Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Archive 8

Nobel Prize for Lloyd Shapley: Shapley–Folkman lemma needs FA copy-editing
Today mathematician Lloyd Shapley won the Nobel Prize in Economics (finally), and so Nobel Week would be a good time for a related featured-article.

The featured-article nomination for Shapley–Folkman lemma was stalled because of concerns about the professional-prose criterion. Help with copy-editing would be great.

In my dreams, I could imagine an animated illustration ... :)

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. And I almost want to congratulate you for the prize.  Volunteer Marek   18:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Family Economics Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)
I am planning to revise the family economics article. There is currently an article under this name, and it is under this wiki project. However the article is very short, actually it is categorized as stub class article. Family economics is a subject that has been developed in last few decades and there are many resources that could be used to develop the article. Currently the article is pretty much like an outline of a more developed encyclopedia article. I think the subjects that are stated in the article can be a starting point from which further development. I am planning to put the marriage, or formation of family, division of labor within the family and history of family as three possible sections that could be added to the article. I would really appreciate any general ideas on the contribution i am planning to make. One subject where I am not certain is the children. I think I may add another section on the role of children in the family, or I can cover the role of children within the family family in other sections. Also I think I might add how economics of family is related to macroeconomic policies, like welfare programs, or social movements like feminism, or socialism. However I think I might overextend the article by doing then. If you have any advice on these particular subjects where i have confusion, I would like to hear that. Kerem Cantekin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender wage gap in Russia Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)
I am planing to write a new article on the gender wage gap in Russia. I believe that it is advisable to pay special attention to the case of Russia (and maybe other post Soviet republics) if one wants to understand in more depth the reasons for the emergence of wage gaps and apply correct policies for its eradication. Why Russia? A very rough outline of the planned content is as follows: Any comments or suggestions would be very welcome. Thank you. Corinabesliu1965 (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Corina Besliu
 * Justification: Even though the education achievements of women in Russia are higher then those of men and their participation in the labor market is roughly equal to the male participation, the wage gap in this country is persistent and substantial. Russia’s case therefore becomes of particular interest as it preaches that policies which target only an increase in women's level of education and their participation in the labor market might not be very helpful in decreasing the gender wage gap if not accompanied by more activist policies; policies which would fight against the stereotypes of the male/female division of labor and the discriminatory practices employed at the work place as well as within the family.
 * Section 1: short description of the concept of the wage gap
 * Section 2: the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition of the wage gap
 * Section 3: Evolution of the wage gap in Russia
 * Section 4: analysis of the wage gap in Russia according to the Oxaca and Blinder decomposition.
 * Section 5: Russia’s official’s position in regard to the wage gap

New categories Economics of innovation, Economists of innovation, Sociology of innovation, Sociologists of innovation
New categories Economics of innovation, Economists of innovation, Sociology of innovation, Sociologists of innovation,... Euroflux (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusion and redundancy in articles about discounting
Isn’t Exponential discounting precisely what happens in Discounted utility calculations? My impression is that there is considerable overlap between both articles, but neither contains a link to the other. I think the difference between the two, if there is any, should be made more clear. This is also true for Time preference, Intertemporal choice, Temporal discounting and Intertemporal consumption; all these seem highly redundant to me. Unfortunately, I’m not confident enough in my understanding of the subject and my English skills to attempt to sort this out by myself, but maybe someone here can help? If not, where should I post this? --Allion (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Discount rate focuses only on the "hard economics" aspects of discounting and doesn’t link to discounted utility, time preference etc. even though the term is frequently used in these articles. There seems to be a bit of a divide between the purely economics-focused and the psychology-related articles. --Allion (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Money and Currency
There's a proposal to merge Money and Currency, that's getting more support than I would have expected. If you have any thoughts on this issue, I would appreciate it if you would comment on the talk page, much thanks. LK (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a AfD proposal to delete the currency article. If you care about whether we have or don't have an article about currency, please comment there: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Currency.
 * Thanks, LK (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Puerto Rico government finances
A request for comment has been opened regarding the Puerto Rico government budget balance and the public debt of Puerto Rico. Please see the discussion at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

&mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Family Economics Wikipedia:USEP/Courses/Labor/Gender II: Economics of Gender (Gunseli Berik)
I have completed my revision of family economics article. If you give me any feedback I will be appreciated. 155.97.18.137 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Kerem Cantekin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby
I'd be grateful if other editors could have a look at Talk:Caroline Hoxby, where there is a discussion about whether to include a brief passage about critique of Hoxby's work, critique that received significant coverage/discussion by other scholars and in a number of journalism outlets. At this point the discussion has only two participants (including myself) and would benefit from outside input. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC about Krugman critique on Austrian school article.
I just posted a RfC on the Austrian school talk page. I'ld appreciate it if the people here could have a look and leave a comment. Thanks. LK (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request
Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words
I created this entry, actions speak louder than words, because the concept is relevant to economics. However, even though all the material that I've added to the entry is relevant and verifiable, and even though I've added reliable sources, two editors have seen fit to remove all of my contributions. They also engage in the same behavior on other entries that I contribute to. To say that discussion with these editors has been unfruitful would be an understatement.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that the entire entry on actions being louder than words needs to be solely dedicated to economics...but there is an important economic significance and it should be developed. If other editors have no interest in developing any possible non-economic meanings...then that's not on me. My comparative advantage is in economics...not literature...so I'm only really interested in exposing readers to the economic significance of the expression.

In terms of my own personal editing style and preference...I get more bang for my buck by adding relevant quotes/passages to entries...rather than trying to waste my time paraphrasing what the experts have said regarding the concept. But this in no, way, shape or form prevents other editors from paraphrasing the passages that I've added. The passages that I add to the entries add value for readers. Generally I add the passages at the bottom of the entries so they do not distract readers from what editors themselves have written on the subject.

From my perspective, an entry with only expert passages is far more valuable and useful for readers than no entry at all. One of the editors I'm having difficulties with referred to my contributions as a "hodgepodge". My response was that a hodgepodge of expert passages adds more value for readers than an empty plate with a perfectly placed parsley sprig of editor prose. Style is wonderful...but not at the expense of substance. Personally, I suck at prose and paraphrasing...but I understand these concepts and wouldn't see any value to adding these passages to the entries if I thought that the substance was already adequately covered. --Xerographica (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As X has been frequently told, economics is not relevant to this concept, although the concept might be relevant to economics. Furthermore, those passages from living or recently dead authors are clear copyright violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just like with you can't have your cake and eat it too, there are numerous reliable sources which explain the economic significance/relevance/meaning. How are the passages clear copyright violations?  Seriously?  They clearly fall within the scope of fair use. --Xerographica (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is
Put your money where your mouth is is another entry I created. The point was also to try and help readers understand the economic significance of the expression. Just like with actions speak louder than words...the two VDEs (Value Destroying Editors) have removed everything of value from this entry as well. Wasn't there a movie where some sort of nothingness was eating everything? Hmmm...oh yeah...it was the The Neverending Story. There's only one of me and two of them...so it would be great if any other editors who actually know a thing or two about economics...or at least have an interest in researching economics...could comment. There's really no point in me expanding entries with those two VDEs running around contracting entries that they have absolutely no interest in.

Here are a few other entries where I've also had difficulties with these VDEs...


 * Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs (redirected to Tragedy of commons without RS)
 * Government success (redirected to government failure...which is admittedly rather humorous)
 * Scroogenomics (removed all see also items)
 * Trade-off (removed all see also items)
 * You can't have your cake and eat it too (removed section I created for economic significance)

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Xerographica (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are the value hiding editor; any value you may have created is hidden by the vast wall of quotes, many of which are copyright violations. Specific concerns on X's edits on all of these articles have been indicated in edit summaries or on the talk page.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a huge loss if the value that I add is hidden by the vast wall of quotes by Nobel Prize winning economists. But it would be a real loss if the value that you add was hidden.  That's why I said that I only post the wall of "rubbish" at the bottom of the entries.  So I'm not quite sure why you feel the need to remove them...rather than just add all your value above them.  Oh wait, I remember why...it's because you're a VDE.  --Xerographica (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That article somehow is trying to give this common colloquial expression a technical economic interpretation. This is a very weak/tortured case for an article. Arguably it can be linked to consumer's Marshallian or Hicksian demand functions (the latter can be integrated to obtain the underlying preference). Some economists probably uttered something similar at some point. After all, consumer theory is all about how the consumer spends his budget according to his preference("where his mouth is"). But it doesn't mean this expression is standard technical usage and deserve an article. Mct mht (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You and I know that this expression is what "consumer theory is all about"...so...let's keep this to ourselves? Uh, why exactly?  If somebody's interested enough in the expression to actually click on the Google search result for the Wikipedia entry...then why wouldn't we want them to know about the economic significance of the expression?  --Xerographica (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my personal view from your description of your entry is that it violates Relevance of content. My suggestion would be for you to consider a whole new article that discusses the relevance of such common phrases as "Actions speak louder than words" and "Put your money where your mouth is" to the subject of economics.   SteveT (talk)  02:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that. Seems like an excellent idea, although careful study would be required to avoid Xerographica's OR or SYN.  We (Wikipedians in general, or Xerographica in particular) would need to find references specifically discussing the use of the phrases in econmics, not merely references in economics which use the phrases.  I'm sure we can find something in the works of David D. Friedman.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by relevance of content. Both these common expressions embody the economic concept of demonstrated preference and revealed preference.   Do you agree?  If you do, then where's the problem with linking to these two economic concepts from the entries of these common expressions?


 * Should the entry on you can't have your cake and eat it too mention opportunity cost? It didn't for the longest time...I noted the deficiency and improved the entry by specifying the connection.  I don't get what value is added by withholding the economic significance of these common expressions.  If we agree that these expressions do have economic significance... then why not share the significance? --Xerographica (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that my reference to "relevance of content" was a link to a Wikipedia page. It includes:
 * "For the suitability of certain types of content, see What Wikipedia is not." What Wikipedia is not says, in part:
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
 * "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below." The Content section says, in part:
 * "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details."
 * Keep articles focused says, in part:
 * "Individual articles ... should be of finite size and stay focused on a small number of topics for ease of reading and navigation. An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject."
 * Use summary style says, in part:
 * "... [A]ny details not immediately relevant to the primary topic should be moved into other articles, linking to them if appropriate. If coverage of a subtopic grows to the point where it overshadows the main subject (or digresses too far from it), it may be appropriate to spin it off into a sub-article."
 * Interactions between subjects says, in part:
 * "See also Handling trivia" This is fairly (but not overly) long, so I leave it to the reader to navigate to the page to review it rather than try to repeat it here.
 * Please also understand that I am not trying to suggest that what you are proposing should not be published, just that I think you are describing an entirely different article, not content that would best appear where you have tried to include it -- in Put your money where your mouth is and You can't have your cake and eat it too.   SteveT (talk)  06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response...I was blocked for a week. Copying and pasting the contents of that page really hasn't helped me understand your argument.  Let's consider the word "orange".  There are two different meanings...the color and the fruit.  A dictionary, which Wikipedia is not, has one entry that discusses every meaning of the word "orange".  Wikipedia, on the other hand, has separate entries for each meaning...orange (colour) and orange_(fruit).  Except, when a word occupies "prime" high exposure real estate...like Libertarianism does...then editors will conveniently ignore this rule and allow completely different meanings to share the same entry.  Then they'll fight and fight and fight about how much weight to give to each meaning.


