy economics to the text would be OK too. This section should reflect the major ideas in these areas. Off the top of my head, I'd say Hubbert Peak, permit trading, environmental Kuznets curve, and sustainable development would be candidates for inclusion. I guess you could fold in thermoeconomics in this section too, but its a heterodox theory so we have to be careful about how much attention it gets and how we tie it to the rest of the article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can change the phrase a little. I changed it to Concepts using sustainable practices of methods of systems ecology and industrial ecology are now employed to an economic conception of Sustainable development. Does that read better?

Thanks Bkwillwm. I did try to minimize it this time around. Your suggestions above are good as to an area with that type of info. in the article body. Feel free to construct something and we can jigger it around some for presentation. Now I am thinking also that the article does over rely on people maybe and could be better with more basic theory/history as in epoch time periods and happenings... but still connected with people. We can not ignore all the intense aspects of energy, environment, sustainable development... ideas ... and the... what seems like break down of the current system... as to employment loss because of mechanical energy making many so called jobs go away... and go away permanently. Contrary to popular thought it does not look like so called green jobs are going to be for real. Technology eliminates jobs... so we are in a transition... and the article... toward some bottom section should reflect that... and now the lead does intimate it a little, which is probably enough.

I looked around for a rewrite tag... and can not find one... Maybe just one that can say ... this article is in the process of a major rewrite... please consult the talk page or something like that. If someone finds a template like that could they stick it on the article page? I know there is one around like that someplace. Then we do not have to be super picky about how we are doing things in a certain order or not. It seems like if everyone starts wading into this we could get it done pretty quick. skip sievert (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the template:underconstruction tag? If not, feel free to remove. LK (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... that tag seems good.

It looks like L.K. has a very good big picture concept of mainstream economics, also Bkwillwm seems to be wanting to get at big picture overview. W.I. understands the traditional categories and the approaches of mainstream. - V.T. apparently resonates with traditional conservative Austrian things... I think. Hopefully others will arrive here and overview everything also.

Should we keep the idea of all the pictures of people connected..?. on the article or use some diagrams or tables also, or examples of types of economies that countries used...to highlight ideas? Should a lot of the people not be in separate article areas ... could they be grouped together more into time periods? Could some of the pictures come off and areas be combined? Just ideas. I hope people will now dig in and re format the look and feel now. The lead stuff is by no means over, as to being redone... and can be further whittled down... and more ref/citations used, and more interesting twists and turns put in as to overview, even if shortened. Length in general right now in the article is not good... and compressing material would be good as to being more succinct. skip sievert (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New basic outline ideas and order for the article

Suggestions and ideas. New changes.

Does it not make sense to combine the area now of several people that were physiocrats into one area and call that area Physiocrats? Maybe lessen the info at the same time while still mentioning the main players of that group instead of each individually. Probably do not need all the associated pictures in the grouping either of the individuals. Maybe the most well known one. skip sievert (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hated to add more information as to length to this thing.. but am assuming it is going to shorten itself as it goes along. I did add this section to conform to the new lead and also to make it clear about energy economics being a very notable aspect now of economics in general.

Environmental and ecological economics.... Heading

'The work of economists Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly was important in the development of ecological economics. In the Entropy law and the Economic Process (1971), Roegan attempted to demonstrate that the mathematical analysis of production in neoclassical economics is badly flawed because it fails to incorporate the laws of thermodynamics. In his view, an economy must be viewed in thermodynamic terms as a unidirectional flow in which inputs of low entropy matter and energy are used to produce two kinds of outputs, goods and services and high entropy waste and degraded matter. Since neoclassical economic theory assigns value only to the first output and completely ignores the costs associated with the second, Georgescu-Roegen attempted to refashion this theory to include these costs. Biophysical economics attempts to factor in thermodynamic aspects of energy and environment.' http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Cleveland, Cutler (Lead Author); Robert Costanza (Topic Editor). 2008. "Biophysical economics." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth September 14, 2006; Last revised November 18, 2008; Retrieved-May 20-2009

This is now at the tail end of the article.

