Misplaced Pages

Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:57, 30 October 2023 editØkonom (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users600 edits →Suggestions for "History of economic thought": ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 01:12, 31 October 2023 edit undoMinimax Regret (talk | contribs)365 edits →Suggestions for "History of economic thought": ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 86: Line 86:
::As to the third point, (old) Keynesian, monetarist, new classical and new Keynesian theories are regarded as the main post-war schools of thought in several, if not most, accounts of economic theory. I cited Blanchard's recent exposition, but it is just one typical example (whereas Marxian and post-Keynesian theories are rarely mentioned except in very detailed overviews). The same division was mentioned in the article already before my edits, in the subsection on Other schools. This typical division in reliable sources should also be reflected in the heading hierarchy. ] (]) 06:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) ::As to the third point, (old) Keynesian, monetarist, new classical and new Keynesian theories are regarded as the main post-war schools of thought in several, if not most, accounts of economic theory. I cited Blanchard's recent exposition, but it is just one typical example (whereas Marxian and post-Keynesian theories are rarely mentioned except in very detailed overviews). The same division was mentioned in the article already before my edits, in the subsection on Other schools. This typical division in reliable sources should also be reflected in the heading hierarchy. ] (]) 06:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Perhaps the clearest WP guideline relevant to the present discussion is ], where it says: "''Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as ] and ], should not be excluded. However, per '']'', theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.''" I believe this implies that it is reasonable to mention both Marxian and post-Keynesian in the subsection on other schools, as I did in my edit, but not to give them the prominent role in the general overview which you have re-instated with your edits. ] (]) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC) :::Perhaps the clearest WP guideline relevant to the present discussion is ], where it says: "''Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as ] and ], should not be excluded. However, per '']'', theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.''" I believe this implies that it is reasonable to mention both Marxian and post-Keynesian in the subsection on other schools, as I did in my edit, but not to give them the prominent role in the general overview which you have re-instated with your edits. ] (]) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::::All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox. Adam Smith and David Ricardo and the classical economists had views of value closer to Marx's then current mainstream academia. Just like Isaac Newton's physics are heterodox in our current post-Einstein, post-quantum mechanics world. The argument that ] means to erase any history considered heterodox in current US academia is not just to erase Marxian economics from history, and erase the Cold War from history, but to erase all economic history. The economic ideas around the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act are as much part of important economic history as Marxian ideas, whether or not they're considered heterodox in current US academia. All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox in that view.
::::I don't have any opinions about how post-Keynesianism is portrayed, other than that are too many headers everywhere, I moved that section around as best I could.
::::Adam Smith wrote in 1776 and Capital was published in 1867. About ninety years of economic thought in one section, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill. Contrast this to rational expectations which had its heyday in the 1970s and which has waned somewhat since then. It seems to deserve its own paragraph but not its own section. The history section already has more sub-sections than any other section, adding several more sections for one-paragraph descriptions doesn't really flow. It doesn't make sense to me but lots of people are around to organize sections other than myself.
::::Economics is a social science, not a science. ] (]) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:12, 31 October 2023

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Economics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Economics at the Reference desk.
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleEconomics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
April 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBusiness Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WP1.0

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

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

Change "Economic analysis can be applied throughout society, including business, finance, health care, engineering and government."

To

"Economic analysis can be applied throughout society, including business, finance, cybersecurity, health care, engineering, and government. " Mazaherkianpour (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Kianpour, Mazaher; Kowalski,, Stewart; Øverby, Harald (2021). "Systematically Understanding Cybersecurity Economics: A Survey". Sustainability. 13. doi:10.3390/su132413677.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)


India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by Misplaced Pages Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Stating by whom has the S/D model been made in the introduction

I'd like to suggest to modify the sentence "The supply and demand model describes how..." to "The supply and demand model by Alfred Marshall describes how..." for describing the supply and demande curves in the introduction of the wiki page. MDCCCC (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

European economics

The page does not inform about Asian economics: China, India. Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

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

"Other wschools or trends of thought referring " should read "Other schools or trends of thought referring" Rlu13 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for "History of economic thought"

The main purpose of that section should be to present the history of economic thought from a mainstream view, mentioning the more heterodox directions collectively at a less detailed level, preferably in the subsection "Other schools and approaches" as is the case currently for some of these. However, three heterodox schools are given prominent treatment in the main text: Marxian, post-Keynesian and Austrian thought. This would conflict with WP:FRINGE. I propose that mention of the three schools be shortened and moved to the subsection of other schools. Secondly, the current subsection on the Chicago School should be replaced by two new ones, on monetarism and new classical economics, respectively. Though it is true that the protagonists from both schools are sometimes mentioned as Chicago School economists, the two schools are clearly distinct and played independent and important roles in the development of theory - a fact which the current text does not reflect properly. Økonom (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

While this section could use some editing, your changes are too extreme. Marxian economics is a part of the history of economics whether you like it or not. Also, Marxian economics followed in the tradition of classical economics and the labor theory of value - neoclassical economics is a break from Marxian (and to some extent classical) economics and its rise makes no sense if you erase Marx's writings, the massive socialist movement from the 19th to late 20th century etc. from existence.
Probably what can use the most cleanup is the post-Keynesian section. Your edits seem fine, the main problem is there are too many headers - economists flirtation with rational expectations is not as significant as neoclassical or classical economics. What you wrote is fine but they don't each deserve a new section. I am putting the Marxian section back and changing the three post-Keynesian sections into one. Minimax Regret (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Our disagreements seem to relate to three issues:
  1. The prominence of Marxian economics in the outline of history of thought,
  2. The prominence of post-Keynesian economics in the outline of history of thought,
  3. The use of headers.
As to the first two points, I believe that it is generally recognized that there is a mainstream research program in economics, and then there are some fringe/alternative/heterodox groups outside the mainstream. Both Marxian and post-Keynesian economics are generally categorized as belonging to the heterodox groupings, e.g. by Lee's article in The New Palgrave, which I cited. Following Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories, such theories can be mentioned in an overview like the present one, but they should not be given prominence on a level equal to mainstream theory, so I think that your recent edits give both theories an undue weight in the exposition.
As to the third point, (old) Keynesian, monetarist, new classical and new Keynesian theories are regarded as the main post-war schools of thought in several, if not most, accounts of economic theory. I cited Blanchard's recent exposition, but it is just one typical example (whereas Marxian and post-Keynesian theories are rarely mentioned except in very detailed overviews). The same division was mentioned in the article already before my edits, in the subsection on Other schools. This typical division in reliable sources should also be reflected in the heading hierarchy. Økonom (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the clearest WP guideline relevant to the present discussion is WP:ECON/RS, where it says: "Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." I believe this implies that it is reasonable to mention both Marxian and post-Keynesian in the subsection on other schools, as I did in my edit, but not to give them the prominent role in the general overview which you have re-instated with your edits. Økonom (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox. Adam Smith and David Ricardo and the classical economists had views of value closer to Marx's then current mainstream academia. Just like Isaac Newton's physics are heterodox in our current post-Einstein, post-quantum mechanics world. The argument that WP:ECON/RS means to erase any history considered heterodox in current US academia is not just to erase Marxian economics from history, and erase the Cold War from history, but to erase all economic history. The economic ideas around the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act are as much part of important economic history as Marxian ideas, whether or not they're considered heterodox in current US academia. All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox in that view.
I don't have any opinions about how post-Keynesianism is portrayed, other than that are too many headers everywhere, I moved that section around as best I could.
Adam Smith wrote in 1776 and Capital was published in 1867. About ninety years of economic thought in one section, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill. Contrast this to rational expectations which had its heyday in the 1970s and which has waned somewhat since then. It seems to deserve its own paragraph but not its own section. The history section already has more sub-sections than any other section, adding several more sections for one-paragraph descriptions doesn't really flow. It doesn't make sense to me but lots of people are around to organize sections other than myself.
Economics is a social science, not a science. Minimax Regret (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Economics: Difference between revisions Add topic