 * Right now there's absolutely NO content at put your money where your mouth is and actions speak louder than words. All that occupies those entries is a soft redirect to Wiktionary.  But there's more than enough RS to develop the economic significance of those expressions...so why wouldn't we want to do so?  The have your cake and eat it too entry, however, already has content...but is the economic meaning sufficiently different to warrant a separate entry?  Well...it's significant enough to warrant it's own entry...opportunity cost...but it's not different because the expression is simply an example of the opportunity cost concept.  Right now there's just one sentence in the lead that shares this partial knowledge...but it's better than nothing.  --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this fit your project?
Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding title change of Public choice theory
Interested editors are invited to look at the discussion regarding a proposed article title change for Public choice theory. The discussion is here: "Proposed title change from Public choice theory to Public choice".--S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings! Just stopping by to let you guys know that I've relisted a discussion at Talk:Public choice theory regarding a potential title change. Discussion is invited. Thanks, Tyrol5   [Talk]  04:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New draft article for moving into mainspace
I was surprised to see that there wasn't an article for the Scottish Economic Society: this is a learned society more than a century old, mentioned in a number of other Wikipedia articles. So I've written a stub article. However, my job is partly funded by the SES, so I have a conflict of interest. I should emphasise that I'm doing this as a volunteer, not as any kind of PR campaign for the SES. To be completely above board, I've put the article in my user space at User:MartinPoulter/Scottish_Economic_Society. Could somebody please check that it's neutral and move it into mainspace (using the "Move" button under that arrow at the top of the page)? Thanks a lot in advance. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also listed at Requested moves, but I expect there will be editors here who are interested in this topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

✅--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Separation of money and state
Hello again! I think it could be helpful if some of this project's stalwarts could take a look at the new article Separation of money and state. Is it synthesis or OR? Is it another Austrian soapbox? Or is it a perfectly good article? You decide... bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Well, it doesn't look like OR to me, as it does cite independent (from the author) sources, although a number of those sources are flagged as insufficient. Austrian soapbox, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean ineligible for inclusion. It does strike me as a violation of WP:NPOV but sufficiently valuable and interesting to let it stay. However, I might be fairly easily persuaded that it should be removed as of insufficient value. If that becomes the consensus, perhaps a spot could be found for at least parts of it in Monetarism or some other existing topic into which it might be fit?  SteveT (talk)  03:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are serious NPV issues to be fixed. The overly promotional wording and lack of mainstream views for instance. However, I think it can exist as a standalone article. That said, the recent spamming of links in other articles need to stop. 'One-way linking' per WP:FRINGE applies. LK (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Economic Calculation
The article on Economic Calculation reads like one elongated tautology: the calculation problem has not been solved because (!?) it can never be solved.

Sez who?

I saw this problem solved twenty years ago in graduate school at USF. The SFEcon solution entirely fulfills the criteria stated by Hayek in his 1945 paper. It demonstrates a general I/O structure’s progress from any chaotic state to a unique, equifinal general optimum by way of continuous series linking prices, physical quanta, and money. Economic sectors know only the shapes of their own utility tradeoffs. Commodity markets know only their own good’s current supply rate and the marginal values that good currently has for the sectors using it.

You can see the instructional video game used in my class running at www.sfecon.com. This distance learning course has been on the web since the 1990’s. It has been peer-reviewed as an instance complex, non-linear system dynamics at:

Lang, Paul: “An Essay on SFEcon’s Perfect Markets Model”. Proceedings, International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS2004), May 16-21 2004 http://www.necsi.edu/events/iccs/2004proceedings.html

And it was the subject of a doctoral dissertation in Managerial Cybernetics at Sunderland:

Sergeyev, Andrey and Moscardini, Alfredo: “Governance of economic transitions: a case study of Ukraine”. Kybernetes, 2006, vol. 35, pp 90-107 http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/journals/kybernetes/kybernetes35.html

Sergeyev wrote his thesis on dismantling economic command in Ukraine, and the SFEcon algorithm provided the underlying model of capitalism as it would remain after the dismantling. Moscardini was Sergeyev’s thesis supervisor.

It looks to me like the people who can do the necessary math did it long ago. Meanwhile, those who can’t do the math are given all the space they need to deny any possibility that there might exist an objective counterexample their mere presuppositions. So, what are we gonna believe here? A couple of dead Austrians? Or our lyin’ eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipperke (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What article are you talking about? The title "Economic calculation" redirects to the article on cost-benefit analysis. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it. Just for reference, the above comment is about this article: Economic calculation problem. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Project AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Economic terrorism. Thanks. Borock (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article request: Lumpiness (economics)
This is an article request for Lumpiness (economics). I have come across this word in a number of economics articles, and its meaning is unclear. I know WP is not a dictionary, and this seems like a borderline case, so I'm open to other proposals about how to make the meaning of the economic jargon term "lumpiness" clear to readers. I was unable to find a Glossary of Economics Terms, which is where it might logically live. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I don't think we'll find an entry on lumpiness in the New Palgrave. Any ideas from micro people about what this should redirect to? LK (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Xerographica's walled garden
, having had difficult in inserting his WP:OR and quote farms in mainspace, appears to have started his own little walled garden in his own space:


 * User:Xerographica/Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs - Fake article of Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs (redirected at AFD to Tragedy of the commons)
 * User:Xerographica/Consumer sovereignty - quote farm of Consumer sovereignty
 * User:Xerographica/Decentralized knowledge - Quote farm
 * User:Xerographica/Demonstrated preference - POV fork and quote farm of Demonstrated preference
 * User:Xerographica/Dollar voting - POV fork and quote farm of Dollar voting
 * User:Xerographica/Heterogeneous activity - Fake article of Heterogeneous activity (deleted at AFD)
 * User:Xerographica/Legal plunder - Fake article/quote farm of Legal plunder (redirected to Rent-seeking)
 * User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost - POV fork and quote farm of Opportunity cost
 * User:Xerographica/Other people's money - Fake article of Other people's money] (redirected at AFD to Milton Friedman and redirect doomed for deletion)
 * User:Xerographica/Pars pro toto principle - Quote farm for Pars pro toto principle
 * User:Xerographica/Pragmatic ethics - Quote farm for Pragmatic ethics
 * User:Xerographica/Preference revelation - Original research and quote farm Preference revelation
 * User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation - Original research and quote farm
 * User:Xerographica/Rational ignorance - POV fork and quote farm of Rational ignorance
 * User:Xerographica/Tax choice - POV fork and quote farm of Tax choice (Subject of AFD: The result was no consensus. This is a horrid article, and the topic itself reads more of WP:HOWTO and full of WP:OR, and belongs more in a dictionary of economic concepts than of a notable encyclopedic topic. Realistically, this should be merged somewhere, but as a minimum there us [sic] currently no consensus to delete it at this time.)
 * User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit - Quote farm of The Fatal Conceit
 * User:Xerographica/Unnecessary war - Fake article of Unnecessary war (doomed for deletion

Individually, each --like the quote farms which have been expunged from articles -- might be acceptable. However, given the large number and User:Xerographica's stated intention to fork off topcs when he doesn't get his way, I'd say he's pushing the envelope, at least. What say you? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the best place to raise the issue, e.g., how does posting the concern here support the WikiProject? Whether or not this is the best place, here is WP:SP for your consideration. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with Srich that this isn't the right forum to discuss this issue. Maybe WP:Village pump or WT:User pages is appropriate. LK (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I say that this is a perfect place to share high quality reliable sources on important economic concepts. But I also agree that you should copy and paste it other places as well. The more places the better. Thanks!  --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if you'd like to actually begin doing so at any time, no one's stopping you. A change of pace in your editing habits -- as opposed to your ability to randomly cut-and-paste from Google Scholar -- would always welcome.


 * In any case, this is the right forum, because I'd like some expert opinion -- from actual experts -- as to whether any of it is worth salvaging, or if I should go straight to MFD to see about having the whole lot nuked as a WP:FAKEARTICLE walled garden. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a problem in this analysis: It's not exactly WP:FAKEARTICLE, because
 * Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these).
 * (from WP:FAKEARTICLE). There's no definition of "short-term" and "potentially valid" is in dispute, although I cannot name anyone other than Xerographica who has stated that they are "potentially valid".  ("Potentially valid" is a matter for this forum.)  I can't say that any of them are "abandoned".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the pieces are templated userspace draft which should keep them from showing up on search engines. The categories are hidden as well. So the real issue is whether WP:SP guidance is violated. As this thread is off topic, I think I will collapse it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only reason this thread is "off topic" is because you're not addressing Calton's request for expert opinion on the content. Please uncollapse it.  --Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me (and others) that Calton's remarks were more focused on the POVFORK, OR, QUOTEFARM, and FAKEARTICLE aspects of the garden. These topics do not further the WikiProject. Now if Calton was concerned about an AfD, ANI, or other non-WikiProject discussion, this talk page would be an appropriate place to post a notice about the non-WikiProject discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinions on Social market economy
We are trying to find a good lead section here. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Preference revelation, club theory and benefit principle
Here are three new entries that I recently created...


 * Preference revelation (Stub)
 * Club theory (Stub+)
 * Benefit principle (Stub++)

There's a lot of room for improvement if anybody is interested in any of the topics. --Xerographica (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you could describe the connection between demonstrated preference, revealed preference, and preference revelation. You have not refuted my opinon that there should only be one article of the three of them, but clarifying the relationship might help.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your opinion...as I've said before...economics is way outside your area of expertise. The irony is that you and Rich are the ones who've done the most to block my efforts to try and make economics as accessible as possible.  Look at the entry on actions speak louder than words and the entry on put your money where your mouth is.  I created those entries to try and help people understand the economic relevance of preference revelation and now look at them!  And here you are now...telling me that it would be helpful for me to explain the connection between demonstrated preference, revealed preference and stated preference. Seriously?  Demonstrate that you're genuinely interested in learning about economics by reverting to my version of actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is.  Because up until now...your ONLY  demonstrated AND stated preference has been to harass me --Xerographica (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrases are only part of economics in the sense that everything is part of economics.
 * stated preference is an WP:EGG; you should know better than that by now.
 * As for my specific request, you have stated the relationship between demonstrated preference and revealed preference, but neither article is more than a stub + quotations (some of them relevant, and some of them the same quotations) + "See also" (again, some of them relevant). A rational person, unfamiliar with the terms, would assume that preference revelation is the study of revealed preferences; if it is not, specific references for the use of the terms in economics should be given, not just quotes.  If it is, they probably should be the same article.  I'll go back and look at the articles after you have time to flesh them out, but you've been spending the time you could have been fleshing them out by adding quotes.
 * I know, I should discuss the edits, rather than the editor. But all the substantive edits in those articles are yours or cleanup of your edits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not qualified to discuss the edits. Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions.  That's why your edits have been extremely disruptive.  --Xerographica (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Arthur, Xerographica is right that the study of preference revelation (how to design mechanisms) is pretty distinct a concept from revealed preference, and (in a perfect Wikipedia) should have a stand-alone article. (IMHO, demonstrated preference can be covered in revealed preference.)
 * @Xerographica, Arthur is right about almost everything else. You shouldn't be so eager to create new articles. You should try to build an article in user space before creating a stub, preferably with at least a couple of cites (a bunch of tangential quotes doesn't count). Also, you should try to work more collaboratively, listening to what others say to you with patience and trying to see their point of view. Saying things like "Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions" isn't going to help your case. LK (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding demonstrated vs revealed preference..."assuming" that people's utility functions are constant has been the primary justification for making decisions for other people. It's really not a "minor" detail.  If you actually want to have an informed opinion on the subject...then read  the debate between Samuelson and Buchanan.
 * That's a tough sell considering that the term "demonstrated preference" doesn't appear once in the pdf link. Nobody other than Rothbard ever had anything to say about "demonstrated preference," and in my opinion his distinction based on static preferences is even more vacuous than Samuelson's original construct. If I'm wrong, simply locate some RS content and silence your critics.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding everything else, again, if you actually want to have an informed opinion...then please read over every single one of my interactions with these two editors. Also, saying that I should try to work more collaboratively...by not creating new entries that everybody can contribute to...is well...absurd.  You either do, or do not, find value in contributing to an entry. --Xerographica (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To expand on LK's point: using words and phrases such as "economics is way outside your area of expertise," "Seriously? Demonstrate that you're genuinely interested in learning about economics by reverting to my version," "your ONLY demonstrated AND stated preference has been to harass me," "You are not qualified to discuss the edits.  Neither you, nor Rich, have near enough economics under your belt to make helpful or useful contributions" and "If you actually want to have an informed opinion on the subject ..." do not seem to me to contribute much of value to the discussion but seem instead like attacks for the sake of attacking people with whom you disagree.    SteveT (talk)  02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now...concentrated benefits and diffuse costs redirects to tragedy of the commons. Do you agree with this redirect?  If so, can you offer any RS that support the redirect?  Here's my contribution to the discussion on the tax entry.  What value did Rubin contribute to the discussion?  He has not ONCE cited a single RS...in any of our numerous interactions.  He has absolutely NO interest in RS.  If you don't believe me...then look over his contributions and share the last time he cited a RS.  Yet, he makes numerous edits...but based on what?  Clearly he doesn't read any RS.  Here's his most recent "contribution"... Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice. --Xerographica (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Project GAR
Please notice that I proposed a GA reassesment of Ronald MacDonald (economist). Thank you all.--Forich (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The particular article never had an initial GA assessment. It is now classed as a start. GAR discussion is collapsed as not relevant.