I also did some other formatting things in the See also section to compress the format... and linked some article things... a couple of things in the Game theory section. Also the Das Kapital section I think was over kill as to Marx... so removed that area... which got rid of a fair amount of article space... it had an article link anyway in another area... so I don't think it will be missed. skip sievert (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes

All parties please comment on the talk page about your changes as to the why's and wherefore's etc. Thomas M.'s please leave the few sentences about Environmental and ecological economics as they relate to energy economics in the lead. You removed them without a reason or explanation. They are sourced and important... and at least Bkwillwm and myself have agreed that a lead mention and article mention is appropriate for that kind of information. -

Vision Thing has added some history information which he has cited... but I wonder how his mention of Free trade in that historic context is really related to modern free trade? Not sure if a connection or distinction can be made or should have been made there. taxation and rajakariya (a feudal system in which work was owed to the king by commoners) contributed in large part to the projects. of the person he is talking about Parakramabahu I not sure about what V.T. has added it might be o.r.- Free trade is not really connected to that feudalistic time period as a concept.

Thomas moved the sidebar also down farther... Is there a reason not to have it on the top? Thomas Meeks has edited the article a couple of times now... could you comment about your edits and reasoning on the talk page also T. M.? Right off hand I can say that there is a reason why environmental and ecological... and energy economics is featured in the side bar... so lets not slight that information in this article about economic history in the lead, other wise the article will not reflect the reality of current economic history or the section toward the bottom. skip sievert (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith

I am thinking that the huge Smith section is over kill. Smith stuff can all be gotten at in the beginning Smith information and from elsewhere in the article via article links. The long essay like Smith information is interesting but seems like way to much information for an overview article like this. Removing this information will shorten this article considerably and shortening the article is one of the things we are trying to do.

This is information that probably could be deleted from the article. It is more information than is needed in an overview. People actually interested in more Smith info can just follow links from the remaining Smith connectors which are plentiful.

Start

Context

William Pitt, the Tory Prime Minister in the late 1780s based his tax proposals on Smith's ideas and advocated free trade as a devout disciple of The Wealth of Nations. Smith was appointed a commissioner of customs and within twenty years Smith had a following of new generation writers who were intent on building the science of political economy. Edmund Burke.

Smith expressed an affinity himself to the opinions of Edmund Burke, known widely as a political philosopher, a Member of Parliament.

"Burke is the only man I ever knew who thinks on economic subjects exactly as I do without any previous communication having passed between us".

Burke was an established political economist himself, with his book Thoughts and Details on Scarcity. He was widely critical of liberal politics, and condemned the French Revolution which began in 1789. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) he wrote that the "age of chivalry is dead, that of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever." Smith's contemporary influences included Francois Quesnay and Jacques Turgot who he met on a stay in Paris, and David Hume, his Scottish compatriot. The times produced a common need among thinkers to explain social upheavals of the Industrial revolution taking place, and in the seeming chaos without the feudal and monarchical structures of Europe, show there was order still.

The invisible hand "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." Adam Smith's famous statement on self interest

Smith argued for a "system of natural liberty" where individual effort was the producer of social good. Smith believed even the selfish within society were kept under restraint and worked for the good of all when acting in a competitive market. Prices are often unrepresentative of the true value of goods and services. Following John Locke Smith thought true value of things derived from the amount of labour invested in them.

"Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human life. But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."

When the butchers, the brewers and the bakers acted under the restraint of an open market economy, their pursuit of self interest, thought Smith, paradoxically drives the process to correct real life prices to their just values. His classic statement on competition goes as follows.

"When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay... cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want... Some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will begin among them, and the market price will rise... When the quantity brought to market exceeds the effectual demand, it cannot be all sold to those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither... The market price will sink..."

Smith believed that a market produced what he dubbed the "progress of opulence". This involved a chain of concepts, that the division of labour is the driver of economic efficiency, yet it is limited to the widening process of markets. Both labour division and market widening requires more intensive accumulation of capital by the entrepreneurs and leaders of business and industry. The whole system is underpinned by maintaining the security of property rights.

Limitations

Adam Smith's first title page.

Smith's vision of a free market economy, based on secure property, capital accumulation, widening markets and a division of labour contrasted with the mercantilist tendency to attempt to "regulate all evil human actions." Smith believed there were precisely three legitimate functions of government. The first function was...

