Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This subject is featured in the Outline of economics, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Archives This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

[edit] Canegrati

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

Would someone check these?

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

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Per my comment at the AFD The Canegrati's formulae one appears to be non notable (based on unpublished wps).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

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 I have proposed Single-mindedness theory for deletion. The AfD discussion is here.[1] LK (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Would appreciate some thoughts on the Chain store "paradox" discussion

Hi,

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

Here's the discussion page: Talk:Chainstore_paradox

Thanks!

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

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

[edit] Mathematical economics: Shapley-Folkman, Chichilnisky, & Mas-Colell

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] WikiProject Economics Assesment Table outdated

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

[edit] New Palgrave

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

Can such articles be donated to Wikipedia?

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

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

[edit] Binary economics

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

[edit] prominent supply/demand graph

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

[edit] Peer review request for "History of macroeconomic thought"

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

[edit] Hotelling's lemma

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

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

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

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

EDIT: Oops, the links originally posted were incorrect

[edit] Citation templates now support more identifiers

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

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

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

Use "|isbn=0123456789, ISBN 1234567890123|" for multiple ISBNS.
There is an example on yesterday(in Europe, but today in American)'s Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page.
This facility is used in the reference to the book by Molchanov in the Shapley–Folkman lemma.
* Molchanov (2005, pp. 195–198, 218, 232, 237–238 and 407): Molchanov, Ilya (2005). "3 Minkowski addition". Theory of random sets. Probability and its applications. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. pp. 194–240. doi:10.1007/1-84628-150-4. ISBN 978-185223-892-3, ISBN 1-85233-892-X. MR2132405. http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-85233-892-3. 
Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] B-class review request: Karl Marx

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

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

[edit] Tax

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

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

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

[edit] The price of money

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

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

[edit] Lionel Robbins is Austrian?

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

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

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche

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

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

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

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

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


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

LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts). The book is based on a course he taught, and it was reviewed [2][3] in the American Economic Review published by the American Economic Association. The review begins,

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [4][5]

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

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

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

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

[edit] Credo accounts

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

[edit] Personal income not part of economy?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Labor Force

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

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

[edit] Household Bargaining

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

The inspiration for this entry comes from Bina Agarwal's work in feminist economics and her study on intra-household bargaining[6], yet the existing entry for Agarwal does not substantially address this important subject.

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

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

[edit] Glass Ceiling

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

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

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

[edit] New Page: Work Intensity

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

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

[edit] Economics classes and expanding gendered economic articles on Wikipedia

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

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

[edit] Conditional Cash Transfer page needs changes

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

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

[edit] Projected jobs, contributions to economy

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

[edit] Hedge fund regulation

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

[edit] Complexity economics

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

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

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

[edit] Scope of article

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

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

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

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

[edit] Deletions by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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

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

Can any body try to talk Kiefer Wolfowitz out of deleting sourced and easily sourced (e.g., advocates of complexity economics see it as a new paradigm) material out of mere dislike? Personally, when I come across somebody who writes, "intelligent economists who did not fail their qualifying examinations even at the New School" [7], "I am beginning to wonder whether this page is a trolling hoax" [8], "Complexity economics and other soft intellectual trash" [9], and "Hysterical giddiness over Arthur or over 'chaos, complexity, catastrophe, and another c-word (but not that c-word!)" [10], I'm inclined just to point and laugh. But then, reliable sources (e.g., Frederick Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century) document that mainstream economists are socialized into unlettered bullying. 209.217.195.112 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

I think that there needs to be a lot more sourcing at that article, so I have no particular problem with the removal of what you call "easily-sourced" material -- just source it when you have the time and restore it from the history (it's not like it's gone). Do you have diffs for the removal of sourced material? I'd be happy to review those if you'd like. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Removal of sourced material: [11], [12], [13], [14]. 209.217.195.196 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)RLV
Actually, I invited this user to contribute such material to more appropriate articles, such as heterodox economics and mainstream economics, both in my edit summary and in a friendly note on the person's talk page. I also tried to explain the WP policy about the addition-deletion-discussion cycle of editing, in which the editor adding material has a special burden to gain consensus.
Also, please note that other editors have flagged off-topic sociology of economic heterodoxy on the article talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Also note that, far from censoring this editor, I took the trouble to attribute properly the quote to Horgan, citing the original sources, and to clarify that Horgan was ridiculing complexity economics as a latest "failed fad". The IP editor mispresented Horgan.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Finally, any comment that mainstream economics relies on linear models is wrong, and shows a serious misunderstanding of even a first course in economics principles, which typically discusses a production possibilities set.
On the contrary, linear models were emphasized by heterodox economists of various Marxist (e.g. neo-Ricardian) affinities. Indeed, the New School and a few decades ago NYU and MIT (urban planning) were places that you could study input-output models and dream of indicative (or hard core) planning ....
What is wrong with replacing the extremely controversial Kuhnian term "paradigm" with NPOV and encyclopdaeic "approach"?
"Unlettered bullying"! I haven't heard anybody use "unlettered" since Michael Harrington died. Maybe the "not unwhite dog" will appear in the next personal attack?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore the silliness and confusion above. I find this [15] amusing, when it comes to the topic of Brian Arthur and Santa Fe. 209.217.195.203 (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

