Talk:Market (economics)/Archives/2013

public call to revise critically this article
Just want to bring to notice that this article is flawed in view point. The supposedly economical view point to this article is in truth a "rich man" economical view point. Or an american big company "economical market view".

From long ago, economical scholars and real life economists, no longer think or anylize markets as ideal places where there are no power struggles or were forces in each side are equal, or were information is equally distributed.

BanyanTree and some others share an old gone vision of markets, also very actively blocking other non-big-company alligned views (apart from trying to convey that markets do not affect people, or can be made by them).

The start definition of economics: Economics, as a social science, studies human choice behavior and how it affects the production, distribution, and consumption of scarce resources. Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources. Alfred Marshall in the late 19th century informally described economics as "the study of man in the ordinary business of life".

And in this light markets, from an "economic" view point also, have people in them. And people might be missinformed or have less power to negotiate or act in markets, thus resulting in practical outcomes. BanyanTree and others, only want to talk about the nicer words and lights of markets and hide people. If buyers have less negotiation power in a certain market this affects their "behaviour" in that market, clearly bringing different results than if they had equal negociation power or more than sellers. They also hide the idea that "efficient outcome" can me mesured for one side, for both, or for none, but markets go on all the same. And that no theory has yet put foward a way to sum the utility for sellers and buyers in markets where one of the sides uses "the product" or "service" for their own lives without reusing it completly to enter a new sale or sellable production.

In short: peoples utility of tomatoes to eat, or of medical atention, have never to date been summed up with the utility for an enterprise to sell that tomatoe or that medical service.

Messures of how price change or other "market variables" as presentation or points of sale, have been messured againt demand of the sale from buyers, but NEVER with actual utility for users.

Then when you talk about adjusting markets to even "utilities" for both sides, you are talking about different substances being leveled.

—

In the opening line: A market is, as defined in economics, a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services. Along with a right to own property, it is one of the two key institutions that organize trade. Allowing markets to arrive at a pareto efficient outcome is one of the key components of capitalism.

why include?: ", as defined in economics,"

It is unnecessary alltogether. Markets are in any view: "a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services."

I will delete this unnecessary commentary. And try to present (in what seems will be an organized battle on his side, and a less organized in my side) what many other economic scholars and market profesionals think and theorize about markets. Pablo2garcia 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the most rational thing for an encyclopedia would be to provide a list of the different points of view of the different fields: economic, marketing, sociology, geography, etc.Lbertolotti (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)