"...erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain... Every system which endeavours... to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than what would naturally go to it... retards, instead of accelerating, the progress of the society toward real wealth and greatness."

In addition to the necessity of public leadership in certain sectors Smith argued, secondly, that cartels were bad because of their potential to limit production and quality of goods and services. Thirdly, Smith criticised government support of any kind of monopoly which always charges the highest price "which can be squeezed out of the buyers" However, in both cases, Smith believed it was governments' encouragement of monopolies that needed to end, rather than the need for active intervention to prevent them. The existence of monopoly and the potential for cartels, which would later form the core of competition law policy, could distort the benefits of free markets to the advantage of businesses at the expense of consumer sovereignty. End

End of information removed from presentation. Comments?... skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes area

It also looks like this area of the article contains too much information for an overview presentation for the same reasons as the Adam Smith area contained too much specific information and detailed cross connectors of information. There is a large area that could be removed without affecting the quality of the article... as that information can be gotten at from other wiki article connectors in a more specific presentation of John Maynard Keynes. It has been acknowledged that the article was way too long. Removing parts of the Keynes info. will help to tighten the presentation while still giving a good over view of Keynes with remaining Keynes information. skip sievert (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some content should be cut but I would make a different choice. I think it would be better to leave out content related to the WWI and the aftermath, and add back most of the content about The General Theory and Bretton Woods. I have similar objections to your changes in the Adam Smith section. The Wealth of Nations and concept of the invisible hand are pivotal for the history of the economic thought, and they should be more elaborated. -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... ok, added a sentence with article link and statement about the invisible hand. Put a connector to General theory and its impact back in and stated its significance... Bretton woods already is covered in an article link that has remained from before. Elaboration is for the other articles devoted to those subjects I think... other wise the same problem of bloat arises. Also as suggested by V.T. I left out content related to the WW1 and the aftermath. It was interesting history and perspective but too much info for this overview article. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In general ideas

I think the article is looking pretty good right now. It seems to be covering most of the big ideas... and touches on the heterodox. Any comments for whittling it down farther?.. or not? What is the general impression now of people that have contributed to the re presentation? Criticism or suggestions? skip sievert (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strikes me as unbalanced still. Weights seems a little off. We should refer to History of economic thought text books for proper weights.

Too little weight: Early non-western (Chinese, Indian and Islamic) economic thought, Adam Smith, Keynes.

Too much weight: Early western thought (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus), Mercantilists, Marx, Austrian school, Friedman.

LK (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on Chinese Indian and Islamic economic thought though there are some links to those things in the article now. Maybe a section on those related economic ideas for an area? Text book links would be nice. Aristotle stuff is still over-weighted I agree, but that is very interesting material. I am not an authority nor interested in Austrian stuff... but it was obviously a contention before. It does appear to be notable information. This guy is obviously a very good writer Murray N. Rothbard, he is part of that group and his name is in that section with a link to his ideas. Anarcho Capitalism is apparently popular among some... though that seems as an antique of an idea as Marxism to me. Marx section could be smaller yet, but that is interesting what is there though. Friedman I went ahead and shortened. skip sievert (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Screwing it up

I can't believe you're buggering it all up like this. It is simply astonishing that you'd reduce Smith to a single paragraph! This really shows that the edits are very, very, very dumb. I doubt very much anyone has a clear idea of what the end result of the page should look like, or have any particular method for selecting what to put in and what not to put in. This is just a random series of edits by, frankly, people who are vastly less qualified than me. And that goes for you too Lawrence. I'm staggered by your bias, and lack of knowledge about history of economic thought. You're not providing any justification at all for your opinions. I expect you haven't read any of the leading books on this subject, but you're relying on random websites. It's pretty disastrous. Wikidea 21:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to add a prediction: that nobody will actually go through with making this page readable, or useful. It will end up as a half done job, that looks a mess and is a mess, like now. There will be more random editing, and then whoever's doing it will get bored. It'll be left as a botch job. A few people will sit back and criticise, and leave someone else to do the work. Wikidea 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheer up man. The page is actually better now than before, and a bunch of people have been cooperating pretty well on it, and as you know it was at least 1/3 too long before. The actual history starts where it should have now... in Mesopotamia. The Greeks, where you started the article before, were Johnny come lately's. This is a very basic fact that the article had no concept of before. That in and of itself is a big improvement. The lead now is really good and the history section overview. Also now there is at least some mention of modern energy concepts relating to Environmental and Ecological economics.