McEachern and the USPS
William McEachern has a section in his microeconomics textbook on the United States Postal Service...here. I'm reading it one way while another editor is reading it an entirely different way. The section isn't very long...so it would be great if you could read it over and share your thoughts on McEachern's arguments. Is he defending or critiquing the USPS? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the question is whether he attributes the rise in the price of first-class stamp (beginning of the second paragraph) entirely to inefficiency. —Fishicus (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The way I read it, William McEachern is sympathetic to the idea that monopolists can be as efficient as firms in competitive markets (and that monopoly profits allow them to innovate), while noting that other economists believe that monopolists are less efficient. To answer your specific question, it's pretty clear that McEachern attributes the rising price of first-class stamps to rising costs and growing competition from other technologies (which presumably reduces volume and increases per unit costs.) LK (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, LK. —Fishicus (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about tone and undue weight
At Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision_making there is a discussion about whether an article in this WikiProject's scope should have been tagged for unencyclopedic tone. Additional perspectives on this would be welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom of choice for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SPECIFICO talk  19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clemens August Andreae
Would anyone mind beefing up Clemens August Andreae, particularly if you know German? He was a prominent Austrian economist and is one of the famous people who died on a plane crash in Thailand in 1991. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Female Labor Force Participation in Muslim Countries
I propose to write an article providing a variety of statistics on female participation in the formal economic system of predominately Muslim countries. Some of the indicators that would be included in the article are: female labor force participation rate, female employment rate subdivided into full and part-time employment, unemployment rate, employment by sector and age, duration of employment, types of jobs women hold, advancement opportunities (how many women hold executive jobs in the nation's biggest companies), and wage disparity with men. These indicators would provide a somewhat comprehensive but accessible look into the economic life of women in Muslim countries. This topic is clearly relevant to economics as it touches on labor markets, wages, and the interplay of social and market forces. It is also of interest in the development field of economics with so many theories about the role of human capital, plentiful labor, and increased productivity leading to economic growth. An article on the presence of women in the labor force of Muslim nations would provide interesting data for users interested in the economic development of these nations. It has also received little attention, from what I can tell, on Wikipedia. Centralizing this data in one article would enable users to glean an important overview of women's role in the formal economy of several Muslim nations. The nations I propose to present in this article are: Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. These nations were chosen because they are all majority-Muslim nations (50%+), are prominent and, mostly, populous Muslim nations, and provide at least some regional representation of the Muslim world. Data on these nations, for the most part, is plentiful as compared with other Muslim nations. Some of the sources of information I have found are the World Bank Group, the International Labor Organization, UNESCAP, SESRIC, and a few articles on development from various journals such as the International Journal of Sociology of the Family. Is this a topic that should be included in the Wikiproject: Economics? What other details should be included in the article? What other sources of information should I cite?

DanSCohen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Forced/Free rider problem
Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are making and/or supporting edits on the free rider problem and the forced rider problem which do not reflect what the reliable sources have to say about the topics... Talk:Forced_rider_problem. But I might be wrong. It would be great if any outside editors could evaluate how well their edits match the reliable sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing 'Motherhood Penalty' Article
I am going to expand and revise upon the Wikipedia article “Motherhood penalty”. I will specifically be focusing on the perceived cultural tension between mothers and workers and the effects of the motherhood penalty as well as employer bias and discrimination. I think it is important to revise and expand upon the “Motherhood penalty” article because it has different implications and solutions for the wage gap than previous theories. The motherhood penalty shifts the blame from mothers and their choice to employers and their implicit biases. This ideological shift in itself helps perceptions of the culture of motherhood, gender roles, and gender equality in the workplace. The motherhood penalty asserts that children are not the direct cause of the wage gap. Instead, it is employers’ perceptions that mothers have a lower commitment and work effort compared to nonmothers because of their duties and commitment to their family. These perceptions lead to biases and discrimination in regards to wages as well as hiring and promotions of mothers. Women already face a wage gap and being a mother just compounds that effect. I plan to draw on case studies the work of Deborah Anderson, Melissa Binder, Michelle Budig, Paula England, and Shelley Correll. I would appreciate any comments or feedback.Mmcolson (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Women Migrant Workers
I plan to write an article detailing and exploring the phenomenon of Women Migrant Workers. Specifically, I want to expound on the circumstances and atmosphere of those seeking work abroad, but also the economic impacts that these women make. Economically, they affect both the country in which they work, as well as the country from which they are from. Their economic ties to their families, and the opportunities abroad may or may not positively impact their families. I want to focus on their economic impacts, gains, and losses, but provide some background and human interest into the situations that these women face. This is not an article on sex trade or migrant sex workers. This may be tied to feminist economics, the postmodern and modern approaches. I would appreciate any feedback or ideas to add to this article. Whereas my intent is to focus on the economic impacts, I am not opposed to providing other details and exploring other parts of this topic. Erinbb1 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article on gift economy could use help from people understanding economics.
Hi. I don't know if this is the correct place to ask fro this. However, I noticed that the article gift economy seriously could use input from people that have some understanding in economics and how this topic has been handled there in the literature lately. Dumazdamaz (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to the Individual Development Account (IDA) Page
The current article on Individual Development Account lacks history/background information on IDAs, detailed information on the processes of IDA programs, a global perspective on the tool, credible references, well-supported & updated data and criticisms of the program. These features are crucial for providing a comprehensive and neutral outlook on Individual Development Accounts in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. In light of this, I propose making the following changes to this article throughout the course of the next two months:


 * Add a short section on history of the tool to provide context for the rest of the article.


 * Expand the section on 'Purpose' to include the interaction of IDA usage with domestic policies.


 * Add subsections under 'Programs' to cover programs in both the United States and in other parts of the world.


 * Update the section on 'Usage Date' to include well-supported recent data since the current reference link is broken. Also, I will be renaming the section 'Data and Impact' and expanding the section by adding available scholarly analysis of the data.


 * Adding a section on 'Criticisms' of IDA programs and implementation to provided a balanced perspective.


 * Adding scholarly references for the added information as well as for existing information with broken reference links

For a thorough presentation of the project and a resourceful entry, I would like to request suggestions to expand upon the ideas I present here. Please feel free to propose additional changes that you would like to see made to this page. Thank you.

Kjhooda (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Transformative economics
This AFD discussion could use economics input. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Kuznets curve - proposed split off
Hello, I would like to propose splitting off a new Environmental Kuznets curve article from the current Kuznets curve article. Good idea? Please discuss here. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gross State Product
The numbers for the U.S. states are for 2010 and 2011 data have been available since June 2012. Numbers for 2012 will be out in June 2013. Data are available on the BEA and FRED websites.John Tepper Marlin (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Cypriot crisis terminology and topics
Hi, there are a few articles related to the Cypriot finance crisis that could do with some involvement of more editors. Please see WP:ITNC, 2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis, Bank deposit levy, bail-in, Haircut (finance), etc. There is also a note about the Cypriot deposit insurance at Deposit_insurance. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I need help urgently
Pardon my English because I am a German speaker. A few weeks ago I revised some untenable assertions at the article Social market economy. Another German user reverted my revisions and because of the resulting edit war an administrator blocked the article in my version. The other German user put pressure on the administrator and the administrator promised to alter the article if the other German user can find supporters and get majority. After that the other German user rounded up several users he knows of the German and English wikipedia. This group of users voted for an alteration of the introductory section although nobody of this group can reason why the introductory section needs to be altered. My repetitious question what is incorrect about the current introductory section never has been responded. Instead they submitted always new suggestions for lead ignoring all my justified objections against that suggestions. After they voted for a suggestion for lead that is provable a corruption of historical facts. The statements of this suggestion are not verified by the cited sources and are counterfactual as I demonstrated explicitly a bunch of times. Now they achieved that the article is unblocked and they edited a new introductory section. Nothing of this introductory section can be verified by the quoted sources. It is all totally fabricated and it is the exact opposite of the historical facts that can be proved by many reliable sources. Already the first sentence, the definition of the lemma, is sourced with a glossary of a newspaper that don't verify this statement. Even more this definition of the lemma is absolutely counterfactual because Ludwig Erhard was a bitter opponent of social insurance schemes so social insurance schemes can't be the basic characteristic to determine the social market economy. Every sentence of this new introductory section can not be verified by the quoted sources and if you want I can show you this. Please help me! --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And just what help is it you are seeking? Geremy Hebert (talk &#124; contribs) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not feed the trolls! --Ephynes (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stewardship Economy
Can someone review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stewardship Economy? Thanks! heather walls (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I got it. EllenCT (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Liberal paradox
Hello all. I have recently rewritten liberal paradox. I would greatly appreciate someone taking a look at it and providing any feedback you might think appropriate. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Help filling out templates
Lately, I have been trapsing through WP:VA to find articles in need of navboxes. I think I have identified the three most needed economists in this regard as Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. I have mostly just found subjects with at least four notable works in need of templates. Each of these templates could use some broadening of major theories, schools of thought and such to be added to them. I will probably begin deploying these templates in the next day or two, but editing would be useful either before or after such deployment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The equation of exchange is an equilibrium condition, not a dynamic relationship
In the article "Equation of exchange", in the "Applications - Quantity theory of money" section, and in the article "Quantity theory of money" in the "2.1 A rudimentary version of the quantity theory" section, the differential equation dP/P = dM/M is converted to an equation involving derivatives with respect to time by dividing by dt.

This is dangerously misleading, because the equation of exchange is a statement of an equilibrium condition, not a dynamic statement of instantaneous cause and effect. That is, any time-based model that uses the equation of exchange to implement the quantity theory of money must take into account the lags in the system. It is not even approximately true that (dP/P)/dt = (dM/M)/dt - (dQ/Q)/dt + (dV/V)/dt !

I have not edited the pages myself (yet) because I see that they are part of a special project being developed by appropriate experts. I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia; if my understanding of the Wikipedia process is correct, would one of you experts please fix them? Or am I supposed to do it myself and explain my reasons on the Talk page?

Robert G Chamberlain (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Robert G Chamberlain

Final Good vs Consumer Product
The article Final Good is misleading and should be merged with the article Consumer Product. By definition a final good is good or service that is consumed by the end user and does not require any further processing. Therefore, the article is not wrong but a general user might not search for final goods when looking for consumer goods. I would hence suggest to add the wording final good under a new category called Synonyms within the Consumer Product article. What do you think? Jaxkhug (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors Invited to Laissez Faire article
There's discussion about the criticism section and a talk thread. Comments or additions to this section of the article would be welcome. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  00:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is link to 'Economy of the United States' sample article. This exact format can be repeated for all 196 countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

I am looking for volunteers to duplicate this model for all 196 countries in the following Wikimedia project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Need help at Law of value
I hope this isn't considered improper, but an article (Law of value) that might be under the scope of this project needs a lot of help. I've requested help at the appropriate WikiProjects (Socialism and Philosophy), but this article is exceedingly long and extremely wide in scope. It touches on metaphysics, socialism, communism, and capitalism, making it a bit difficult to properly categorize. It's full of original research and has trouble maintaining a neutral POV, and it's entirely too long (over 250KB, currently). The size and scope make it too overwhelming for the small group trying to fix it, and we'd really appreciate any help that this WikiProject could spare, even if it's just to point us in the direction of more appropriate WikiProjects to harass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing the 'Economy of _______' pages
The 'Economy of ______' pages are very educational and are an awesome collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be improved if they were modified to become more comparable and uniform.

