Portal talk:Business and economics: Difference between revisions
John of Reading (talk | contribs) →edit request: schools of thought: added {{reflist}}, reply: too long |
|||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
PS: If you have more time please look also on the rest of the page, there are other small mistakes here and there. |
PS: If you have more time please look also on the rest of the page, there are other small mistakes here and there. |
||
{{reflist|close=1}} |
|||
:The "Introduction" box in most portals is about ten lines deep. This portal's essay should be drastically trimmed. Normally I'd copy the lead paragraph or two from the topic's main article, but the lead at [[Economics]] is also too long for a portal. -- [[User:John of Reading|John of Reading]] ([[User talk:John of Reading|talk]]) 08:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:04, 9 February 2014
 | This portal is a former featured portal. Please see the links under Portal milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured portal | |||||||||||||
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portal Total category is up for deletion
Svick (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we work toward fixing the article Capitalism up
I suggest we work toward fixing the article Capitalism up, it seems fairly neglected and considering the scope of it's influence is important and should be represented accurately and completely on wikipedia. Financestudent (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Please review Motivation crowding theory
A respondent to my request for peer review of Motivation crowding theory suggested that I ask for comments and article improvement ideas here. I am most interested in ideas for expansion. Please respond at Talk:Motivation crowding theory. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selery (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Selected article, picture, economy, quote and Did you know? is missing
Looks like they don't exist for several months anymore. Thank you for fixing. --Berny68 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like its time to fix the portal myself, adding with {{Random portal component}} on it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Taiichi Ohno
Can someone add a picture of Ohno to its article? Lbertolotti (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The main article is too long.. and the image is too small. thanks Marla Olmstead (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
What image? Lbertolotti (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
edit request: schools of thought
This whole part needs a serious editing from someone who knows at least the basics of economics:
"Economics is largely taught as five specific "schools" of thought:
Classical economics, which provided the framework for later developments in microeconomics and both Neoclassical and Marxian theory, focusing on relative competitive advantage, the utility of competitive markets, land development, the labor theory of value and the division of labor Institutional economics, which focuses on the role of institutional design and how institutions shape consumer choice and affect economic performance Marxian economics, which studies the cause of economic crises, the source of value in economics, class relations in society, distribution of the surplus product and surplus value, and the labor theory of value Neoclassical economics, which focuses on price theory, constrained maximization as faced by both producers and consumers, marginal utility and rational choice theory as well as a macroeconomic focus on technical analysis of aggregate measures such as Gross Domestic Product and narrow technical models whose objective is "balanced growth" between human capital and "economic capital" and which deals with complex economic questions largely by abstracting them into debt to GDP ratio and other fragile technical measures Environmental economics which narrowed from many independent analyses in the 20th century towards a clear and internationally-agreed set of standards from 1990 on, including the Kyoto Protocol and culminating in UN study of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, the Convention on Biological Diversity and changes to the United Nations System of National Accounts to begin to reflect risks to, and value added by, nature's services."
1. First of all economics is NOT taught as a five specific "schools" of thought.
Economic is a science not a religion, and thus it is not taught by "schools" but the content of lectures and textbooks is constructed from various schools of economic thought which were able to establish theories which are consistent with the scientific method, and which have a high explanatory value and are sound basis for at least relatively (to competing theories) good predictions about economy.
Economics is taught as microeconomics, macroeconomics, international economics, policy economics, environmental economics, institutional economics etc., and not as these different schools of thought. However, usually undergraduate textbooks mentions only the largest two or three subfields microeconomics, macroeconomics, and international economics.[1] I believe that listing these three plus maybe leaving the environmental economics (with corrected description)and institutional economics would suffice.
These different schools of thought represent historical development of economics not a way of how economics is taught. Moreover, environmental economics is not even an school (see point 2.), environmental economics is a subfield of economics.[2]
2. This is totally wrong:
"Environmental economics which narrowed from many independent analyses in the 20th century towards a clear and internationally-agreed set of standards from 1990 on, including the Kyoto Protocol and culminating in UN study of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, the Convention on Biological Diversity and changes to the United Nations System of National Accounts to begin to reflect risks to, and value added by, nature's services."
- This is totally wrong, Environmental economics is defined as: “part of economics which deals with interrelationship between environment and economic development and studies the ways and means by which the former is not impaired nor the latter impeded It is thus a branch of economics which discusses about the impacts of interaction between men and nature and finds human solutions to maintain harmony between men and nature.[3]
3. This is also wrong:
"Marxian economics, which studies the cause of economic crises, the source of value in economics, class relations in society, distribution of the surplus product and surplus value, and the labour theory of value."
First of all every school of economic tough from classical to new neoclassical-synthesis studied/is studying the cause of economic crises and the source of value in economics. Marxian school had only a different approach to these question in the same way as different historical school of biology studied the origin of species differently and with different approach.
Moreover the theory of value which Marxist economics uses is actually the classical theory of value or labor theory of value, so how can anyone even say something like that this school studies the sources of value. Furthermore, the most notable contributions into the understanding of the business cycle or "economic crisis" were done by Keynesian, Monetarist, Neokeynesian and Neoclasical school.
Here is some workable definition of Marxist economics: In Marxist economics, the objective is to explain the existence of profits despite the fact that "labor produces all value," and to use the explanation as a tool to understand, and anticipate, the dynamics of capitalist society. The Marxist labor theory of value holds: In a capitalist economy,the "natural price" or value of any commodity is its cost of production"[4]
Furthermore, why heterodox school like Marxian economics, which standing in present day economics is similar to the standing of creationism in biology was included and schools like Keynesian, or Neokeynesian which were/are part of mainstream economics are absolutely omitted? Omitting these schools, when dealing with schools of economics tough is like omitting Newton´s physics in article about physics.