As far as Smith... many consider Smith as not the most creative person in the world and some think he may have been at least partially sleeping through understanding the significance of the Industrial revolution. That section was pointlessly long before, and now it still contains his hand theory, and book mention and time period etc. - The actual Adam Smith article itself is pretty good... and there is an article connector to it, as with the other things... and this is meant to be an over view, not a mini Smith study... and not a paean to any one of these people in particular. Far from screwing it up... the article is much improved. skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Although many may consider Smith's work derivative, many more consider him the first to rationalize and define the field of economics. Surely he deserves more space than Marx. I'ld bulk it up, but work is killing me. Wikidea? LK (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea, please watch your tone. -- Vision Thing -- 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't talk to me. Wikidea 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

While Wikidea's tone may sound pessimistic and frustrated, this does not subtract from the truth in her/his words. Also, the image that was removed from the top needs to be replaced with something, perhaps a picture of someone who was prominent in the early history of economic thought? Just an idea.  ^) Paine (^  14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Paine, Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for truth and the editing should probably not be about personalities giving it or not. The old image was fine of a coin thought to have been one of the first standardized ones. T.M. took it off with the comment that it was not a part of economic thought... but money is obviously a part of economic thought and was an invention of economic thought... so I put it back in.

Also is it possible that people could restrain themselves as to Adam Smith fan club? This is an overview article and should not focus on anyone as super important. While many consider him an economic demigod an equal number probably think he does not deserve that status, and that he is a derivative character who was unoriginal and pedantic. He may not even be that great of an example of 18th. century economic ideas as he did not seem to understand the coming machine age. I think the 'button' making example sadly reflects that, and removed it as too much information. We have many links now in the article to Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations and Smith things, probably more than enough. skip sievert (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article ought to focus upon the subject of its title. Smith has his own article. And Skip, we could go back and forth all week on what Misplaced Pages is and isn't, the difference between an encyclopedia's quest for properly cited facts and it's editors' desires for it to reflect truth as much as humanly possible. We both've been there, done that, got the tee-shirt and the baseball cap. <g>  ^) Paine (^  04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Skip to TOC template

I added the {{skiptotoctalk}} template to the top of this Talk page for those who want to "get right down to it".  ^) Paine (^  03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coin or Wealth of Nations?

I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. Also, money is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that has been repeatedly invented throughout history in various cultures and countries over and over again. It has taken various forms (grain, beads, shells, shovels, coins), so we cannot say that it's development represents a change in economic thinking. LK (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I liked WoN, too. There is also good reason given above to include the coins. Let's do both!  ^) Paine (^  04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there is a good reason, please state it here and in a way that responds to LK's point. "History of economic thought" is econ. jargon, there described as dealing with:

thinkers and theories in the field of political economy and economics .

HOET is distinct from "Economic history", there described as:

the study of how economic phenomena evolved in the past.

Early coins are phenomena that could be studied in econ. history. They are unrelated to HOET in any direct way. Wouldn't you agree? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. end quote L.K.... no it does not. It is only one brand of economic thought and again why do people love Smith so much? Because they have been told over and over that Smith represents economic thought??? and they now believe it?

Agree with Pain here an will re add the coin. L.K. is just plain wrong as is T.M. as to understanding the significance of the first standardized coin and its effects... on trade and the steam rolled effects in the Mediterranean at that time Also, money is a naturally occurring phenomenon, that has been repeatedly invented throughout history in various cultures and countries over and over again. It has taken various forms (grain, beads, shells, shovels, coins), so we cannot say that it's development represents a change in economic thinking. LK... end. - Naturally occurring huh? Big difference between that and the first documented electrium gold and silver coins that were made up by a government and standardized for purity. That only happened once in history... and changed the way economics was thought of completely.

Wealth of Nations is boring. It is mostly redundant junk that is recycled and for some reason the sweet darling of economists and sadly the only thing that everyone can almost agree on here... except me, who think it is mostly a trashy and historically odd do0 d0o bird of a document and the object of tragically misinformed obeisance of many.