I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding. Public understanding is a major goal for Wikipedia.

Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economies. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed. Has the Wikipedia community ever tried to fix this in the past?

Economy of the United States

1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links

Economy of China

1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links

Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links

Economy of Germany

1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I second this proposal. Standardizing 'Economy of ______' pages could be useful and we have wikipedians from many countries around the world, and thats a plus.
 * Seems like the proposal now exists on Meta-Wiki. πr2 (t • c) 00:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I created https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History" — where does income, wealth, poverty, and inequality fit in to that? EllenCT (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am considering adding a 'Consumer' section. Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are pretty important aspects, and in my view neglecting them leads to all kinds of problems. Other statistics, such as the proportion of consumer spending comprising the economy, are very important for projecting tax incidence changes, but they weren't even in the US economy article until today. You might want to spend some more time researching all the various aspects that existing articles do and should currently include so you don't end up limiting the WP:COMPREHENSIVE aspects of the articles. EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There will be a Consumer section to have GINI, savings, etc. I must also say that there is value in simplicity. This model is designed to be easy to understand. Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of simplicity, but you may be able to do much better if you spend some time to research, think it through, and ask for feedback from others before proposing a standardized outline format. For example, why "International Accounts" and not "Trade"? Why are "States" and "Cities" separate sections in distant parts of the outline? What is the scope of "History" -- most of the Economy of____ articles don't have much history now. Currently the US economy article has some detail on the sizes of various sectors such as manufacturing and finance. Do you want to include relative levels of business investment, too? Why don't you try converting one of the existing articles in to a format you think would be suitable for standardization in WP:USERSPACE and then ask people to have a look and provide feedback?EllenCT (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the US bailout closer to $8 trillion or $30 trillion?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1970414 looks plausible to me. Does anyone see any errors in it? EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As it stands, that paper is selfpub, and so not a reliable source, not until it has been accepted into a peer reviewed journal. It can be mined for reliable sources (check the References), but that's it. LK (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with LK; removing all working papers is unnecessarily restrictive. The paper is a product of a university in collaboration with the Levy Economics Institute think tank, and it provides a worthwhile perspective on the question. Requiring think tanks to publish all their papers in order to be used is too restrictive; many are not published, or if they are published, may be published inside in-house journals (e.g., The RAND Journal of Economics). Now, you might find that wikilawyers have something of an upper-hand with Wikipedia's self-published sources policy, but usually they can be reasoned with. II  | (t - c) 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard
A page under this wikiproject, Gold standard, has been getting some POV edits. More eyes needed. FurrySings (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: List of countries by nominal GDP growth rate
Please join the discussion here. -Zanhe (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Review request
Please review this edit. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No objection from me! The content you removed looks to me to be kindergarten-level analysis (although by saying that, I risk insulting many kindergarteners ).  SteveT (talk)  06:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was not my removal, and I believe the removed text is soundly reasoned, because the private sector is more efficient than the public sector except in cases of perverse incentives. EllenCT (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with EllenCT. It's a reasonable point made (apparently) by the IMF as well as the foundational figure in economics, Pigou. However, I think it could be worded a little more tentatively, since economics is not a precise science. II  | (t - c) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is further discussion on this at Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 2 on which additional opinions would be very helpful. EllenCT (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Another request to review a questionable deletion
Please review this edit. It is not my edit, but I would like more experienced eyes to have a second look at it please. I would not have deleted the paragraph. EllenCT (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Half the article is about the effects of inequality, so it seems inappropriate for the lead to skip over this discussion. In the interest of compromise and acknowledging the imperfections of econometrics (and particularly the fundamental problems in doing international or historical statistical comparisons), the conclusions could be perhaps be written less forcefully but the paragraph should remain. However, I haven't reviewed the sources and research. II  | (t - c) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is not supported by the sources. I search the sources for those terms and came up empty.  The statement included is phrased as fact, in Wikivoice, and the intro of one of the supporting sources states the exact opposite.  So it's an opinion depending on the economic conditions of which equality may play a small part - equality doesn't necessitate increased median earnings.  In many cases, increased economic growth causes inequality.  Rising tide can lift all boats.   Morphh   (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Economic Map
I am looking for advice on this topic. This post is related to the previous section.

I recently tried to add an article named Economic summary of the United States to Wikipedia and it was rejected.

My goal get help from other Wikipedians to duplicate this article with the same exact format for every country in the world (196 total). This project can go even further and have an article for every state and city. The format used in this project is simple yet sophisticated. The statistics are available on government websites. There is nothing in the world that resembles this project and I believe that this project is in line with Wikipedia's goals. There is huge value added in compiling various government statistics from around the internet all into one location that is easy to access.

Versions for China and Japan are also available to show how this project would look for other countries.

For a more localy focused area, the case of Salt Lake City was treated as an example.

About a month ago, I created this Global Economic Map Wikimedia project proposal, but I was told that my project belonged on the normal Wikipedia.

After having my article be rejected from the normal Wikipedia, I am confused about where my article belongs. I want my article to be in a place where it can be seen by the public and inspire other people to create duplicates for other countries. Should my article be included in the normal Wikipedia under the title Economic summary of the United States? Should these articles have their own Wikimedia project? Is there another solution that I'm not thinking of? Mcnabber091 (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any difference between the titles "Economy of ..." and "Economic Summary of ..."? For me, it means the same. The article Economy of the United States does exist already. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to add another "Economic summary of..." article. Sorry if I have misunderstood your intention, but I don't quite get the difference. ...In my opinion, these articles do all belong to Wikipedia - except you want to express something totally different that I just do not get. Jaxkhug (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?
There is an RfC here concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk  02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject
WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with WP:RSN?
One editor has voiced an opinion, but this may be an area that needs more expert opinion. Help welcome. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolved. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;

Question
What's the difference between Net foreign assets and Net international investment position?? Is there any? If not, shouldn't the articles be merged?? Thanx. P.S. Searching the web and readign stuff here and there(I'm not an economist) I've mostly found-understood (perhaps erroneously) that they refer to the same thing; but if as per what I see as an exception, i.e. the World Bank definition "Net foreign assets are the sum of foreign assets held by monetary authorities and deposit money banks, less their foreign liabilities" (copied verbatim and used btw at the tradingeconomics.com site) they differ, then the cited definition at the relevant wikiarticle seems to me to be wrong; if on the other hand the World Bank used definition-terminology is not common, then aren't both wikiarticles defining and talking about the same thing? Thanatos|talk 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even economists or people who've studied it a lot would have to study that one. Look for more and possibly better references to decide. Also, look at if a specific person is ref'd at World Bank or it's just some general statement that some asst's asst could have tweaked incorrectly. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The World Bank indicator is I'd say certainly not the NIIP; I'm pretty "sure" about this cause I know the NIIP numbers on Greece. Greek NIIP is about 3 times the WB database's cited number (~200bil€ vs ~80bil€). The WB number also sounds about right as per its WB definition when compared to known Greek TARGET2 liabilities.
 * The thing is that all other texts I've seen over time, define NIIP as foreign assets minus foreign liabilities (relating to current account etc); which btw as I understand it and at least in simple terms, seems equivalent or anyway pretty close to the net external debt of a country (in constrast to the more known gross external debt). But again this is what the wikiarticle on net assets also reads: foreign assets minus foreign liabilities... So irrespectively of what the correct definitions are, don't you agree that the two wiki-articles read the same, that there is no difference in the definition? Is there anyway noone here who really knows his-her macro stuff??? P.S.Had provided links to Greek NIIP, Target2 etc just to solidify my case, but because I also linked to tradingeconomics (blacklisted in wikipedia) the whole text (and hence links) was not only not accepted, but also lost... Too bored to write this anew.Thanatos|talk 18:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ORN regarding economist BLP
Feel free to comment at No_original_research/Noticeboard re: Jesus Huerta de Soto. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 00:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