I mean, I understand that Marxian school is attractive to non-economics majors, but I always though that wikipedia contributors should at least try to stay unbiased. I think that this was done by someone with either ideological bias, or poor knowledge since even Nobel laureates in economics like Solow and Stigler who hold strong left wing world-views said about the Marxian economics that:
"Economists working in the Marxian-Sraffian tradition represent a small minority of modern economists, and that their writings have virtually no impact upon the professional work of most economists in major English-language universities." - George Stigler.
"Marx was an important and influential thinker, and Marxism has been a doctrine with intellectual and practical influence. The fact is, however, that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end." Robert Solow
Moreover, Marxian economic school or references to it are almost non-existent in standard economic textbooks (with exception of economic history). I learned undergraduate economics from Samuelson and Nordhaus´s Famous Economics, and Mankiw´s principles of economics, which are perhaps the most widely used undergrad textbooks in the whole world, and I never noticed anything about Marxian economics. [5][6]
This makes sense since Marxian school represent more a part of economic history like historical school, or classical school for example. I know that it is still popular among people and that is ok, but this page should represent the profile of economics, not profile of popular public opinion.
Thus why was a school which is really, with all due respect to its historical importance and contributions to the development of modern economic science, now mostly dead due to progress in the field included amongst modern mainstream schools, and mixed together with subfields of economics, and even very poorly described as a branch which focuses on crisis and value. This description even goes against the description of Marxian economics on its wikipedia page. There, really had to be some ideological bias, or maybe only poor knowledge which is actually probable considering other mistakes.
But I am not saying that there should be no reference to Marxian economics, since it is surely important part of economic history and a heterodox school, but it should be properly labeled among all other heterodox schools of economics tough, since all heterodox schools are equal, and not mixed with the mainstream.
Either way these schools are the labels of different historical approaches to economics, and they should be in section dealing with history of the development of economic thought not in the article about contemporary economics. They should be either all listed somewhere on this page or left completely.
4. There are more mistakes, on this page but they are relatively small.
Please, could someone fix this part and replace schools with subfields, and include the Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, International Economics, while correcting description of environmental economics, and leaving institutional economics since that one is correct. I do not know how to properly do all connections etc. in wikipedia, and I am not a native English speaker so could please someone go over my proposed adjustments, and correct spelling or other possible mistakes, and edit this page?
Here is my proposal for adjusting the text:
Economics is largely taught as five specific subfields:
Microeconomics: is a branch of economics that studies the behavior of individual households and firms in making decisions on the allocation of limited resources. Microeconomics, applies to markets where goods or services are bought and sold. Microeconomics examines how decisions and behaviors affect the supply and demand for goods and services, which determines prices, and how prices, in turn, determine the quantity supplied and quantity demanded of goods and services. [7]
Macroeconomics:branch of economics dealing with the performance, structure, behavior, and decision-making of an economy as a whole, rather than individual markets. This includes national, regional, and global economies. With microeconomics, macroeconomics is one of the two most general fields in economics.[8]
International Economics: is subfield concerned with the effects upon economic activity of international differences in productive resources and consumer preferences and the international institutions that affect them. It seeks to explain the patterns and consequences of transactions and interactions between the inhabitants of different countries, including trade, investment and migration.[9]
Environmental Economics: “part of economics which deals with interrelationship between environment and economic development and studies the ways and means by which the former is not impaired nor the latter impeded It is thus a branch of economics which discusses about the impacts of interaction between men and nature and finds human solutions to maintain harmony between men and nature.[10]
Institutional Economics: which focuses on the role of institutional design and how institutions shape consumer choice and affect economic performance
However, there are also others subfield of economics (see:http://www.aeaweb.org/students/Fields.php)
Alternatively it would be enough to only include Micro and Macro economics, since those are the major branches and others are less relevant, and I am not sure if it would be fair to include institutional economics or ecological economics and not to include also agrarian economics, or financial economics etc.
1muflon1 (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
PS: If you have more time please look also on the rest of the page, there are other small mistakes here and there.
- ^ Mankiw, N. Gregory (2012). Principles of economics (6. ed. ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0538453059.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Sankar, S. (2001). nvironmental Economics. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Sankar, S. (2001). nvironmental Economics. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Drexel, McCain. "1 Marxist Economics: Introduction" (PDF). Retrieved 8 February 2014.
- ^ Mankiw, N. Gregory (2012). Principles of economics (6. ed. ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0538453059.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Nordhaus, Paul A. Samuelson, William D. (2005). Economics (18th ed. ed.). Boston [etc.]: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. ISBN 978-0072872057.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Mankiw, N. Gregory (2012). Principles of economics (6. ed. ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0538453059.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Mankiw, N. Gregory (2012). Principles of economics (6. ed. ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0538453059.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - ^ Melitz, Paul R. Krugman, Maurice Obstfeld, Marc J. (2012). International economics : theory & policy (9th ed. ed.). Boston: Pearson Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0132146654.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Sankar, S. (2001). nvironmental Economics. Oxford University Press.
- The "Introduction" box in most portals is about ten lines deep. This portal's essay should be drastically trimmed. Normally I'd copy the lead paragraph or two from the topic's main article, but the lead at Economics is also too long for a portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)