As to L.K.'s statement about Naturally occurring money... that is similar to making Smith the economic demi god in the article and tantamount to this:

Disclosing the “revelatory basis” of neoclassical economic theory is not terribly difficult. The French moral philosophers who first posited the existence of the natural laws of economics presumed that these laws, like the laws of Newtonian physics, were created by the Judeo-Christian God. The creators of classical economists appealed to this conception of natural law to legitimate the real or actual existence of the invisible hand, and they did so within the context of a mechanistic Newtonian worldview that did not need or require the presence of the willful and mindful agency of God. They concluded, therefore, that both the laws of Newtonian physics and the natural laws of economics originated in the mind of a Deistic God who withdrew from the universe following the first moment of creation. In other words its pretty silly to focus on Smith in the article.

Who wrote the caption under the Wealth of Nations picture.. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations marks the birth of economics as a separate science.?? This is exactly the type of clap trap thinking I am talking about. Calling Smith 'junk... science, is comical... to say the least. Changed that to this 'Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, was first published on March 9, 1776, during the Age of Enlightenment - skip sievert (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Coins are not mentioned anywhere in the article so we really should not put their image in the lead. I wrote Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations marks the birth of economics as a separate science because that is what Mark Blaug has said in his Economic theory in retrospect. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blaug is best known as a historian of economic thought (and great one), and by the way author of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Economics.

The 2nd para. of skip sievert's comment above in no way meets the point of my Edit above that part of economic history, which the invention of coinage certainly belongs in, does not make it part of HOET, anymore than lightning that strikes a tree makes the lighting part of the tree. The JEL classification codes of the Journal of Economic Literature places HOET under JEL: C, an entirely different category from economic history (JEL: N). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Science of economics? Not so much. Alfred Eichner in Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science offers the following commentary on the discipline of economics as a social system:

The refusal to abandon the myth of the market as a self-regulating system is not the result of a conspiracy on the part of the “establishment” in economics. It is not even a choice that any individual economist is necessarily aware of making. Rather it is the way economics operates as a social system—including the way new members of the establishment are selected—retaining its place within the larger society by perpetuating a set of ideas which have been found useful by that society, however dysfunctional the same set of ideas may be from a scientific understanding of how the economic system works. In other words, economics is unwilling to adhere to the epistemological principles which distinguish scientific from other types of intellectual activity because this might jeopardize the position of economists within the larger society as the defender of the dominant faith. This situation in which economists find themselves is therefore not unlike that of many natural scientists who, when faced with mounting evidence in support of first, the Copernican theory of the universe and then, later, the Darwinian theory of evolution, had to decide whether undermining the revelatory basis of Judeo-Christian ethics was not too great a price to pay for being able to reveal the truth.

Lets not confuse what Smith was doing with science. It was not. That would pretty much cripple the article with gibberish or nonsense. Might have to put a pseudo science template on the article then. Economics is a far cry from science ... it is not even a very good social control system these days... but that is another topic.

As to coins lighting and logic?... The first coins significantly altered the dynamic of government and trade. So called Democracy was a direct result of Athenian trade and slavery in silver mines, made possible by the new coinage and their boating skills for wide-scale trade. Trade and war became simpler as to coins. Armies could be paid in set formats of money, and mercenary armies became popular. Greek generals worked for Persian Kings because of money with hired Greek armies.

The coin looks kind of cool any way. It did have a dramatic impact on economic thinking and thinkers. We could have a picture of a temple or ziggurat in the lead also, do we really need pictures of people and books only? Originally much of the ancient concept of a debt structure and contract law regarding economics is documented as being owed to temple and palaces collectors, most all of it in fact. That means originally it was tied into their religion also as part of the abstract concept of social control they made to control their society. Point is debt tokens or money are a critical aspect of economic thought. Obviously economic history is part of economic thought and visa versa. anymore than lightning that strikes a tree makes the lighting part of the tree. The JEL classification codes of the Journal of Economic Literature places HOET under JEL: C, an entirely different category from economic history (JEL: N). end T.M.- Sounds pretty stuffy as to approach. A little creativity in presentation please. I have no idea what your lightening example means... Is this connected to the invisible hand as in the mark of god or something?.. or economics as part of natural law...? or something? Whatever, that does not make sense to me anyway.