AFD for Jesús Huerta de Soto
The debate is here. So far, all of the votes have come from libertarians. I'm hoping to get a broader swath of people -- particularly those who have formal training in economics methodologies -- to come to the debate and give their two cents. Steeletrap (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's not really a neutrally worded announcement. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't neutral to say I want people from a "broad" host of ideologies who have actual training in economics, yet it is neutral to canvass the libertarianism project for votes as to whether de Soto is a notable academic? Mind=Blown. Steeletrap (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, all of the votes have come from libertarians is the non-neutral part which might cause problems. CANVASS specifically excludes projects where a neutrally worded announcement is made from being considered a problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, there is no question that Carol's was a violation, but yours should simply have notified the Economics Project of the discussion, without comment or elaboration. There may also be other projects that can be notified as well.  For starters, check the top of the article talk page for Projects.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To add to user Collect's useful reminder on policy, since this is a volunteer project it's not like we get a slap on the wrist for just going to first project that occurs to us and not researching in depth every relevant project and alerting them.  But now that my noggin has been tweaked on the topic, I'll think about it.  ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've crossed out the contentious text. Let's focus on the issue at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do it enough times, and you could end up with a lot more than a slap on the wrist. The pattern of behavior is what will ultimately be evaluated. SPECIFICO  talk  01:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Huerta de Soto an economist?
His article survived the AfD. Now two editors are contesting whether he should be categorized as an economist. Please feel free to comment at: Talk:Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Murray Rothbard article
QUESTION: Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" RfC here SPECIFICO  talk  23:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is up for discussion, see talk:digital currency -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is now a school of economics??
At this diff in the Murray Rothbard info box a user wants to make Anarcho-capitalism a school of economics with 2 refs that merely says that Rothbard influenced those ideas and one that doesn't even mention anarcho-capitalism. Meanwhile he ignores four refs calling Rothbard an Austrian school economist in the first sentence of the article. I couldn't find such a school doing an internet search. Am I missing some important school or is this editor just totally confused?? ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess the question is, what is the definition of a school of economics? I would be sympathetic to an argument being made for it but I'd be inclined to reject the argument absent a demonstration that it had significant acceptance. Reliable sources seems relevant, here.   SteveT (talk)  04:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously, if there were a lot of WP:RS saying Anarcho-capitalism was a school of economics, it would not be an issue. And if an editor wants to promote anarcho-capitalism as a school of economics off wikipedia, without working on related articles here, and makes it so credible that WP:RS refer to it and schools start putting together courses on the topic, etc. Fine. However, in this case the editor first said he wanted to take Economist off Murray Rothbard's info box and then said s/he wasn't going to work on it any more. I just thought I'd see if there was some big response one way or the other to that topic here. Otherwise hopefully the issue is now moot til WP:RS start talking about such a "school." ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh sigh! Anarcho-capitalism is a sub-Reddit, but no one is getting a PhD in it, or more relevant, majoring in it in college and working in academia or industry as an Anarcho-capitalist Economist.
 * Hi Carol! I am Ellie in civilian life (I am FeralOink, see below ;o) I have seen you editing, with attentiveness, the Murray Rothbard article and some others. I did some "personal life of Murray" edits myself, a few months ago. I am not an Austrian economist or Mises enthusiast, thus not a Rothbard fan, but I am appalled that someone would want to take Economist off of Murray Rothbard's info box. He has a PhD in economics, and held the title of lecturer and professor of economics for most of the working years of his life!
 * I don't know how people get these non-mainstream ideas (whether about mainstream, or less-mainstream topics) that they insist should be incorporated here. For example, I noticed that Noam Chomsky and N.N. Taleb were both described as anarcho-capitalists, with libertarian tendencies, in some past versions (possibly current ones?) of their BLP articles. Next, maybe... well, I'll stop there. I am supportive of your point of view regarding this issue! --FeralOink (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that ignoring and violating policy just to push ones POV is tacky at best and disruptive a good part of the time. If what you think has merit, someone else probably has said it, and if they haven't, go out and make it notable yourself! :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 14:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor reverting back to Anarcho-capitalism school
User:Steeletrap (and earlier User:SPECIFICO) insist on reverting back to Anarcho-capitalist school. Perhaps someone could help explain this to them at this Murray Rothbard article talk page discussion section. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Before a lot of editor attention is wasted on this: Nobody has suggested that 'anarcho-capitalism' is a school of economic thought. Four editors, however, have questioned whether Murray's infobox should show him only as an "economist." I have now expanded the infobox, using the more general "infobox person" template and changed the header to "anarcho-capitalist" which is the primary legacy of this prolific thinker. SPECIFICO talk  16:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, User:Steeletrap added Anarcho-Capitalist to the infobox today at this diff.
 * Second, I see no such discussion by other editors here at relevant talk page discussion or elsewhere. Frankly, I think we'd need an RfC on this. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Update
FYI, User:Steeletrap did remove economist from the info box and even removed that fact Murray Rothbard was an economist of the Austrian school from the lead but as of last two days we've got them back. But it does seem rather shameful to see this defacto vandalism of any well known economists article. User:Carolmooredc  18:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, since this page is read by many editors who are familiar neither with the Rothbard article nor with user:carolmooredc:
 * Some time ago an IP changed the text at the top of the "economist" infobox from "austrian school" to "anarcho-capitalist." This eventually led to a discussion as to whether Rothbard should be described first as a political theorist rather than as an economist.  An RfC was conducted, and the consensus was in favor of "political theorist."  The change was made to the lede and the economist infobox was replaced with one which doesn't label him an economist of any school.   Nobody except User:Carolmooredc has ever suggested that "anarcho-capitalism" is a school of economic thought.  That assertion, which she has posted on many talk and noticeboard pages, is hers alone. Unfortunately it has led to a certain amount of wasted editor time and attention for those who commented on her posts.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here your reverted my revert of the AnonIP's inaccurate edit putting Anarcho-capitalism as school of economics, so how could one not think you were misinformed about it being a school? Please provide diffs of where besides here and the talk page this came up; you tend to claim and even exaggerate things without diffs, even at WP:ANIs. User:Carolmooredc  19:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Reassessment of Paul Milgrom
It may have gone unnoticed to some here, but for Paul Milgrom's 65th birthday, his students and colleagues organized to overhaul his WP page. (More info on Al Roth's blog here) It is now significantly improved from its former stub, and it may be a good candidate for GA status (if I understand it correctly). I'm not sure quite how to kick off this process, any help would be great. At the very least, it's certainly no longer Start-class! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeakTrain (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CreditSuisse has median individual wealth by country
A helpful colleague pointed out that the CreditSuisse Global Wealth Databook has compiled median individual wealth statistics by country, on pp. 93-96. Someone was looking for this somewhere on the wiki in the past few months, and it's incredibly hard to find. Given that this information is far more characteristic of a typical person's wealth than the mean values skewed by large outliers everywhere, I think it's very important and I hope we can incorporate it. I suppose I should make some kind of a table or graph based on it. Any ideas? EllenCT (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC
Please help review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Real Money Economics - is this a notable topic deserving of an article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like no reviewing is necessary, since the AfC was rejected on the 16th. In any case, it's quite clearly the author's advertisement for their dream economic system--you can see that in the article they write that they themselves (Uli Kortsch) coined the term. It's a non-notable neologism (there's no references to anyone else using the term, ever), and reads like a white paper, not an encyclopedia article. WeakTrain (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if you google the term, you just get the author's advocacy group. It's WP:NEO and also probably WP:SYNTH a little bit in how it uses Fisher and Kotlikoff (even though Kotlikoff is one of the members of the group, I guess). I'm not sure if there's a place on the AfC itself to make comments--I'm happy to move these comments over to such a place. WeakTrain (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Commodities manipulation
Could someone please say whether or not Goldman Sachs' aluminum commodities futures manipulation has been occurring with other commodities or futures contract instruments? (Please see Talk:Goldman Sachs/Archive 1) 71.215.67.175 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It takes storage infrastructure to hoard market-swinging quantities of commodities, and it doesn't work well with perishables, but the Koch brothers hoard oil. EllenCT (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North RfC
Question: Regarding two of the subsections in Gary North (economist) -- which describe his views, but contain original rather than secondary sources – are they proper? Please see the discussion here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC) [Accidentally copied signature of original poster to another project.] User:Carolmooredc  13:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata task fork on economics
Hi, just to inform you about the creation of a wikidata task force about economics data there. You are kindly invited to join the task force and to share you ideas or comments. Snipre (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
Could some editors please look at Paul Krugman, specifically the criticisms section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) 13:48, January 8, 2013 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute/Austrian economists walled garden
Various pages created for Ludwig von Mises Institute scholars -- such as William L. Anderson, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, Burton Blumert, Gary North and Jesús Huerta de Soto -- are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (from not only from Mises.org or from "Mises academy", but from LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, both of which are published by the LvMI). Yet they seem to have virtually no mention in mainstream economic discourse (and appear to, by virtue of their brand of Austrian School methodology, reject empiricism and statistical methodologies in their study of economics). Thus they seem to me to constitute a walled garden, which allows them to effectively source each other in an overwhelmingly positive fashion. I hope some concerned economics-types can look into the pages I mention. Steeletrap (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This issue has long been a bone of contention between von Mises supporters and academic economists on Wikipedia. Things were much worse when I first started contributing in the mid-2000s. The Austrian school article was essentially a marketing pamphlet for the LvMI. The 'Austrian view' (actually Misean-Rothbardian view) was prominently presented in almost every economics article. Articles would present the economic sciences as being divided between the 'Keynesian view' (in actuality, just plain mainstream economics) and the 'Austrian view' (the LvMI view). The inflation article even featured the Misean definition in the lead, ("Inflation is an expansion of the money supply), ignoring the plain use of the word by 99.99% of the population. I'm not saying there aren't things to be fixed further. I'm just saying things are a lot better now. LK (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that context, LK. Perhaps it's "better" now, but check out the daforementioned LvMI articles: the situation is still quite bad and very much a walled garden. Another one of the most absurd offenders is the "Argumentation ethics" entry. The argument claims to be a strictly logical, value-free demonstration that it is irrational and incoherent to argue for any political position other than anarcho-capitalism. (I guess then, there was no such thing as coherent political debate until Murray Rothbard came onto the scene?) Though every response cited has come from Hoppe's coworkers (and in many cases, personal friends) at the Mises Institute, this was never mentioned until my recent change. Before that the article stated simply that "responses have varied" to the argument, leaving open the implication that somehow this argument was taken seriously in mainstream discourse. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Argumentation ethics" is an egregious case, a borderline notable idea that has a large article treating it as an important idea, and that was linked to from several articles such as natural law, pacifism, etc. I've removed some of the links (following WP:ONEWAY). The rest aren't so bad I think. Especially for biographies, Wikipedia policy is to lean towards being nice. All I'm saying is, relax. To get changes to 'stick' we have have to go slow. Don't freak out over stuff, or you'll burn out and not leave a mark. Incremental progress is how Wikipedia is built. LK (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope you're right! And will try to cool down! I'm sure you can sympathize, as someone who cares about philosophy and economics, my concern with these distortions. Steeletrap (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Argumentation ethics should be deleted due to lack of notability. All the articles should be sourced to mainstream sources.  Unfortunately, any attempts to enforce policy would come up against resistance.  But the main worry is when the people who write these articles decide to expand into articles outside the garden.  TFD (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There does appear to be a well organized group of libertarian/anarcho-capitalist ideologues on Wikipedia. Since there is likely to be resistance whenever their 'turf' gets stepped on, we have to carefully pick the topics that we choose to work on. I agree that the main problem is when they push into articles outside 'their garden'. I've already mentioned Inflation. We've also had trouble with Fractional reserve banking, the Federal Reserve, the Gold Standard. When important topics get hit, I'm all in favour of a strong immediate response. LK (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of spillover in articles about liberalism and fascism. The main points are fascism is socialism and modern liberals are socialists.  Some libertarians will argue that classical liberalism developed out of scholasticism.  TFD (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To LK. A strong immediate response is fine if in accordance with Wikipedia policies. But when you make an edit which at least two other editors challenge and you refuse to discuss it at the talk page or at noticeboards when (invited here), you are engaging in contentious editing yourself, don't you think? ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 16:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a comment here to summarize discussions of the above on this topic over the last couple months over a range of mostly WP:BLPs.
 * First, User:LK - as well as others - finally did comment on the article and the problematic material was removed.
 * Walled garden is an essay about internal wikipedia links, it's not a policy about WP:Reliable sources. If one wants to discuss other meanings of walled garden, please refer to off wiki sources since not everyone is totally familiar with the concept.
 * Past editors' failure or inabililty to look for outside sources on these economists does not mean there are no such sources and it should not be assumed so. Sometimes one has to dig a little and use creative search terms. Just typing a name in books.google may not get you info on a specific topic that's buried 8 pages down. Type the name AND the topic.
 * These academics and professors have made it in the academic world on their own merits and are reliable sources in that regard. Just because some have chosen to affiliate with the same institute as others or get published on some of the same web pages, does not mean that nothing they say can be used in regard to others loosely associated with those.
 * Of course, what I've found is that some who reject using these individuals' academically and intellectually solid comments by these sources do want to use the overly enthusiastic things these academics say or the critical things they say, as if to discredit the subject of the bio. (And when that becomes a habit one begins to reject any deletion of theirs, assuming the worst; like Hulsman's dicey quote on Huerta de Soto.) (See talk pages of Hans-Herman Hoppe, Murray Rothbard and Jesus Huerta de Soto).
 * And of course it can be annoying when one finds an outside academic source and some excuse is found to remove it. See Jesus Huerta de Soto talk page. So just a few thoughts; going on vacation so may not respond to any replies immediately. User:Carolmooredc  15:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The foregoing represents the opinion of one editor and none of it is tied to corroborating diffs. SPECIFICO talk  15:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * General comments with just named articles and without diffs can be responded to in similar fashion. People who care to learn more can go to the relevant pages and check out how many people had what opinions, can't they? Also see this archived section of a BLPN discussion and this not-yet-archived WP:RSN discussion which have lots of links and diffs. User:Carolmooredc  15:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Poverty in Mexico
It would be good with some outside opinions at Poverty in Mexico regarding how to choose the best sources for national statistics on poverty and how to interpret them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about business and Economics - Skysmith (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Several economics international organization templates are up for deletion
See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_30 where these are mass-nominated -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * also Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_31 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are IMF debt numbers cooked this year?
Every year, except this year, Wikipedia published IMF "General government gross debt" numbers on debt/GDP.

These are the debt numbers that economists use. These are the debt numbers the IMF uses itself.

Take, for example, an article from Forbes: IMF Warns China On Rising Government Debt Here the IMF itself cites the "general government gross debt" numbers.

It also makes no sense to average the CIA and IMF numbers (even if the correct numbers were used.)

Just put in the right IMF numbers and removed the average column. I can do this myself. It's very important when discussing political issues to have a reliable link to debt/GDP. This year Wikpedia's debt/GDP link is worthless.

The link to the real numbers is here: IMF General government gross debt (World Economic Outlook Database, April 2013)

Countzero1942 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Negative interest on excess reserves
at suggests that Sweden has not charged interest on excess reserves. Could someone please clarify that? EllenCT (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of excess reserves is inapplicable to countries which do not have reserve requirements (such as Sweden). I tried to add that to excess reserves, but you deleted it as being too obvious.--greenrd (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation for the fact that Sweden does not have reserve requirements here.--greenrd (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Setting a negative interest rate imposes a reserve requirement of zero. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Article for creation
Can some one take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aggregative games? The math Wikiproject received a request for an expert evaluation of whether or not the article is legitimate, but I think the topic is more in line with your interests here. Ozob (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute
See: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Envelope theorem
I've reverted edits that replaced the whole article by new material. I'm not an expert in economics/maths - my attention was drawn to the article because all its categories etc had been removed. Could someone who does understand the topic take a look and work out whether the new material should be added, should replace the existing article content, form a new article or whatever ? DexDor (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The removed material is certainly more informative (except that it has no intro) than what is in the article right now. Mct mht (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD on The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
See WP:Articles for deletion/The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism15:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.16:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Multifactory
Dear economists: Here's an article submitted at Afc that could benefit from the expertise of someone here. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it's been declined. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Economic approaches to Food security
I am currently working on taking the "Food security" article up to a GA rating, or as close as possible. However, the "Economic approaches" subsection contains information on three economic approaches called "Westernized view", "Food justice" and "Food sovereignty". These subsections have little or no citations, and seriously detract from the quality of this article. I was hoping someone here would have an interest in editing these section, or advising on their deletion. I am not sure if the approaches are important or well-known, and the lack of citations has me questioning their authenticity. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated! Khatchell (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Economy of Bulgaria
Hello, I'd like someone to look at the Economy of Bulgaria article. I have reverted a possible vandalism from unregistered user, but my edit was reverted. IHMO the text added by the unregistered user is copy-pasted from an economy report. Also it's unreferenced. That's why I think it cannot stay in the article. I'd like to avoid fight and someone more experienced to look at the matter. Regards and thanks, gogo3o 09:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Optimum number of working hours per week?
How should we characterize from  in light of the generally confirmatory ? Please answer at talk:Workweek and weekend. Thank you all! EllenCT (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD on Mark Thornton
Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Mark Thornton SPECIFICO  talk  16:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Economics working papers and reliable sources
I recall a while back that there was a question about working papers by EllenCT where LK expressed that these were unreliable and I disagreed. Most economics work these days is in working papers, and it's unrealistic to categorically remove them. The other day Krugman had the following comment:"Economics journals stopped being a way to communicate ideas at least 25 years ago, replaced by working papers; publication was more about certification for the purposes of tenure than anything else. Partly this was because of the long lags — by the time my most successful (though by no means best) academic paper was actually published, in 1991, there were around 150 derivative papers that I knew of, and the target zone literature was running into diminishing returns. Partly, also, it was because in some fields rigid ideologies blocked new ideas. Don’t take my word for it: It was Ken Rogoff, not me, who wrote about the impossibility of publishing realistic macro in the face of “new neoclassical repression.”" Of course, it was Rogoff's published paper on austerity which had a glaring error. Thoughts about working papers? II | (t - c) 23:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are still peer reviewed academic economics journals, and many of them have great reputations. Peer review in economics has shifted away from the publication process and into the world wide web, including traditional media, collections, blogs, even video sometimes. Remember that the review section of an introduction is a secondary source, so if the author is an authority then the publication has a reputation for trustworthiness, then the citation in a review takes the place of anonymous reviewers' comments. Therefore it is possible to determine what is and is not reviewed by authorities, as any editor must. EllenCT (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Software for legible .svg graphs?
Please see these three graphs proposed at Talk:United States:



I would like to experiment with ways of combining them. What appropriate software for graphing produces the most legible results on wikimedia wikis? EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll also like advice on how to create SVG graphs. What (windows) software is available to create supply-demand graphs in svg format? LK (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How to create charts for Wikipedia articles has some ways, as do and . EllenCT (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to include this one in some way and any suggestions would be appreciated. EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles
I looked over the list of economics articles under WP:Vital articles, and it could be much improved. It looks like it was constructed by someone with little exposure to economics. I made a few proposals to swap out Macreconomics and microeconomics for "goods" and "services" and to swap "supply and demand" for "markets". Please weigh in on the discussion and make other swap suggestions.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Political aspects of full employment
I came across and its "Marxist" conclusion that we need to "decouple accumulation from profitability" sounds to me like just another call to lower inventories by using IT to transition towards just-in-time production of products and services that can't be contracted for in advance or otherwise reliably predicted. I was wondering what other editors made of that. EllenCT (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Schumpeterian growth article is nonsense
This article seems like a Marxist manifesto with psycho-sexual theory undertones. This is not an appropriate way to approach the topic. Plus, Schumpeterian growth is not a "policy", and this article fails to clearly state the assumptions about product monopolies in the theory. I plan to eliminate the article and redirect to Creative destruction if there is no objection. Rscragun (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

U. S. figures Inaccurate
The figure of $54,000/year for the U. S. is roughly equal to dividing GDP by the total population. How could that be an accurate reflection of what kind of wages workers in the U. S. earn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmgibs34 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? What article are you referring to?  The 2011 median household income was $50,054 based on Census data (see US_income).  The mean was higher at $69,821 due to wealth concentration.Mattnad (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kazimierz Laski
Hi, this bio of a Polish-Austrian economist could use some specialist attention. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Flooding the market
I just redirected Flooding the market and a handful of similar terms to market saturation, but I'm having second thoughts. Are these the same thing or are they distinct? Ego White Tray (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that "Flooding the market" tends to be used more colloquially, carrying some slightly different connotations, but the redirect looks good to me. It would be nice if Market saturation touched on business strategy, or had a few words on prices & competition. bobrayner (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect to Dumping (pricing policy) would be better but not ideal.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dumping sounds better than market saturation, but not quite. Market saturation, upon another read, means that everybody already owns one so there's no potential to expand the customer base, so dumping is definitely better. When I searched for flood the market, most of the references expressed concern that releasing too many products would reduce the value of the product - however, Herbert Henry Dow used the term to refer to dumping - I rephrased the article and targeted the link. I think it may be best to write a quick stub for it, perhaps? Ego White Tray (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgism
Has recently seen huge numbers of economists and others being listed as "Georgists", added to categories for Georgists, etc. I removed a bunch, but was instantly reverted. Almost none of those listed have George or Georgism mentioned in their biographies, nor found through Google searches, and the apparent standard was that at some point someone had said they favored land taxes of some sort :( or that they were mentioned on a Georgism website.  I suspect that the members here are far better equipped than I to separate the wheat from the chaff in the article and category.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment on the discussion page Talk:Georgism. My guess is that they are listing anyone with a secondary influence.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For some time now it seems that somebody has diligently applied Georgist labels to everybody they can, and sometimes the connections seem to be quite tenuous. bobrayner (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the Producerism RFC. Is "producerism" a Canadian pejorative against those who want higher inheritance taxes? EllenCT (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States
Could we please have some additional eyes at Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States and in particular the history over the past few days? I believe it is being used as a deliberate source of misinformation to perpetuate an Austrio-libertarian whitewash of recent historical truths, because several editors don't like the obvious inferences that any of them suggest. Attempting to hide history is exactly what Wikipedia should not be doing in articles about economics. EllenCT (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a tricky article because many things effect inequality and that is focusing only on tax. It seems like the first part of the article gives sources saying tax policy can influence economic inequality, the second part sources saying it does not. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * please review this version and let me know what you think. EllenCT (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Ellen didn't describe the dispute neutrally, let me say that much of the content on that article appears to be a WP:COATRACK and outside the scope of the article topic. This has nothing to do with "Austrio-libertarian" whitewash, unless removing a section on racial inequality (with multiple graphs) that has no mention of taxes on a Tax Policy article is Austrio-lbertarian whitewash.  Many of the sections she's adding don't even include the word "tax", never mind directly tying the sub topic (a major element of the article topic) to the effect of tax policy on economic inequality.  There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that already discuss social spending and reducing inequality.    Another example is a graph she's adding File:Employment_growth_by_top_tax_rate.jpg which consensus (and,  above) in an RFC determined was WP:SYN for which she is completely dismissive and continues to insert it on multiple articles.  I could continue, but this has all been mentioned on the article talk and her response is to ignore it.  So please become involved - Ellen's WP:TE editing is out of control.   Morphh   (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a vast difference between working to undo POV-pushing based on fringe right-wing economics which does not follow our WP:V policy about preferring peer reviewed sources and ignoring it. If Morphh says it is a coatrack to talk about education spending in the context of income inequality, then let him explain why. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I know this is your soapbox, the scope of the article is not any social spending that advances income equality. That can be left to articles on income equality or social spending.  In this case, I have no objection to the one sentence you added for education (as it does relate to taxation) and the accompanying graph, so long as the information is verifiable.  As for the additional content in that section that doesn't relate to taxes, it should cover what is necessary to provide the context for the tax policy and then reference the larger topic in another article on educational spending.   Morphh   (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about "economic inequality" because that is part of the title of the article. If you are accusing me of pushing a political POV as opposed to accurately summarizing the POV of the peer reviewed secondary sources, then the burden is on you to try to explain why your coatrack accusation is valid. Can you find any sources that say education isn't related to earning potential, or infrastructure spending doesn't save money in the long run, allowing more productive and equable distribution than if it is put off by those not so interested in economic recovery? Let me know how that works out for you. EllenCT (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're misunderstanding. The article is not about Tax policy in the United States and Economic inequality in the United States, as if the article covers two topics.  It's one topic and the content is about the effects of tax policy on economic inequality.  So the answer to your question is what does that have to do with tax policy?  I'm not saying there is no connection, but that's what needs to be covered in the article.  This is not a rehash of an economic equality article - it's needs to be distinct, which is why stuffing it with lots of economic inequality material that has little direct relation to tax policy is coatrack.   Morphh   (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You were the one asking for a caveat that progressive taxes don't lower income inequality without infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social safety net transfer payments to the poor. And now you are saying that those concepts are not at the intersection? You can't have it both ways. EllenCT (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with S. Rich, we need to take it to the talk page. But I do need to refute that false accusation placed here against me before moving on - I never said that.  The government could burn the money and it would still reduce inequality, but it is usually coupled with social spending. You put in that caveat, not me. Here is what I added on the topic, for which you sent me a "thank".   Morphh   (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This article related discussion does not comport with WP:WikiProject Council/Guide. That is, WikiProjects are set up to promote better economics-related articles in general, not for discussions of particular articles. Those discussions belong on article talk pages. If more community input about improvement of particular articles is needed, then this talk page can be used to notify interested editors of such discussions. Also, the RfC process is available to promote interest on particular article pages. Considering that this WikiProject has thousands of articles of interest, it is improper to carryout such discussions on here. Please return to the article talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alessandro Rebucci
Hello, economists! The above old abandoned Afc submission appear to be about an influential person, but it is about to be deleted as a stale draft. More references are needed and I don't know where to look. Should this article be rescued or let go? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nom for FA
I would like to nominated History of macroeconomic thought as a featured article again. I nominated it once before, but it mainly failed over content disputes. I have tried to improve the article further, gotten it listed as a "Good Article," and it should be ready for another FA nomination. Please let me know what you think of the article. I'd like to resolve any disputes or other issues before making a nomination.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish it had more about the relation between income distribution and aggregate demand. That's been central to the political debates around macroeconomics for most if not almost all of the past century. EllenCT (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there something specific you had in mind? I don't think inequality figures much in macroeconomic theory up to the present. Inequality has been an important part of the political discussion, but it hasn't been worked into influential macroeconomic models. I tried using a variety of secondary sources on the history of macro to determine the topical contents and weight of the article. None of these says much about inequality. We would need a strong source to back adding something on this to the article without creating a weight issue.
 * I had considered adding a Marxian economics sub-section to the heterodox section, but I'm not sure that would get at the relationship you're talking about.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Heller's description of how government expenditure was set to obtain http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NROU ("Taxes are a leakage from the income stream in the same sense of saving. Equilibrium requires that leakages in the form of net taxes plus saving must be offset by investment expenditures and government purchases of goods and services.... 'our fiscal policy targets have been recast in terms of "full" or "high" employment levels of output, specifically the level of GNP associated with a 4-percent rate of unemployment.'" &mdash; Quoting Walter Heller) is nowhere near Marxian. I would also like to know how it got up from 4.0 to 5.3 in such a short time. EllenCT (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in that quote regarding inequality.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see how setting fiscal and monetary policy to achieve a given unemployment target is related to the income distribution? All other things being equal, what is the difference in the income distribution of a population with 4% and 14% unemployment? Is there any other policy goal of an unemployment rate target than supporting a particular income distribution? EllenCT (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're drawing your own conclusion from a source. That's definitely not going to fly in an FA because of WP:Synthesis and WP:OR. The quoted text makes no mention of inequality or the income distribution. Using this reference to draw a conclusion about these topics would clearly violate WP policies. Moreover, this relationship doesn't belong in a history of macroeconomic thought since it's not a documented theory.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The title of the book is Income, employment, and economic growth. I didn't write it, Peterson and Estenson did, and they documented Heller's quote. Are you saying that the relationship between employment and income is not necessarily related to the income distribution or inequality without the addition of something else that causes it to be a synthesis? If so, then what is that other thing? The whole reason that monetary policy has been relegated to the Fed is so that they can still make their NAIRU target no matter what Congress ends up doing fiscally, isn't it? When I do transcript searches of economic news anywhere, the US monetary policy deliberations at the FOMC to set short term interest rates to support the NAIRU target occurs at least once per month from any serious source, even when actual news about it only occurs quarterly. The brief mention in the "Criticizing and augmenting the Phillips curve" section doesn't do that much trade press interest justice. And the paragraph on Knut Wicksell with the word "natural" in scare quotes belies that there is a whole lot more to the real story. And why do we attribute to Blanchard and Summers (1986) the explanation that employment didn't recover because interest rates were kept so high for so long in the early 1980s as a response to stagflation? A lot of people noticed that way before 1986. EllenCT (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, income and income distribution are not the same thing. There are plenty of economic theories that make statements about how income is determined without stating how it is distributed. A factor might cause income to rise or decline but that wouldn't tell us anything about whether it made the distribution more or less equal. Even given a source that describes the relationship you're advocating, there isn't any evidence it's a key part of the history of macroeconomic thought.


 * "..doesn't do that much trade press interest justice." I can't figure out what this means.


 * The article does not attribute anything regarding interest rates to Blanchard and Summers (1986). The article discusses their insider-outsider model, not their views on interest rates.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the unemployment rate effect the income level, the income distribution, or both? By doing justice to the amount of trade press a concept receives, I mean that articles intended for a general audience should still be comprehensible to beginners, and one of the best ways to do that is to use the concepts with which they are already familiar. Since the importance of the short term interest rates is continuously emphasized, it probably deserves at least a handful more sentences. EllenCT (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the comments I made in the section below regarding proper uses of this talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with Srich's attempt at shushing. It is completely appropriate to announce a pending nomination here, especially when it is on the topic of the Wikiproject. I am happy to have the discussion on the article talk page too, and would point out that this is also generally relevant to Janet Yellen, an article linked from the Main Page. EllenCT (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Economic Inclusivism
See at www.Inclusivism.org 24.243.8.89 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know if this is a widely recognised term? Another meaning is religious Inclusivism.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Inclusive growth but it is in terrible shape. Half of it is about marketing. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13135.pdf is a far better source, and http://www.voxeu.org/article/inclusive-growth-revisited-measurement-and-evolution is a decent popular treatment. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCWorkingPaper104.pdf has a South American perspective different from but generally in agreement with the IMF work above. EllenCT (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel F. Spulber
Dear economists: This article about a notable professor has not been edited for more than a year, and has never been submitted for review. I have tried to find independent references, but this man has written so many books and papers that I just keep finding his own work. I tried adding the word "review" to my search, but he writes these too. I am not an academic; can someone who knows where to look find some sources ? Thanks. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's in mainspace now! &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments invited at Robert P. Murphy
We could use some fresh input on the article about Austrian School author Robert P. Murphy and in particular on the discussion of his book in about the Great Depression, here:. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk  14:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Progressive taxation
There's an RfC at the talk page of progressive taxation that would benefit from participation by members of this wikiproject. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Created new article on Chicago Options Associates
I've gone ahead and created a new article on Chicago Options Associates.
 * Chicago Options Associates

Suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated, at the article's talk page.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Merchant Sharing
AfD discussion needs knowledgeable input. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest deletion for lack of notability, which neatly avoids getting bogged down in technical discussion about the article's content.
 * However, it's interesting to see somebody start by redefining "intangible good" so that IGs are now only sold on the internet, and have zero marginal cost; then suggesting that the first buyers of an intangible good on the internet would be willing to cough up very large prices relative to what the vendor reasonably expects to earn from all buyers of that good; and transaction costs are zero; and customers don't mind their purchases being stateful. Based on those principles you can devise some really clever new concepts.
 * If I started with the principle that all cows are cylindrical, I could develop new concepts that revolutionise the beef industry. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the same person seems to have developed an internet currency. bobrayner (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They have made a lot of assumptions, and writing history to fit the theory. Keeping track of the transactions and preventing uncharged copies would be a problem.  To me the problem is how to cover the initial cost for producing the digital project and also allow producers to make a living wage. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would encourage any francophone project members to look at Pelinquin's work on fr.wikipedia. Including Bien immatériel. bobrayner (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

==WP:RSNs on Walter Block: Harvard review & Hayek material== Feel free to opine on either, which both are regarding the articles Walter Block and Defending the Undefendable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farm Household Model
Dear economists: The above article has references, but they are not on line. Is this a notable economic model? Do the references support it? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an online source http://www.steinholden.com/farmhh.html Some people use Agricultural Household Model - not sure if a synonym or not? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So should Wikipedia should have an article on this topic? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if the 'farm household model' is in common usage and that people are referring to a specific model or just a general phrase. For example, the article title capitalizes Farm Household Model, the article lead start with the term in all lowercase.  You could ask the author to provide proof of notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission
Here's another submission that needs reviewing. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And another one. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks how did you come across Gig Economy, Restoration Economy and A.J. Frost (Alfred John Frost)? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I'm a member of AfC. We get submissions such as these regularly. Hope you can help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of Canadian and American economies
I have added the banner of this WikiProject to Comparison of Canadian and American economies which I think(?) is within the scope of this project. However, it appears this project's watchlist has beem broken for a while, and articles here are not being assessed either. So I just wonder if this project is active? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The comparison article is certainly within the scope of this project. I'm not sure how watch lists work for projects, looks like that link hasn't been maintained.  So guess that and the assessments aren't active.  However, I think there are editors that are active around the subject of Economics. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like article alerts is where the recent action is taking place WikiProject_Economics Jonpatterns (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's within scope, but I think that article is rather flawed (and the title encourages synthesis / OR). bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the article needs work. Any takers? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of wondering if it should be put up for WP:AFD. It seems like a fork summary of different articles and I'm not sure what value it adds and if there is really notability for a comparison.  It would seem we have U.S. sources / content and Canada sources / content, but (as Bobrayner mentioned) I question if the comparison itself encourages OR.  Do we have sources that actually compare the topic points and does it reach a level of notability to have an encyclopedia article on it.  Anyway, just some of my thoughts.   Morphh   (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made some attempts at fixing it over the years, but mostly got reverted. If fixing it is impractical, I would support an AfD instead.
 * We have a similar problem at articles about groupings like the CIVETS, BRIC, Visegrád Group, Next Eleven &c - it's all too easy for editors to add lots of standalone content about each country, and maybe make up some tables, even when there's almost no sourcing about the grouping. The ability to use sources that mention individual countries masks the fact that some of these groupings have little notability of their own. 3G (countries) goes a step further, including a table of the "top 10 richest countries" (per capita GDP) and then a little footnote to explain that no 3G countries are in the table. G20 appears well-sourced at first glance, but if you removed all the content which didn't have a source mentioning G20, it would be a tenth of its former size. I have already worked on TIMBI - the simple expedient of removing copyvio and synthesis has reduced its size by 91%. bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be worth AfDing to see if anyone would be willing to update and save the article. Also, shouldn't the title use United States rather than America? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you are jesting? Are you really proposing a wp:AfD hoping to get positive attention and improvement of this article? - in my experience the few editors who hang around AfD nowadays have no interest in saving articles (please, please prove me wrong). XOttawahitech (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm new to the 'administrative' side of wikipedia. What ways are there to draw attention to articles needing attention?  Asking on relative Wiki Projects I guess would be one way. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Attempts to fix the article's problems through normal editing have been reverted. An AfD nomination can't simply be reverted, and deletion would certainly remove the article's problems. If an AfD somehow enabled some other way of bringing the article up to wikipedia standards, well, that's a positive outcome too. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about writing the proposed edit on the talk page, then building consensus behind that edit with RfC? That way the issue could be discussed and hopefully avoid an edit/revision war. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Organizational Economics. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And Draft:Internalization theory. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the process for selected articles for review? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The review process you mean? WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions should explain, but summed up: we review articles based on general Wikipedia guidelines and common practice, check for notability, neutrality, etc. and notify the appropriate WikiProject when necessary or when we simply don't know how to proceed. Most submissions are declined, but that's due to the fact that most of them are promotional articles that have an agenda behind them. Here's another one for you. I appreciate your help. Please join us if you're into reviewing stuff; we sure get lots of economics-related stuff down here! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Will read through the review process when I have time. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sister Projects
I've added Taxation as a sister project. Do people consider Politics a sister project? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Census
The WikiProject_Economics/Census for members still active was started in April 2010, with most signatures collected soon after. This list is potentially now out of date. Another Census could be taken? It may be useful to include an end date - so it becomes a snap shot of actives users over a period of time, say six months for example. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gold Wars- New article needs attention
Please see Gold Wars. The topic is way out of my realm but it seems pretty POV and unbalanced (most of the article is about books on the topic, not the topic itself). Maybe even WP:FRINGE? --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is true that China is buying gold, and encourages its citizens to buy gold - as a way of saving for the future. Also there has been some reports of the US turning down countries wishing to inspect gold they have transferred for safe keeping - for example Germany.  I've not come across the term 'Gold Wars' before.  Also, as you mention the article structure is based around books, their key-points and critical response - is this good practice on Wikipedia? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, that article's a mess. It would perhaps make sense to have individual articles on the individual books which may or may not be notable. But as it is... I don't know what to do with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Deletion would be a very effective solution to problems like this:
 * bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Taxation template - types section
I'd added a couple of questions to the Template_talk:Taxation, one about Fat and Soda being types of tax. Input would be welcome. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration on Austrian/Rothbard economics
Various disputes surrounding the Murray Rothbard wing of the Austrian School of economics, including whether it should be considered mainstream/RS or fringe, are currently being examined by Wikipedia's arbitration committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop
 * Is there a place where the main issues are briefly listed? The 'workshop' seems to be a series of personal arguments. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the purpose is here, given this is very much inside baseball and evidence submissions have been closed, but here you go:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence   Mattnad (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank for the information. It is useful to be aware of areas of potential controversy. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration on Austrian/Rothbard economics
Various disputes surrounding the Murray Rothbard wing of the Austrian School of economics, including whether it should be considered mainstream/RS or fringe, are currently being examined by Wikipedia's arbitration committee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop
 * Is there a place where the main issues are briefly listed? The 'workshop' seems to be a series of personal arguments. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the purpose is here, given this is very much inside baseball and evidence submissions have been closed, but here you go:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence   Mattnad (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank for the information. It is useful to be aware of areas of potential controversy. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Copied from Talk:Progressive tax/Archive 3

 * As you can see, this discussion was claimed out of scope at Talk:Progressive tax by editors who claimed to have been implicated by the evidence I submitted in the Austrian economics arbitration case which is now in the hands of the Arbitration Committee. EllenCT (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor point, but it's EllenCT who linked me and with  via her diffs in her evidence submission in the arbitration.  Not sure what that has to do with the dialog below.  The discussion copied from Progressive Tax was not about scope as you can easily read below. Rather, we cannot understand what her sources have to do with progressive taxes. Even her eventual explanation of why leaves me scratching my head.Mattnad (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to work on this, but much has been written on the psychological and social effects of inequality and progressive taxation, so that section should be expanded (perhaps section title should also be changed.) These papers can be mined for sources to expand the section on psychological and social effects: Also these: And, of course, the book The Spirit Level, attributes all kinds of ills to income inequality, and suggests progressive taxation as one way to improve social outcomes. Review of the book here: --LK (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Educating Ourselves Towards a Progressive (and Happier) Tax: A Commentary on Griffith's Progressive Taxation and Happiness, Marjorie E. Kornhauser, Boston College Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 5, 2004;  Progressive Taxation And Happiness, Thomas D. Griffith, Boston Law Review
 * Are Positional Externalities Different from Other Externalities? by Robert H. Frank; Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses by Robert H. Frank
 * those are all excellent. Thank you! Regarding the questions about inflation in the previous section, and considering contractionary policy as a de facto tax on the poor (possibly meaning that employment is the ultimate private sector transfer payment for working class consumers), do you think it is possible to use to extend the basic ideas in  to unemployment rate targeting in developed countries to advantage wealthy fixed-income earners earning less than inflation (both individuals and the management of stagnating firms)? The policy response that comes to mind is to make sure that government securities are competitive with (because they are invested in or hedged to be equivalent to) multisector bonds. EllenCT (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My only comment Lawrencekhoo is that we should make sure that whatever ideas we bring in are a) mainstream, b) related to progressive taxes, and c) do not require synthesis. The papers introduced here by EllenCT focus on corruption and rent seeking issues which are at best obliquely related to a progressive tax topic (in as much as progressive taxes can mitigate unfair gains.) However, neither of them mention progressive tax policy in any way shape or form.  Perhaps EllenCT can provide a quote? Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A quote that involves progressive taxation in those refs, not likely. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me that you two think monetary policy doesn't amount to an effective tax. The effect of banks multiplying their money by loaning more than is on deposit is the same as a government devaluing their currency by printing more. In any case, please read . EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I, for one, just never see responses that actually quote from refs. Not yet at least. One can always hope of course. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would note again that the ref (not quote) provided says literally nothing about progessive tax. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, are your aware that this article is about progressive taxes?Mattnad (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Psychological effects" ought to have similar outcomes across equivalent state actions. My question is about how reliable sources characterize the transfers of inflation targeting, including the extent to which lowering the inflation target may or may not be characterized as equivalent to a progressive tax on management and capital with transfers to labor and consumers, asked because I am looking for sources supporting the hypothesis that a lower unemployment rate can create less inflationary pressure because the private sector is more efficient than government. That was suggested by the abundant empirical evidence that more progressive tax requires less total tax, all else being equal. Would you prefer I copy the discussion to WT:ECON? Gladly. EllenCT (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Project members and editors should note that the first line on this page reads, in bold: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Economics page." The above has little/nothing to do with WikiProject Economics. Please keep article improvement discussions on article talk pages or appropriate dramaboards. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Which articles do you think the editors saying discussions are off topic are trying to improve? EllenCT (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not clear if you are referring to me, but it doesn't matter. No article-improvement discussions should take place on this page. Such discussions are off-topic from WikiProject page improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your implication that we have not been discussing improvements to the WikiProject page is false. Your attempts at tag-team railroading of your political opponents with continued baseless accusations and attempted wikilaywering when you don't get your way do real harm to the accuracy and other qualities of the encyclopedia, editor morale, editor retention, and have severe real-world implications for our readers. Wikipedia is not your political soapbox to censor in line with your personal preferences. If your preferences do not align with the WP:SECONDARY sources, then it is unlikely you are able to improve the encyclopedia without profound changes in behavior. Please review WP:NOTHERE. EllenCT (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Current tasks
Both S. Rich and Iselilja have removed the sources and almost all of the description of the issues to these additions to the WP:ECON list:


 * Progressive tax has a long-running dispute pertinent to, e.g., , , , , and
 * Inclusive growth needs help from e.g.,  and
 * Negative interest on excess reserves and other monetary policy articles could use, the first graph on , and
 * Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States has been whitewashed to remove the information at and subsequent sections, including the relationship between tax progressivity and total tax needed all else being equal and the returns from infrastructure spending, education spending, and preventative healthcare spending.
 * Government spending has been similarly whitewashed (e.g. ) and could benefit from e.g., , , , , ,
 * Economy of the United States has been similarly whitewashed (e.g. )
 * Unemployment in the United States could use help from sources suggested by
 * Universal health care and Single-payer health care could be improved with
 * Capital gains tax in the United States needs the work suggested by and

Both editors removed several sources without discussing them here first. Why? why did you imply that it is not proper to promote the side of the WP:SECONDARY reliable sources in content disputes? EllenCT (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There was so many claims and referrences that I could not assess everything, but had to look at the overall picture which was less than neutral with all the claims of whitewashing etc. And for instance this and this are not standard essential material on economics, but surely things that are up for discussion on whether it should be included. Iselilja (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that whitewashing has not occurred on the articles as shown by the diffs? Does neutrality mean promoting the WP:SECONDARY sources in content disputes, or the view from nowhere representing the peer-reviewed literature reviews on equal footing with fringe differing views? Your first link in question cites with commentary necessary to understand it, and the second is a popular treatment in complete agreement with . EllenCT (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The proper place to discuss (or proclaim) whitewashing is on article talk pages or the WP:NPOVN. The Project page should simply notify interested editors that concerns or important "current tasks" exist, and not serve to push views about the concerns. Iselilja did not say anything one way or the other about whitewashing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say "push views about the concerns" or "slanting which way the improvement ought to go" you are suggesting that the view from nowhere is preferable to the views of the WP:SECONDARY sources. Because that is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy, I intend to restore the sources and descriptions you deleted. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not too concerned with EllenCT including her perceptions of whitewashing etc, as part of her list. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I would like other editors to join the dialog on the various articles EllenCT has listed.  EllenCT is welcome to bring in other sources. I only ask that what is added to the articles is a) on topic, b) reflective of what a reliable source actually says, c) does not constitute WP:OR, and d) is not so expansive that it's unbalanced.Mattnad (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those opinions should not be promoted in notices to Project pages, per WP:Canvassing. When we ask for input to articles on Project pages, it shall also be in a neutral manner. "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion." Iselilja (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem is the opinion is a charge of WP:BADFAITH and the repeated assertion amounts to personal attacks (WP:AOBF, particularly when a strong RFC consensus rejects her position. At some point, she need to realize the problem is not everyone else and canvassing just becomes WP:IDHT, especially when it misrepresents the debate.  Morphh   (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So now the discussion of improving the current task list on the Wikiproject pages is "canvassing" because some editors don't like the conclusions of the most reliable sources, when before it was off-topic because it supposedly wasn't about improvements? You can't have it both ways. I strongly object to attempts to censor this discussion. Does anyone have any reason to believe that the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed sources cited are not the most reliable sources on the topic? is there any reason to believe that "neutrally worded with a neutral title" means that we should prefer zero sources to the most reliable secondary sources? Is it more important to strive for some subjective ideal of politeness, by avoiding the word "whitewashing" in this case, or to represent editors' attempts to obscure the most reliable sources as such? Isn't the polite omission of the state of article quality less neutral than a frank and accurate description of the state of articles' alignment with the most reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 28/02
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/expenditure switching policy. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AfC needs expert help
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Farm Household Model and help get it into acceptable shape. The topic appears to be notable and encyclopedic but the text isn't quite there yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Economics and Tax haven
Could other editors please review these recent changes to the Economics and Tax haven articles? I see some very substantial problems with the former, and for the few changes I have had the time to look at in the latter, at least some medium severity issues. EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Two discussions regarding Infobox economist parameters
Two discussions regarding Template talk:Infobox economist are underway. One involves colors and prominence of the school/tradition banner. The other involves inclusion of the "opposed" parameter. Interested editors are invited to comment. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 04/03
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public Market Equivalent. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/03
User:Sanneschimmel/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Women's labor force participation in economic development
Dear Economists: As part of a course assignment, I am to make a contribution to wikipedia in the field of gender and economic development. After much consideration, I have decided to focus on the U-shaped function of female labor supply with economic development. In doing so, I intend to do a comprehensive discussion of the supply and demand factors that have played a role in women's labor force participation, such as the emergence of the white-collar sector and an increase in women's education. Given that a rich amount of literature has demonstrated the U-shaped function using a large cross-section of countries, I felt that that this topic was suitable as its own article. I would very much appreciate any input or thoughts on the suitability of this article, and what it entails. Thank you for you input. Rsl89 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good idea. Some random thoughts:
 * It may be a good idea for you or your professor to check in with Education program, especially if there are several of you (perhaps your professor has set similar assignments to others). There are some common problems with wikipedia editing assignments, and the Education program has seen it all before.
 * If you haven't written an article before, please be cautious. It can often be better to update/expand existing articles on related topics. Alternatively, if you really have to create a new one, you can start a draft somewhere (perhaps in your sandbox), then go live when all the main pieces are in place. Either of these two approaches reduces the risk that all your hard work gets deleted, which isn't much fun for you, and doesn't benefit wikipedia either.
 * If in doubt, the answer is usually "sources". If you want to build good content, sources are the best foundation. If somebody proposes deleting an article, it's usually for notability reasons, and good sources show notability. If you get into a dispute with another editor, sources are a great way to end the argument. One of the most common problems with content written on assignments is original research; you can avoid that by sticking more closely to the sources.
 * I'll watch your talkpage. A watchlist is a good way to keep track of recent changes to pages that you're interested in. You might want to add this page to your watchlist. If you create a new article, it will be automatically added to your watchlist.
 * Good luck. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"new to the 'administrative' side of wikipedia"
I was browsing through wp:Council and found this: Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. I am not sure how you can get this type of list for this wiki-project, but if you think it may be useful maybe you should post this question at wt:Council. Hope this helps. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to for pointing out the 'Popular pages' feature. I personally think this is an interesting tool. I've gone ahead and asked a maintainer Mr. Z-man about the possibility of getting a page for the Economics project User_talk:Mr.Z-man. I will cancel the request if people are against having a 'Popular pages' page. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. See discussion below. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Economics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Economics/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 23:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting up this useful tool. ; -)
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/ = 404, but http://stats.grok.se/ work fine.
 * After quickly looking at the list I see Bitcoin is the most popular page, it is rated 'low' importance. Maybe it should be upgraded to 'Mid', especially if Dogecoin is rated at 'Mid' importance?  Also, where on the main page should we link to the Popular pages list? Jonpatterns (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed Cryptocurrency (that didn't make the top 500) is also rated 'Low' importance - so maybe Dogecoin should just be downgraded? Jonpatterns (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Importance isn't necessarily inherited! If one or two particular cryptocurrencies are of great public interest, but the general concept doesn't attract many readers, I hope our importance ratings could reflect that. bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the importance rating for how important it is to the general readership, or how important it is to the topic of Economics?Jonpatterns (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not both? 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The rating could reflect a combined score based on both readership interest and relevance to the subject. However, sometimes they will be in conflict.  Looking at the case in hand, Bitcoin seems very important to the readership.  However in my opinion the concept of Cryptocurrency is more important to economics than the individual case of Bitcoin.  I've found the guide that helps with  assessing Economic project articles.  Jonpatterns (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Financial economics
Financial economics - just "completed" a major re-write. Please review the article, as well revisit its quality-rating. Fintor (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.160.150.196 (talk)
 * Unfortunately I'm out of time. For anyone wishing to learn how to rate their is a handy guide WP:ECON/A Jonpatterns (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick note as I'm walking out the door. I just read the lead... I didn't care for it being broken up into five paragraphs, when it looks like it could offer better flow in two or three.  Also, not sure about the three quotes in the first two sentences - it might be better to use a similar wording of our own and just reference those for the base definitions.  There appears to be sections in the article that were not summarized in the lead.   Morphh   (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Electronic money and Digital currency
There is a discussion about the Difference between Electronic money and Digital currency on the Electronic money talk page. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Double checking Notable Georgist references
Help is need to double check references on the Georgism section 'Notable Georgists', see the Talk page. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 14/03
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Interest rate channel. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)