Talk:Nanoeconomics

Comment 1
This is probably the least informative, and even misleading, piece of economics on wikipedia. This must have been written by somebody who was making stuff up on the spot! Proof:

1. "As the visibility of the social graph tends to 100%…"

2. "1. The median size of a corporation in the economy tends to 1"

-These two sentences are just thrown out there with no explanation. WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!?!?!

3. "Evidence: consider the amount of money flowing through the economy in penny-sized amounts through Google AdSense/AdWords."

Citing the readers consideration as evidence!

Last but not least, Law 8:

4. "8. The society of nations tends to its evolutionary end state of a global inter-national democracy (note the hyphen). All comments made for the democracy of firms within a nation apply, mutatis mutandis. !!>>I don’t know how to analyze multi-national corporations, let alone the hybrid mish-mash of intra-national corporations, multi-national corporations and nations.<<!!"

WTF????

Please consider radically changing the article, or delete it... (I'm a graduate student of engineering and a theoretical researcher, and I can't make sense of it... hence I conclude that it is nonsense :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.89.29 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - this "article" is a nonsensical string of meaningless jargon. To the garbage bin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.133.52 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment 2
This page should focus more on nanoeconomics, and less on a particular university. Perhaps it would be a good idea to begin with a clear definition of nanoeconomics, and then provide some applications. Danieljklein (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?
I looked into proposing this article for deletion because it is currently, as others have noted, complete nonsense filled with jargon void of meaning. I was astonished at the lengthy persistence of this article. I thought it was a Wikipedia example of the Sokal Hoax. But its origin seemed genuine, created in September 2007 with "NanoEconomics is the branch of economics that studies the creation and distribution of wealth related to the technological changes brought by nanotechnology." Fair enough.

I thought to restore the article to its condition before the edit from January 5, 2009, which is where the Sokalization seems to have begun. Here, the definition of the subject changes from economic studies related to nanotechnology to studies related to single transactions. And on August 2, 2010, the Sokalese really begins in earnest. Both definitions have a source, but nothing pointing to anything that seems to have taken off in the world of economic research. I suggest that if the article cannot be developed beyond the nascent condition to which I have restored it, it be proposed for deletion. Let the shameful life of this article be consigned to history, if only as a testament that, outside captivity, trolls can survive for more than a decade. What say? Willondon (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to have it deleted at AfD per WP:TNT. This is utter nonsense, almost completely unsourced an full of OR. 15 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my judgement was a bit harsh: It seems to be a legitimate concept, describing both the economics of nanotechnology and some econophysics concept, but the current sourcing is very poor (often completely unrelated) and I can't find non-fringe mentions of it. What can be salvaged could be put into a section in the econophysics article, but this article is not useful in its current state. 15 (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see that both concepts (re nanotechnology, and re finer analysis than microeconomics) had seemingly legitimate sources. But as you say, the article doesn't build on any of that beyond saying that they're concepts with the name "nanoeconomics". The rest is nonsense. Willondon (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Pruning the current article
I've pruned the current article. It now appears decimated, and not in the archaic sense. First, I removed sections which did not rely on any references. Then, I removed sections whose references did not mention economics. They all dealt with metaphysics or philosophy of science, mostly attempting to resolve Wave–particle duality issues, or the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But not economics. These sections seemed to be original research. There is justification in the sources for a subject nanoeconomics, referring both to sub-microeconomic analysis and to economics as it applies to nanotechnology. But to flesh out the article, it needs to summarize references that apply either of these concepts to economic theories. Willondon (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)