A ziggurat or temple is where economic thought started in the modern sense of economic thought we use today pretty much. It all had to do with money also... the first metric of money that was in a metric of other commodities... and then a standardized coin developed later. Landmark things in economic thought and practice. Lightening is not connected to this. skip sievert (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'ld rather not get into this, but feel it's necessary to clarify some misstatements made. First, there is no reason to believe that the technology of standrdized monies arose only in one place, in fact there is much evidence that money arose independently in various places around the world (please refer any introductory macro textbook to confirm). Second, all monies use standardized units, coins are not unique in this. LK (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the last 3 para. of the preceding Skip Sievert (SS)Edit:

My top Edit I believe establishes beyond any reasonable initial misunderstanding that "History of economic thought" (HOET) and "Economic history" (EH) are distinct fields of study. Of course in the same work, an author could talk about HOET & EH. To say that they are distinct does not mean that they can't both be discussed. Those writers who are studied in HOET (such as Adam Smith) obviously used as inputs not only what others wrote but activities in the economy they learned about, like the use of money, which occurred in historical time. That does not make the invention of coins HOET in any obvious way. Rather the coin image is I think:

• distracting (b/c EH is not HOET and does not illustrate anything in the Lead)
• misleading (b/c it suggests that the invention of coins is HOET).

Those are reasons why I oppose the coin image.

Of course the image and caption might fit well elsewhere, such as on the history of coins or money, where, come to find, it does appear.

Under the right circumstances, an image for a more proximate EH event might be appropriate, such as an unemployment line during Great Depression next to a discussion about Keynes (except that I think that 2 images in a section is one too many).

P.S. There is one more good reason for the Wealth of Nations image in the lead: anyone who chooses to study the full title ("An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations") will find an interesting early close-to definition of economics (except that I'd use "Study," instead of "Inquiry"). (Mark Blaug I think has made the same point.)

P.P.S. One other point. I believe that SS wishes to identify with heterodox approaches in trash-talking Adam Smith. I doubt that many heterodox economists would wish to be associated with such language, even if some, I believe small, proportion of them would agree with SS in substance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As Paine said earlier.. I agree that this article ought to focus upon the subject of its title. Smith has his own article. end quote... Lets not turn the article into a Smith-fest, seeing how he is already mentioned over and over throughout different passages, probably too much already. As to the coin standard state stamped money was invented in a time and place (Lydia), contrary to what L.K. is saying (it only happened once), and contrary to what T.M. is saying, affected dramatically all aspects of economic thought forever, as trade aspects and war aspects reflected themselves in the time period Money.

The Smith book is there... and the coin. This resolves the issue I think. Also a little history of money and Athens is in the article now. Obviously commerce and thinking about commerce is a part of economic thought... and the Greeks wrote about it incessantly, and with standardized coins everything changed. As mentioned earlier economic thought, as first written, originated in temples by kings and priests in Mesopotamia, which should probably be returned to the article. How is it that it was taken off by T.M.? - that is documented and well known, as to the origin of economic thinking, as we know it. So if anything if the pictures now are changed they could reflects that, say a picture of a Sumer King or Priest and a Ziggurat. Smith did not originate anything. All those ideas came from a different area of the world.

As to L.K.'s earlier statement I prefer Wealth of Nations. First, it clearly represents economic thought. end quote. - Only if your talking about the 18th. century. There is little to no connection to the present day economic system or present world. skip sievert (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Request curbing of multiple minor successive edits in same section

Multiple minor successive minor Edits (MMSE) over a few minutes in a single section may happen occasionlly. We see something that we missed earlier, the earlier Edit introduces a mistake, etc. But when it is habitual by the the same individual on the same article, I believe that it sets back article progress by making it more difficult to sift through or even see the Edit summaries of others, the better to evaluate or correct them. It also suggests that the editor thinks that these are important enough to warrant separate Edits. They really aren't. I think that most other readers would agree on that. I believe that the practice is also likely to poison the Talk page if others conclude that someone is simply trying to get attention, rather than improving the article the way most other Editors are trying to do.