If you are interested in "increasing returns", please help with the article on non-convexity (economics).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the four diffs provided. They consist of two different sections. One [16] was sourced but reverted, the other was unsourced and reverted. So content aside I don't see evidence of anything other than a dispute over a single section. Looking into the content I see a section that is sourced, interesting, and extremely heterodox (that is, an unusual analysis of economics; sociologically rather than economically heterodox). I'm curious to see the justification for the addition as well as the removal of the section. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the other three diffs are of deletions of sourced material. The deleted table is introduced with now deleted text (but it is in the diffs). That text states, "The first five categories are Beinhocker's synthesis, the last four are from W. Brian Arther as reprinted in David Colander." References are provided with the now deleted text. (I did not check to see whether the deleted text accurately represented references.) You yourself suggested a modified table on the talk page for the article. Additional deletions of the Davis material, which I think you are misreading, can now be found as [17] and [18]. If you look at Kiefer Wolfowitz's interventions in the last few days, you will find continual emotional non sequiturs, which anybody not used to how mainstream economists are now socialized, would find odd. 151.190.254.108 (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC) RLV

[edit] Davis: Complexity econo as mainstream heterodox

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

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (new example [19]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? 209.217.195.147 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC) --RLV

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

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (a slow-motion example [20] [21] [22]) on-topic material reliably sourced from umpteen references? -- RLV 209.217.195.124 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

This is what I wrote:

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

  1. ^ Colander, Holt & Barkley Rosser (2004, p. 485): Colander, David; Holt, Richard P. F.; Barkley Rosser, J., Jr. (Oct. 2004). "The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics". Review of Political Economy 16 (4): 485-499. doi:10.1080/0953825042000256702. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713997792~frm=titlelink. 
I provided a page reference and a non--cherry-picked version of the quote quote, which is now linked for the reader's convenience. I noted that the word "pluralism" does not appear in the article tendentiously cited by Adelphi's IP editor.
WP has a policy that the sources should be reliable; this journal is a rather marginal journal. WP editors should be concerned about the uncritical WP mausoleum to Paul Sweezy, the notorious totalitarian propagandist and apologist. A tribute to Sweezy appears in the same issue of this journal.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So when can I expect somebody else to suggest to Kiefer Wolfowitz that he should abide by Wikipedia norms and stop deleting (example:[23]) on-topic, reliably sourced material? And, by the way, what is the policy about accusing living people of "blasphemy" on talk pages? --RLV 209.217.195.162 (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

[edit] Junk is back

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

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

[edit] Economic history of Christianity

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template: Ideologies

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

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

[edit] Fractional-reserve banking

There's been a lot of activity recently on the Fractional-reserve banking page, especially on the talk page. Strong views are being expressed (sometimes quite voluminously!). I'ld appreciate it if the people here could help keep an eye on the article to make sure that no egregious policy violations occur. Much thanks, LK (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is something very strange going on at this page. After enormous efforts by editors a section was created to allow an alternative view of FRB to be presented. Three editors are ensuring that page can never fairly represent the view that editors wish to develop ie a bank credit version of FRB. The relending model is very inadequate as the following simple exercise shows

The relending model as as follows

For this model, if a bank has 100 reserves and 100 customer deposits the bank can only create 90 in new loans with a single loan. According to this model, if a customer wanted a loan of 171 credited to their current account, then two loans would have to be done as follows for a bank using a fractional reserve of 10%.

Note: At stage a) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 9 reserves, and then at stage c) it needs to retain another 8.1 reserves


Table 1: Private bank T-account
Assets Liabilites
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $90 90 created deposit money owed to customer 2
(c) Borrower's IOU worth $81 81 created deposit money owed to customer 2

The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"

The credit money model is as follows

Note: at stage a) (as for the relending model) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 17.1 reserves


Table 1: Private bank T-account
Assets Liabilites
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited 100 created deposit money owed to customer 1
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $171 171 created deposit money owed to customer 2

The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"

The results are the same and there is no requirement for stage c)

The relending model mainly focuses on cash/Gold loans rather than bank credit. The relending model is, as BOE deputy Governor Paul Tucker put it, archaic in the context of modern banking systems and practices.

Further quality references are available to show just how inadequate the relending model is.

Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model[1] was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction'[2] Ten years later he said[3] ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’

What exactly[4]is so misleading about the money multiplier approach?

It's not particularly surprising to me. The basic undergraduate model discussed is a quick simplification that gives some of the flavor of how it works, and for editors who haven't learned more than basic undergrad economics it's all they know. No surprise that a central banker knows more than typical Wikipedia editors. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been suggested, but a way to resolve this might be to make these additions to the Endogenous money article (in a manner which conforms with the WP:MOS), and make a more visible link to that article in the Fractional-reserve banking article. WP:UNDUE clearly states that, in articles on general topics, minority views should not be described in as much detail as the majority view. The detail with which a viewpoint is described should be proportional to how accepted the viewpoint is within the relevant field.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As I've tried to explain to Andrewedwardjudd, I actually think the endogenous money view (although a minority view) is a better description of reality than the 'textbook view', especially after the mid-1980s when central banks started to target interest rates. What I object to is not the incorporation of endogenous money views, but the way he is going about it. His edits are usually not properly formatted, are in the wrong place, improperly drops long quotes (frequantly out of context) into inappropriate places in the article, and frequantly criticise other parts of the article as wrong. Frankly, they just make the article uglier and harder to read. I've tried to work with him to properly incorporate endogenous money views into the article. However, I've only been met with grandstanding walls of text, and personal attacks. I'ld be happy if someone else can work with him to better the article, but I'm afraid he's got a serious case of battleground mentality. LK (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There's still quite a bit of back-and-forth editing on the article, and I think it could benefit from a little more attention (or watchlisting). bobrayner (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Value chain management capability

I found this page through new page patrol and I can't make any sense of it. I'm not actually sure if this is the best Wikiproject for this, but could someone give me an opinion on if the topic is notable? I deleted a few external links and a section that looked like spam.--Banana (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It reads a bit like somebody wrote an essay for a class, then later posted it in here - the refs are very Harvard. Not a bad essay :-) but I think it would need some cleaning & wikifying to make it a decent encyclopædia article.
I think the subject passes the GNG, in that there should be multiple independent sources which describe "Value chain management capability" in depth (or something very similar in sightly different terms). It does overlap a little with Value chain but I think this is an area where wikipedia needs better coverage (our articles on pokemon are twice as numerous and twice as detailed as our articles on business concepts).
I put {{WikiProject Business}} on the talkpage; it's more on their side than the economic side. Might say hello to the creator and welcome them to the community. It's far better than most of the articles created by first-time editors... bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over.--Banana (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice work Face-smile.svg bobrayner (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
A wishy-washy textbook would be one that spends a lot of time discussing things like the importance of a "global mindset", "technological capability", "teamwork", etc in general terms. I don't mean to offend you if you've got an MBA or worked as a management consultant, but I have a low opinion of that sort of stuff. I also say this as someone who truly enjoyed Michael Porter's classic Competitive Strategy. II | (t - c) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] History of investment banking in the United States

I would like to draw your attention to a new article that I have created: History of investment banking in the United States. I admit that much of this text was drawn from earlier drafts which were variously titled Jews and money (now deleted), User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and User:Pseudo-Richard/History of Jews in American banking. All of these drafts are "not ready for prime time". However, it occurred to me that there is an encyclopedic topic under the title "History of investment banking in the United States" so I decided to create it. even though the first version of this article is heavily canted towards the Jewish side of the story. I figure other editors can add information to balance it out with the "Yankee" side of the story. [NOTE: I have since added more information so that the article is no longer as heavily canted towards the 19th-century German-Jewish investment banks. More info on the "Yankee" banks is still needed.] Your contributions and suggestions for improvement are welcomed at Talk:History of investment banking in the United States. Thank you. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] CfD related to this WikiProject

Feel free to participate in this CfD discussion, relating to all categories representing intersections between class and priority/importance of articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Utility-possibility frontier

Experts required; please help sort out the article Utility-possibility frontier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Private Finance Initiative

Would somebody mind watchlisting or having a look over Private finance initiative, please? It's a controversial subject touching on politics, privatisation, and many public infrastructure projects, hence easy to find negative quotes in the newspapers. My personal impression is that the overall tone is rather polemic - particularly the previous version which I expect will be restored sooner or later - but, of course, since it's a controversial subject I could easily be wrong. Any extra attention from this wikiproject could be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Request for expert review of Friedrich von Wieser article

Hi, there was a request to have the Spanish WP article on Friedrich von Wieser translated into English. I have completed the translation of the body of the article, preserving the original English language article as a lede.

Could someone trained in economics give this article a going-over? Some of the content was quite technical and, while I tried to do my due diligence, I am no economist.

Also, I would appreciate some feedback as to what to do with the lede. Should I condense it, or translate the (short) lede from the Spanish page, or just leave it as is?

Muchas Gracias,

Dave
You can help!
17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs)

[edit] Request for input regarding Alan Greenspan

An editor has expressed concerns over Matt Taibbi's criticism on Alan Greenspan (see here). Additional comments are much appreciated. Thanks. --Artoasis (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] How to describe the status of full reserve banking

Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Full-reserve_banking#ignored_or_dismissed_by_the_mainstream there is a dispute as to how wiki should describe the current state of full reserve banking in the eyes of academia. I would suggest that there are three possible groups that an economist could fall into:

A: I've never really thought about full reserve banking B: I think full reserve banking is a bad idea C: I think full reserve banking is a good idea

FWIW, my guess is that the proportion in each camp is of the order of A: 98%, B: 1%, C: 1% - but I could be wrong - I'd like to hear other people's estimates. I am posting here to see if we can get some consensus on the proportions in each category, and once this is agreed, choose some wording for the main article that clearly reflects our consensus.

P.S. I had a personal email from Ronnie Phillips in which he said of full reserve banking: "there are more advocates than not". Reissgo (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I could believe 98%/1%/1% in the general public. For professional economists I expect it's more like 9%/1%/90%. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow! I wasn't expecting that!... Ok, anyone else? The more opinions the better. If you're a professional economist and you've scarcely even come across full-reserve banking, then please say so here, its all part of the evidence. Reissgo (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood the question. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Economics sidebar: Mathematical ... methods

Outside thoughts are requested for the economics sidebar. One question is whether the term the JEL 's Mathematical and Quantitative Methods should be called "Technical Methods", following the old New Palgrave (but not the current NP, which follows the JEL). Another question is whether game theory should be classified among the mathematical/quantitative methods (per JEL) or among the economic subfields, alongside information economics and industrial organization. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me add a bit more to the above. IMO some background may help here. A quick overview of a relevant earlier discussion is at Template talk:Economics sidebar#"Methods" section revision, 1st para. with striking parallels to later discussion (and yet to come).
A separate matter from KW’s concerns above is particular links under the contested heading ("Technical methods" or "Mathematical & quantitative methods"), in particular to-be-discussed (re)-adds of links to that sidebar section as to fewer or more. Earlier variations on this were discussed at Template talk:Economics sidebar#Statistics/Optimization as "Methods" (in this template).
* The earlier "Techniques" (sic) link in the Econ sidebar was to JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories), as are current competing sidebar labels listed above. "Technical methods" is being proposed as a heading label [for the same JEL] link (irrespective of the JEL classification system used in the 2008 NP). It does appear that current discussants have had some substantial things to say on the issue of Template talk:Economics sidebar#Template heading: (A) "Technical methods" versus (E) "Mathematical and quantitative methods", especially inviting comment there.
Placement of Game theory may be better here focussed in a separate (sub)section on that subject, rather than mixing it in passing in a (sub)section primarily on another subject, making even a headcount possibly problematic.
Personal time lines will limit my contributions to Template talk:Economics sidebar in the immediate future. No matter. I’ll get back there as soon as I can. I do believe that recent discussion will assist in weighing competing template alternatives. Thanks. –Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the template has many of the dysfunctions of the Monty Hall problem, that is, Thomas and I have been discussing first principles and arguing over content. I am tired of arguing, and instead I would like some agreement that the template should follow the consensus of the economics profession---i.e., the JEL classification system, and a rather standardized M.A. curriculum, each of which precisely specifies the core methods and fields of economics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added a bracketed term to my 2nd sentence of paragraph (*) above and changed the piped heading above to "[Economics] sidebar: Mathematical [...] methods" for explicitness (with brackets to indicate adds). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Request for feedback

Please provide some feedback, now that you have seen the info-box for a month:

  1. Should it be reverted?
  2. Should the long "Mathematical and quantitative methods" be renamed to "mathematical and statistical methods" or to "Mathematical methods" or even to "quantitative methods" (sic, imho).
  3. Is the section too long? Should some of the topics be dropped or moved elsewhere?

Thanks! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer sticking to JEL whenever possible. I wouldn't mind shortening the long section name to "Mathematical methods" just for conciseness, but even there I feel the full form best describes the section -- strictly, I would only call the first five "mathematical", the last two are rather "statistical" (which I suppose can be lumped fairly easily with mathematical) and experimental economics, which doesn't really fit with the others.
CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Music to my ears! :-)
"and quantitatitive" is redundant, as I've noted many times (following C.S. Peirce). Statistics is a mathematical science, so that "Mathematical methods" can serve as a shorter title.
Keeping the current length, I favor the substitution of "statistical" for "quantitative", because experimental economics employs one of the two main methods of scientific statistics, experimentation (the other being sampling); these core empirical-scientific fields are the primary reason that statistics is not a subfield of applied mathematics, but rather a mathematical science. Your calling these other areas statistical (rather than mathematical) is correct and important, imho.
If we keep "national account(s/ing)" as a method, then it is more of an official statistics topic than a mathematical topic, so statistical is again an apt descriptor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export