The "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons were designed to avoid just such MSME patterns. Making full use of the Edit summary space to describe multiple types of changes seems far preferable to MSME. It alos shows an economy of editing that respects others interested in following Edit changes. That's good manners. Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that most other readers would agree on that. I believe that the practice is also likely to poison the Talk page if others conclude that someone is simply trying to get attention, rather than improving the article the way most other Editors are trying to do. Assume good faith Misplaced Pages:Civility I suppose. skip sievert (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages:Civility is the less gentle but also appropriate policy link.

IMO, your "Assume good faith" response above is not reponsive to the substantive point made. Good faith is not the issue. The effect of such an editing practice on others is. If everyone edited like that, there would probably be a policy against it. And everyone would approve of it, because they did not want others to behave the same way! Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the continued heavy volume of Edits with insuffcient Edit summaries, many of them minor. it may be useful to mention the link on how to compare any two Edits at Help:Page history#Using a history page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting links

Here is one that is well written and a good overview that others rewriting or noodling the Neo-Classical section may find some good information in as to using for ref/citation material... I think ... this one also for related .. just suggestions. skip sievert (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Added small area

In contemporary thought area of the article at the lower end... this, Behavioral economics

Behavioral economics and behavioral finance are closely related fields that have evolved to be a separate branch of economic and financial analysis which applies scientific research on human and social, cognitive and emotional factors to better understand economic decisions by consumers, borrowers, investors, and how they affect market prices, returns and the allocation of resources.

Seems like it deserves a spot. Comments?

Agreed, it appears to be a good addition, Skip. As sentences go, perhaps it's a bit long? such as...

Behavioral economics and behavioral finance are closely related fields that have evolved to be a separate branch of economic and financial analysis, which apply scientific research to human and social, cognitive and emotional factors. This helps to better understand economic decisions by consumers, borrowers, investors, and how they affect market prices, returns and the allocation of resources.

Also, rather than just a link to Behavioral economics, you might show the article in a section hatnote as:

rendered by the {{main|Behavioral economics}} template.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  00:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Did suggestions of Main article: Behavioral economics..., and also added a comma to break up the long aspect of sentence. Thanks P.E. - I see now that you have mentioned it, that other areas in the article, could use main article connectors also. skip sievert (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Still screwing up this page

My prediction is holding true. A fortnight on, this page is becoming progressively more of a mess. Let's enumerate four main points.

• I note that Vision Thing has got in his unreferenced view that Hayek is classified by everyone as part of the Austrian School and not the Chicago School (which is the sort of statement produced by someone pushing an agenda on Misplaced Pages - no reader will give two hoots where it is from). So the rest of you are giving into stupidity because I'm afraid you don't know better. How on Earth it's coherent to place Hayek before Keynes is lost on me. Oh, and there's Schumpeter again!

• Then the three sections on the most important economists in history - Smith, Marx and Keynes - have been gutted (read Fusfeld or Heilbroner or practically any HOET course for the similar emphasis). This shows a great deal of stupidity. Apparently Kenneth Arrow is as important as Adam Smith now. (If you respond by random culling of the paragraph on Arrow, I will be further unimpressed).

• The notes show that people have been adding in random secondary sources that they've filched from the internet to justify various sentences. This again shows lack of knowledge. The references should come from the books of the writers themselves. But of course, that takes more EFFORT doesn't it!

• As usual on pages where people who don't know what they're doing are writing, the introduction and it seems the first section are a jumble of incoherent statements, and disjointed paragraphs. What's more annoying is it just doesn't seem that the editors CARE about how the page looks. Random pictures of some bloody coins have appeared on a page about the history of economic THOUGHT.

I'll say again, I don't think anyone has either the expertise to be messing around. I also think there is no clear VISION of what the page should ultimately look like. Again, the random additions of "contemporary thought" show utter lack of appreciation for the task. I stick with my prediction, that people are running out of steam and you will all leave this page looking like a mess. The only decent, coherent parts will be the ones where you haven't touched the work I did previously. Wikidea 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=611386581
2. Aquinas (1274) Summa Theologiae, 2-2, q. 77, art. 1
3. Mochrie (2005) p.5
4. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (1992)

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Economics articles
• Top-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class history articles
• Top-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles