Talk:History of economic thought/Draft: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>D. Matt Innis
 
(191 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                 abc = Economics
{{TOC|right}}
|                cat1 = Economics
== Chicago school ==
|                cat2 =  
The Chicago school is probably the single most important source of economic thought in recent decades, as proven by all those Nobel prizes (and reaffirmed by obits of Friedman this year). It's impossible to omit--we had it covered in two sections (monetarism and micro). 07:42, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
|                cat3 =  
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 1
|        underlinked = n
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = [[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|JPRC]] 13:37, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
}}


== My class handout ==
I do not intend to omit it, but I think that it deserves a less cursory treatment, so  I intend to replace the existing test with an entry that will (I hope) do it justice. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 11:41, 24 October 2007 (CDT)


The following is a handout I gave to my students at Yukon College when I was teaching introductory economics. I think it would be useful for this article. Feel free to use, edit, change, improve my prose and remove my biases, etc. :-) [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 12:22, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
::Please don't delete work without talking it over first. CZ has strict rules about that. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:14, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
:::I understand Nick to mean that he will ADD to the content, but perhaps he means something more complex. If there is any doubt, Nick, just paste the proposed new text here for approval. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 23:18, 24 October 2007 (CDT)


SHORT NOTES ON THE HISTORY OF ECONOMICS
::::I would not really worry about losing anything to what someone adds.  ''Everything'' is there in the history. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:15, 25 October 2007 (CDT)


Definitions
I'm sorry: I have not made myself clear. I propose to give due weight to the ''contributions'' of members of  the Chicago School, including Friedman, Coase and Stigler, (noting their membership of the School in each case)  at various points in the sections on the neoclassicals and the monetarists (and I have been wondering whether to do a "New Classical" paragraph, giving them yet more weight). I shall not delete a word of the existing paragraph about the Chicago School until all of that is done, and I shall then invite  views as to whether that paragraph is worth retaining.
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)
::i suggest that the Chicago School is so cohesive and so important it needs it own section in any case. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 12:35, 25 October 2007 (CDT)


Even the definition of economics is subject to controversy. The textbook definition talks about making choices in the face of scarcity. Many, if not most, economists view economics as the study of how scarce resources are allocated to satisfy alternative competing human wants. This is a "neo-classical" view first formulated by Lionel Robbins in 1935. It is repeated in most economics texts.
== Finis? ==


However, a more traditional view is that "Economics is the subject concerned with the material welfare of individuals and groups in society" (Asimakopoulos, 1978). or "The economic problem is the study of the process of providing for the material well-being of society. (Heilbroner), or the famous Alfred Marshall "Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing."
I have nothing further to add to this article.
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:56, 10 November 2007 (CST)


We can play with definitions, but my favourite remains the one proposed by a Canadian economist, Jacob Viner, as "Economics is what economists do".  
I was wrong - I needed to add a paragraph on financial economics. Having done so, I think the article is complete and ready for approval..[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 05:18, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


A note on etymology
== Diagrams/images ==


The word economy has its roots in the ancient Greek "oikonomia" (οί), from "oikos" – house, and "nomos" – manage. Thus economics was originally the science of household management, what we today call home economics. The famous ancient philosopher Aristotle did write a book entitled "Oikonomia", but he was concerned with the treatment of slaves rather than their supply or demand.
Are there any diagrams illustrating any concepts that can be created for this article? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 15:03, 8 January 2008 (CST)


Economists first called their disciple "political economy" to show it dealt with the polity and not the household. However, the name changed to "economics" in the 20th century, presumably to make it sound more "scientific", using the same ending as the word physics.
: I hope to add diagrams to the articles to which this article is linked. I think they will be too numerous to replicate here. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 05:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


SHORT HISTORY OF ECONOMICS
==Naming system==


Adam Smith
The article naming system (or lack thereof) on this project makes my head spin. I seem to recall lots of articles of the form "Foo, History of", but here we have "History of foo". Most confusing. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 12:08, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
:This is the result of a long-standing dispute between Larry and Richard Jensen. We have taken the "Larry approach" here! [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


Despite some predecessors, all economists agree that economics, or political economy, started in 1776 with the publication of Adam Smith's Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is considered the founder of economics, or political economy. The largest part of the book is devoted to explaining wages, profits and rents which were related to Labour, Capital, and Land (or natural resources). Smith explained prices through the cost of production, he had a purely supply side theory of value.  
==Citations==
Many of the links in this article are to encyclopedias.  I don't understand the point of that. Furthermore, most of the citations are not to sources that back up the claims made in the article, but to online editions, encyclopedias, or institutions. Shouldn't those sorts of references be moved to the external links page?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
: I have no views about this, so I would be content with alternatives that are considered more helpful to the reader. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Smith is most famous for the idea of the "invisible hand" of the market resulting in the best solution for society. To quote a famous passage in the Wealth of Nations:
==Classical Economics==
The paragraph on Smith says that he "identified what he considered to be the economic drawbacks of all forms of taxation" without telling us what he thought those "drawbacks" were.  In the paragraph on Malthus, it says "Evidence in support of his postulates was lacking at the time and they have since been found to be mistaken." By whom and when was Malthus found to be mistaken?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
: I see no need to extend the text by  repeating  Smith's analysis of the effects of taxation: it is readily accessible to  the interested reader. As to the observed departures from Malthus' postulates, I am inclined to suppose that the increase in agricultural productivity (which he leaves out of account) is a matter of general knowledge. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. (Wealth of Nations, Cannan edition, p. 423)
== Financial economics ==


This is a clear (at least in 18th century language) endorsement of "laissez-faire", and Smith believed that government intervention usually made things worse. However Smith was not a total advocate of free markets, he also keenly aware of monopoly power. In another passage contrasting this first statement:
Since this article was drafted, some highly critical analysis of the cited work on financial and monetary economics has emerged. I hope to add some reference to it in due course - unless someone else has already done so by then.[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
== bargained away ==


Smith's theory of value is of particular importance. He distinguished between "real" price and "nominal" price. Real price was the price in terms of labour while the nominal price was in money terms. He viewed demand as possibly affecting the nominal market price temporarily, but it would eventually return to its natural price. Smith, then, clearly had a labour theory of value and under-estimated the importance of demand.
"He examined the relation of price to value and concluded that the “natural price” of a product was the same as its cost of production, and that divergences from it would eventually be bargained away"


Classical Economists
What does it mean? ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC))


Smith was the first of the classical economists. They also include Malthus, David Ricardo, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill, who all expanded on Smith's work and continued with the labour theory of value.  
:Adam Smith devotes many hundreds of words to his explanation of this, which you can consult at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300 page 36. I can think of no better way of summarising his argument. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 11:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) is most famous for his "Essay on the Principle of Population" where he formulated the theory that population expanded at a geometric rate (or exponentially) while food production could only increase arithmetically. At a certain point, the population increase would outrun the food supply, and result in general misery. Malthus was one of the major inspirations for Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection, and his echoes can be found in today’s environmental literature that warn of depleting resources.
:I also have hard time understanding this statement:


David Ricardo (1772-1823) was perhaps the most important of the 19th century political economists. He combined Smith's labour theory of value with Malthus's population dynamics in a system which showed that capitalist economies would eventually result in a steady state of universal misery.  
:"This postulate reflected the belief that money plays no part in the functioning of the economy beyond its role as a medium of exchange because it would be irrational to acquire money savings and so forfeit real benefits in terms of consumption or investment."
:([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 08:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
:: I am not sure what part of the sentence causes you difficulty. When he says that money is nothing but a medium of exchange, Say is arguing that people use money only for buying things (including stocks and bonds). He justifies that assertion by arguing that it would be foolish to hold money out of circulation because that would mean needlessly going without things (or without dividends or interest). He took no account of the precautionary and speculative motives for holding on to money that were later identified by Keynes, and are essential to the understanding of macroeconomics. Does this help? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 11:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Ricardo's system depended on the idea of the marginal product of land, and was the inventor of the "marginal" concept. His idea was that the value of agricultural products (and hence food) was based on the amount of labour required to produce on the least fertile parcel of land. Hence the "Law of diminishing marginal productivity". Landlords owning land that was more fertile, and who could produce more for a given amount of land, obtained "rents". His conclusion was that the future was in buying land. He, of course, did not predict the tremendous increase in technology and productive capacity brought about by the capitalist system.
:::Yes it helps. Thank you very much. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 14:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC))


Ricardo was also responsible for the idea of comparative advantage in international trade. His classic example was between wine and clothing and England and Portugal. Portugal was more efficient than England in producing both cloth and wine, but England had a comparative advantage in cloth production. He showed that it would be advantageous for Portugal to specialize in wine and England to specialize in cloth, and to trade with each other. This resulted  in more wine and cloth all around.
== Lede sentence ==


Karl Marx is the most famous of Ricardo's followers (at least in economics, he is clearly little more than a follower of Ricardo and had little impact on the development of the discipline). His economics differed little from Ricardo's, but had different conclusions. He placed little emphasis on the diminishing marginal productivity of land, but more importance on the falling rate of profit. To Marx, capitalist competition would lead to the impoverishment of the "proletariat" or working class and a falling rate of profit. The ultimate resolution would be a communist revolution with the workers seizing power. Based on the failure of Marx's predictions, his followers added "monopoly capital" and "imperialism" as explanations for the relative prosperity of capitalist economies.
Nick, the lede sentence reads:


The marginalist revolution
:"Modern economic thought is generally considered to have originated in the late eighteenth century with the work of [[David Hume]] and [[Adam Smith]], and the foundation of classical economics."


By the second half of the 19th century, it became obvious that classical economics led to results that were quite revolutionary, since they were based on a labour theory of value. However, classical economics could not explain value in terms of the usefulness of things; e.g. why diamonds, which are practically useless, should be worth so much more than water, which is a basic necessity.
The 'and' clause at the end of the sentence seems to hang there. Do you mean:


In the 1870's, three economists were responsible for what is called the "marginalist" revolution - William Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Léon Walras. They, independently of each other, developed a new theory of value based on utility. The three are responsible for the concept of marginal utility, and the derivation of a downward sloping demand curve. However, the most significant impact has been to move economics from a study of the material welfare of humanity to the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resource. Their ideas about demand were soon extended from the theory of consumption to the theory of production.
:"Modern economic thought is generally considered to have originated in the late eighteenth century with the work of [[David Hume]] and [[Adam Smith]], the founders of classical economics."


Their theory re-established the legitimacy of laissez-faire. These people and their successors, are who we call the neoclassicals and most economists today would be neo-classical
Or something else?  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


Alfred Marshall (1900-1920) was responsible for the combination of demand and supply, where demand was based marginal utility. He was responsible for developing numerous concepts still used in economics, including: demand and supply curves or schedules and their equilibrium, elasticity, consumer surplus, the distinction between short- and long-period, etc. Modern micro-economics is a continuation and elaboration of his work.
::The latter certainly reads better. I'll change it. Thanks Anthony. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 06:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


Marshall's work was only the beginning. His work was refined and further developed, and continues to be extended to this day. Neo-classical economists have built a truly astounding logical edifice that rival Newtonian mechanics in completeness and rigour. The basis of neo-classical economics is maximisation under constraint, and this constantly involves the "marginal concept". The tools developed by economists are even now beginning to be used by other social sciences such as anthropology, sociology and even psychology.
== Question of target audience ==


The Great Depression and Keynesianism
Nick, I believe [[History of economic thought]] is ready for me to start the Approval Process.  But before I do, I want to get your thoughts on the target audience, i.e., the qualifications of the readership who could best follow the narrative or benefit the most from reading/studying the article.


However, the edifice of neo-classical economics suffered a severe blow with the Great Depression of the 1930's. In competitive markets, unemployment is not supposed to occur. It can only be due to monopolistic forces preventing the demand and supply of labour from reaching equilibrium. This was clearly not the case in the 1930's.  
It seems to me that if you could articulate your thoughts on that, a brief statement to that effect up front, as we did for the [[Alcmaeon of Croton]] article, say, would add perspective value to the article.


Marshall's most famous disciple and pupil, John Maynard Keynes, attacked the neo-classical system with the publication of the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. Keynes showed that the depression was due to insufficient aggregate demand and advocated the need for government intervention to restore full employment. In the process, he created macro-economics.
What do you think?  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Micro-economics is a continuation and elaboration of the work of the early neo-classicals. It deals with the behaviour of individuals and firms, and with individual markets. Other 1930's economists, Joan Robinson at Cambridge and Edwin Chamberlin in the U.S. developed the theory of imperfect competition. Joan Robinson was responsible for the idea that profit maximization involve the equation of marginal cost and marginal revenue, while Chamberlin was responsible for the idea of monopolistic competition and product differentiation.
: I think it's an excellent idea.  I will give it some thought. I will also consider an update and expansion of the final paragraph. I'll deal with both sometime next week. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Keynesianism became the orthodoxy in economics until well into the 1970's. In order not to abandon all the neo-classical economics that had been built up, the dominant economic ideology became the Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis. The basic idea was to let the government ensure full employment, and then neo-classical economics could be used to ensure the best allocations of resources. The Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis is generally associated with Paul Samuelson, who wrote the most influential ever textbook in economics. Most economics texts today are clones of Samuelson's text, generally following the same general outline. The 1950's and 60's were the heyday of Keynesian economics, when most economists believed that the judicious application of government intervention could smooth out the business cycle and ensure full employment without inflation.
:: Great.  I'll keep track, and we can decide together when to Start the Approval Process.  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


The monetarist "counterrevolution"
::: Re issue of target audience, how about something like this for a header:


While the Keynesian-neo-classical synthesis took over the profession, an unregenerate rearguard of neo-classical economists centred at the University of Chicago continued exist. They never accepted the idea of involuntary unemployment or government intervention to ensure full employment, and strongly believed in the virtues of markets and laissez-faire. The most famous economist of the Chicago School is Milton Friedman. He was mainly responsible for what is known as the Monetarist counterrevolution of the 1970's. Not only did they succeed in bringing the Keynesian theory down, but they considerably extended the scope of micro-economics to include even education and family formation.
{|align="left" cellpadding="10" style="background:lightyellow; width:70%; border: 1px solid #aaa; margin:25px; font-size: 95%; font-family: Gill Sans MT;"
|This article targets readers who are familiar with the basic principles of economics, and those with advanced knowledge of economics.  For further pursuit of the topic, the article provides guidelines, in the Main Article and its references, in the annotated references on the Bibliography subpage, and the material in the other subpages.
|}
{{-}}
::: Just a suggestion for you to modify as you see fit.  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager


With the perceived failure of Keynesian economics to explain and do anything about the "stagflation of the 1970's, the free market prescriptions of monetarism became much more popular, and were eventually espoused by many right wing governments in the 1980's (Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney), and, perhaps more importantly, by the central banks of most industrialized countries.
:::: I like your target audience textbox.  Well done.  Do you want to keep it there, within the lede, or above the lede, as in [[Alcmaeon of Croton]]?  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


Economics today and the Keynesian revival
:::::Glad you like it. I had not seen your suggestion (our lines crossed). I've moved it up. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 08:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


However, the basic prescription of monetarism failed when it was attempted in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For some this meant moving to even more radical free market positions (Rational Expectations and Real Business Cycle theories), while others attempted to put Keynesian economics on a more sound microeconomic foundation (New Keynesian economics).
== Nearly done! ==


Economics today is in a state of crisis, with a number of contending schools and a whole lot of economists in between. The schools that can be distinguished include from left to right:  Marxists, Neo-Ricardians, “Post Autistic”, Post Keynesians, New Keynesians, various degrees of Neo-classical-Keynesians, various degrees of Monetarists, Real Business Cycle, Rational Expectationist. They differ fundamentally about the amount and level of government intervention in the economy, ranging from almost total control for Marxists to complete libertarian laissez-faire for the Rational Expectationists.  
A lot of economic water has flowed under the bridge since I started work on this article in 2007. I have tried to capture its essence in a new paragraph headed "recent developments". I want to spend a few days mulling it over, though, because I'm not convinced that I've got it right. In the meantime I should welcome comments on its clarity and intelligibility.


However, a new dominant school or mainstream seems to be emerging: the "New Keynesians". They reject the simplistic laissez-faire of the monetarists, but recognize many of their criticisms as valid and see some limitations to the ability of governments to act to cure all economic ills. They are particularly preoccupied with creating a proper micro-economic foundation for Keynesian economics. They focus mainly on rigidities, market imperfections, and the economics of information, which result in the need for some kinds of government intervention, but without the unbridled faith in the ability of government to solve all problems that Keynesians had in the 1950's and 60's. The author of our textbook, Joe Stiglitz is one of the leading figures of this school. He won the Nobel prize in Economics in 2001.  
I have removed all links to the "history of pre-classical economic thought" because I am not convinced of its authenticity. I may reconsider when I have time.


Released under the CC-BY-SA-NC license, unless the Citizendium foundation decides otherwise. [[User:Luigizanasi|Luigizanasi]] 12:22, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
Apart from  the last paragraph, and (perhaps) some minor tweaks elsewhere, I've done with the main text, but I need to spend a little time on the subpages.


== A comment ==
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


João, I'd just like to express my appreciation for all the excellent work on this article that you've done.
:Nick, in today's version, I found broken links at refs 55, 60, 83.  I haven't checked above ref 55 yet.  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager
:: A lot of the links that were put in in 2007/8 are now broken. I have repaired some and deleted others. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


I have an item of criticism, however.  "Smith's book failed to anticipate the economic and social upheavals that industrial era was about to unleash; furthermore, it was a muddled and inconsistent book."  Isn't this editorializing?  See [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]]. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:47, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
I now plan to await comments before doing anything more to this article. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 22:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


::OK, agreed. Give some time to re-phrase. The point that must be made here is: as Smith was writing, based on his past experience - of course -  the world was fastly changing in a way he and his work could not have antecipated. This added complexities to economic analysis Smith was not aware of and which the economists who came after him tried to understand.
:Shall I start the Approval Process, with a call for review?  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
::David Ricardo is no more than a re-writing of Smith's book, re-adapting it to the new, more complex reality; in this sense Smith's, when read after 1789, and specially after Ricardo - no offense intended, was ''"a muddled and inconsistent book"''. Ricardo fixed those inconsistencies.
:: Yes please. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 13:18, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
== Approval Process: {{ApprovalProcess|certify}} ==


By the way, would it not be more accurate to title the article, at present [[history of economics]] or [[history of economic theory]]?  It gives little information about ''economics'' per se, it seems--other than information about the history of economic thought. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:49, 24 March 2007 (CDT).
''Call for review:'' Nick Gardner 09:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)  


:: By the way, "which" ''Economics' ???? !!
''Call for Approval:'' [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


::On this I do not agree at all. First, the article gives a lot of information on pure Economics and theorethical Economics, specially throught the links.(of course those begin mainly after the [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/margrev/margrev.htm ''"Marginalist Revolution"''], which made almost everything else preceeding it obsolete) The most important books in Economics are not merely referred to; they are readable online, like [http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html ''The Wealth of the Nations''], David Ricardo's, John Stuart Mill's, Alfred Marshall's  and many others. This is the "whole" of Economics ''per se''.
''Approval notice:'' Revision as of 07:34, 15 April 2012 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=History_of_economic_thought&oldid=100799890
[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


::As the links are in '''public domain''', free for all, there was no point trying to reproduce here formulas, graphs and theorems that are publicly available, in very good form, and that can be obtained by a single click of a mouse. If a serious student decides to imerse himself into all the details of Economics he can (almost) obtain his Economist degree just by following each and every of the links in this article. That was the original idea. I believe this to work in line with the concept and purpose of an Enciclopedia: to give some basic structural information on the subject and to offer a framework and a study plan, with the means to expand the kowledge indefinetly, as required by each reader.
''Certification of Approval:'' Revision as of 07:34, 15 April 2012 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=History_of_economic_thought&oldid=100799890  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


::Economics is a social science, undergoing constant change. An article in Economics that purpose to show it, let us say, as a portrait of what it is today is bound to become obsolete next year. Unlike physics, there is no such a thing like "single" Economics, or "correct" Economics, or "contemporary" Economics. The only proper way to describe Economics is by showing its historical perpesctive and permanent evolution, where one can see why and how theorems where developed,  and which criticisms they immediately  aroused, as always hapens. No one solved (yet..) the ''"Economics Law"'' as Newton solved the Law of Gravity or Einstein solved the Theory of Relativity. While its neutrality safe to write '''e=mc²''', if one wites in this article the most basic of the economic formulas, without placing it into perspective, one would be taking sides. One must keep this always in mind. (See the excellent contribution about "definition of economics". If economists do not agree even on the definition of their science, how could one dare to show "Economics" statically, in the same sense one shows "physics" or "mathematics", without necessarily taking sides ?)  
----
''Please discuss the article below, under 'Comments'.'' ([[{{BASEPAGENAME}}/Approval]] is for brief official referee's only!)
----


::I do not actually object to add ''History of the Economic Thought'' as a subtitle. But I would not remove Economics form the main title, as it would confuse people who are not yet so familiar with the particularities of Economics as a science. For me: ''"Economics: <small>History of the Economic Thought"</small>''  would be perfectly OK.
=== Comments ===


::::::''"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back"''. Keynes, 1936.
Timelines subpage: 1742 link incorrect.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:Corrected.[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 13:18, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
In Revision as of 06:43, 22 March 2012, the following links did not work for me: refs 25,26,30,40.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
: Fixed [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 06:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


Well, I'll say one thing anyway--it seems to me that there has to be, at the very least, ''some'' discussion of the ''subdisciplines'' of economics. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


==Puzzled==
The article looks great! Small grammatical, typographical changes suggested as per summary edit box notes.
--[[User:Maria Cuervo|Maria Cuervo]] 00:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


:::Still puzzled by your coments, I went to see what Britannica have under ''Economics''. After all, they began writing on Economics eight years before Adam Smith published his book...
:(Sorry to interrupt. I have tried to simplify some of Richard Jensen's more convoluted sentences in the early paragraphs.)[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 06:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


:::Suprisingly (or not?) ''"Economics"'' in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, (founded 1768, 15th edition),  is just a '''stub''', which refer the readers to several exhaustive articles on the various aspects of Economics. It acts almost as an index, refering to articles such as ''Business Cycles'', ''Consumption and Consumerism'', ''Economic Forecasting'', ''Inflation and Deflation'', etc, etc. Dozens of titles.
:: Nick - for some reason the summary notes of some of my edits did not show up in the history for your article. Basically, there were some extra letters in Adam Smith and Marx sections. Marx was missing two letters and some spaces between words. I notice you already saw and dealt with the changes in "Other." Another thing - when I was editing I realized that there is a connection of some of these figures and philosophy, which is my area. For example Marx, whose philosophical thought I sometimes teach to undergraduate students. Although I am not an economist I am certainly willing to at least look at your articles grammatically and in general (since you did mention a lack of editors). Also, I would certainly be interested in editing or contributing to pages involving philosophical figures that intersect with your interest area (but I would keep to the philosophical parts). For example, I am very much interested in Marx's work on the 18th Brumaire. [[User:Maria Cuervo|Maria Cuervo]] 16:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


:::When you say ''" It gives little information about 'Economics' per se"'' I believe you might be thinking of ''"Economic Theory"'' which, in Britannica, is a separate article and which should be a separate one here as well. This is the article where all the formulas and graphs go. However, here in the ''"Economics"'' article (which is not an ''"Economic Theory"'' article), I tried to make easily avaliable to those who might be interested in the mathematical aspects of pure economic theory (the abstract part of economics) that information at their fingertips. Just by following the links one will get in touch with more formulas and graphs than by reading Britannica's multi-page ''"Economic Theory''. The benefits of the modern technology are used here.
::: Thank you for your help, Maria. I should be happy to collaborate with you on articles on people who have contributed  to both economics and philosophy. We might start by doing repair or rewrite  jobs on the more inadequate of the existing articles (the [[Karl Marx]] article, for example - which virtually  ignores his contributions to philosophy and economics!). I'll give it some thought and make some suggestions on your talk page. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 19:34, 24 March 2007 (CDT)


===An example===
It seems like a great I article, but I have a hard time understanding some passages as discussed above. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 02:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC))


The early beginnings of growth theory derive from the basic model of Harrod and Domar, where there was a fixed capital-output ratio, a. With savings, s, a fixed fraction of output (income),Y,
: I have rephrased the passages to which you refer.[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


I  sY  dK/dt    (16.1)
+++++
'''Comments from [[User:Roger A. Lohmann]]:'''


where K is the capital stock, so the rate of growth of capital is
This article looks suitable for approval to me; as with a number of other examples, we might leave the sub pages unapproved at this point, and continue to develop them. Economists are a contentious lot and there will always be points that someone or other will wish to challenge, but from the standpoint of an editor and economic fellow-traveler,  I think this article does a nice job of emphasizing what needs to be emphasized. The article is also a good starting point (one of several, I expect) to a broad and growing range of additional topics explored under this heading.


dln K/dt sY/K s/a. (16.2)
The Related Articles page does not appear at first to be as complete as it might be, but the suite is constructed in such a way that subsidiary pages do the heavy lifting. The top links to [[Economics/Glossary|Economic Glossary]] and [[Economics/Related Articles|Economic Topics]] open to a cornucopia of related pages, but this may not be immediately clear to a new reader. Perhaps a brief note of explanation of those two might make them more accessible?


Moreover, as machines become more efficient, each machine requires
The bibliography page isn't anywhere near complete, but it does offer an undergraduate (is that still our focus?) a good selection of readings to explore.
less labor, so the number of jobs created goes up more slowly than the capital stock. If


The timelines page is a start, but with three entries for the period since Alfred Marshall in 1890, it isn't very complete. It might be interesting to include major economic events such as depressions, recessions, Nobel prizes, the development of new subfields, and other such information as well. And it isn't clear that the numbers in brackets are the best way to convey that these are links to copies/exerpts from the cited works.


L/Y b      (16.3)
There is also a timelines page format somewhere.... I used it on the [[Civil_society/Timelines|Civil Society]] timeline, for example. It would add to the appearance of this timelines page.


is the labor requirement per unit output, then b/a is the labor required per unit capital, and job growth is
That said, I support the main article for immediate approval.
+++++


dln L/dt s/a    (16.4)
: Thank you Roger. I accept that I have given insufficient attention to the subpages, and I will now set about repairing their deficiencies. As you suggest,  approval of the main page need not be held up  until that has been done, since it has no links to subpages, and should be understandable without them. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


where
: I have made some improvements to the subpages, and I am  content that they are being considered for approval along with the main page.[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


dln b/dt  (16.5)
==== Scope? ====
As a non-expert, I wonder if this is really a summary of the history of economic thought ''in general''.
It rather looks like a history of Anglosaxon economic thought -- what about continental Europe, or non-Western thought?
What Mathematical economics is the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics <br>
I do not criticize the article as such, and do not doubt that it is approvable.
But I suspect that a more restrictive title would be more suitable.
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


dln a/dt  (16.6)
: Economics lacks the regional dimension that you suspect the article of reflecting. Contributions from thinkers in Britain and America (such as Keynes and Friedman) are interwoven with contributions from thinkers in Germany (such as Karl Marx}, in France (such as Jean-Baptiste Say), in Italy (such as Vilfredo Pareto) -  (all of which are referred to in the article) -  and elsewhere. So there is no such thing as Anglosaxon economic thought - any more than there is (say) Anglosaxon chemical thought. There are many Japanese economists too (not mentioned in the article), but I don't believe that any of them would recognise the concept of "non-Western economic thought". As to mathematical economics, Wikipedia describes it as "'' the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics''". Mathematics has indeed figured in the development of economics, as it has to the development of physics and astronomy and other disciplines. The models referred to in the paragraph on financial economics are, of course, mathematical models. Mathematics has contributed to economics, but there is no distinct "mathematical economics"  segment of the discipline with an  existence  that is distinguishable  from the aspects of the discipline  to which it has been applied .  
 
: The scope of the article is the same as that of the standard textbooks and university courses on the subject. I am confident that the existing title will convey that expectation to students and to others with some acquaintance with  economics. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 07:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
s/a was sometimes referred to as the warranted rate of growth, what the
:: Thank you, Nick, for your explanations. I trust your judgement. The reasons for my comment: I only browsed the article but, of course, I noticed that Marx was included. On the other hand, while the "Austrian school" is mentioned, too, only the Chicago school is treated. And I missed names I happen to know (Carl Menger, John Nash), but perphaps they do not belong in an overview like this. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
system would support. Once technological change was incorporated, the warranted rate of growth is modified to s/a (...)
 
etc, etc.
 
From:
 
[http://pdfdownload.bofd.net/pdf2html.php?url=http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/2006_Samuelson.pdf STIGLITZ, Joseph E. ''Samuelson and the Factor Bias of Technological Change: Toward a Unified Theory of Growth and Unemployment''. in: 17; Szenberg; Chap16; 13/07/06 03:35 PM; pp. 235-251.]
 
===Another example===
 
From: [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/paretequil.htm Paretian system]
 
Arguably, the greatest advantage of the [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/paretequil.htm Paretian system] is its intuitive structure and amenability to simple diagrammatic exposition - and thus quite effective as a heuristic device. Graphical illustrations of the Paretian system inevitably require confinement to a simple "two-sector" economy - i.e. an economy with two outputs (and firms), two factors and two households - and thus is quite similar in structure to the "Hecksher-Ohlin" model of international trade. The nomenclature for the two-sector case is then the following:
 
*Households: A and B
*Factor endowments: K and L (factor returns are r and w respectively)*Produced Outputs (Firms): X and Y (output prices are pX and pY respectively).
 
Agents possess factor endowments and desire outputs. In order to present this diagramatically, we shall ignore factor supply functions and thus assume that agents are "forced" to place all their factors on the marketplace, i.e. K and L are supplied inelastically by agents. As a result, we can capture the consumer's decision as follows. Let UA(XA, YA) is the utility function of agent A which increases with the acquisition of produced goods (XA, YA) and let endowment of agent A be eA = (KA, LA). Obviously, for B, we have UB(XB, YB) and eB = (KB, LB). Together, consumers cannot demand more outputs than are available, thus feasibility requires that:
 
:::XA + XB £ X
 
:::YA + YB £ Y
 
where X and Y are the total amounts of goods X and Y produced. Utility functions are assumed differentiable. Thus, given prices, pX, pY, r, w, consumer A faces the following optimization problem:
 
:::max UA(XA, YA)
 
:::s.t.
 
:::pXXA + pYYA £ rKA + wLA
 
The first order conditions for a maximum are then:
 
:::¶UA/¶XA = lApX
 
:::¶UA/¶YA = lApY
 
:::pXXA + pYYA = rKA + wLA
 
where lA is the Lagrangian multiplier for agent A (or his "marginal utility of income"). Letting UAX = ¶UA/¶XA represent the A's marginal utility of good X and the same for the other goods and factors, then the consumer will choose to demand outputs until:
 
:::UAX/UAY = pX/pY
 
the ratio of marginal utilities between outputs (also known as the "marginal rate of substitution between X and Y", or simply MRSAXY) is equal to the price ratio, pX/pY. This is the familar condition for a tangency between the budget constraint (with slope equal to - pX/pY and pinned down by the income from the sale of endowments) and the highest indifference curve (with slope equal to - MRSAXY). This is obvious in Figure 1 to be at point E = (XA, YA) which yields utility UA(XA, YA) Bundle G, which yields utility UA¢ ¢ is unattainable given the budget constraint. Conversely, bundles F and H, both of which yield utility UA¢ , are attainable but suboptimal for agent A.
 
pareto1.gif (3098 bytes)
 
:::Figure 1 - Household Utility-Maximization (Graph of the above)
 
(...continues...) etc, etc, etc...
 
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 08:58, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==Disappointment==
 
Sorry to disappoint some of you...
 
::''"My own view may disappoint those of you who have come to this course with practical motivations. In my view, economic theory is no more than an arena for the investigation of concepts we use in thinkingabout economics in real life. What makes a theoretical model “economics” is that the concepts we are analyzing are taken from real-life reasoning about economic issues. Through the investigation of these concepts we indeed try to understand reality better, and the models provide a language that enables us to think about economic interactions in a systematic way. But I do not view economic models as an attempt to describe the world or to provide tools for predicting the future. I object to looking for an ultimate truth in economic theory, and I do not expect it to be the foundation for any policy recommendation. Nothing is “holy” in economic theory and everything is the creation of people like yourself"''. 
 
[http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/Rubinstein-revision.pdf RUBINSTEIN, Ariel. ''Lecture notes in microeconomic theory : the economic agent''. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.]
 
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 11:21, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 
===Economics is not mathematics...===
 
:::''"Although we will be studying formal concepts and models, they will always be given an interpretation. An economic model differs substantially from a purely mathematical model in that it is a combination of a mathematical model and its interpretation"'' (...)
 
[http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/Rubinstein-revision.pdf RUBINSTEIN, Ariel. ''Lecture notes in microeconomic theory : the economic agent''. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.Introduction, pag 6]
 
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==On the Economis ''per se'' issue...==
 
A previous Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economic science gives a more critical report:
 
::''"Page after page of professional economic journals are filled with mathematical formulas leading the reader from sets of more or less plausible but entirely arbitrary assumptions to precisely stated but irrelevant theoretical conclusions.....Year after year economic theorists continue to produce scores of mathematical models and to explore in great detail their formal properties; and the econometricians fit algebraic functions of all possible shapes to essentially the same sets of data without being able to advance, in any perceptible way, a systematic understanding of the structure and the operations of a real economic system (...)"''
 
::(Wassily Leontief, 1982, p. 104).
 
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|Guru2001]] 08:00, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 
==A useful warning...==
 
I found some excerpts from Dr. Roger A. McCain (Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University) introduction to his course, which I believe are very useful here: 
 
::''Because we call it economics, with an "ics" ending like physics, that might suggest that economics is "scientific" as physics is scientific. But sometimes we have more in common with geography''.
 
::''For example, we can say that a law of physics, such as the law of universal gravitation, is either true or false. It makes perfectly good sense to say that the law of gravitation is true. But, in geography, would it make sense to say that a map of the state of Pennsylvania is true or false? Of course, a map has to have a lot of truth in it. A map that would show Philadelphia in the west and Pittsburgh in the east would not represent Pennsylvania as it is, and at best could cause confusion and make the map useless. But, on the other hand, no map is perfectly accurate. Most road and street maps show the roads and streets much wider than they are in proportion to the other objects on the map -- we couldn't see the roads and streets if they were shown in proportion, and then the map would be useless. On the other hand, every map leaves out some detail. If the map is on a fairly large scale, it will leave out a lot of detail. If you want to go find covered bridges (I do that, sometimes, on pretty winter days) you will need a local or county map. Covered bridges are mostly on minor rural roads, and you won't find those roads on a map of the whole state of Pennsylvania. On the other hand, if you want to drive from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, you need a map of the whole state -- you wouldn't find the detailed county maps very useful for that purpose. And contour maps show little lines where the elevation is 100 or 200 meters above sea level. There aren't really any lines like that on the ground. These maps have a lot of falsehood in them. But maps are designed to be useful, not to be true. To be useful, they have to have a mixture of truth and falsehood -- and just what needs to be true, and what needs to be false, depends on what you want to use the map for''.
 
::''Many (not all) economic models are like that, especially in Macroeconomics. They are designed to be useful to help you find your way around the economic system, and to help you anticipate where it is going and where you are going with it. To do that, they need a lot of truth, but also a bit of carefully chosen falsehood. Like a map on a large scale, they leave out a lot of detail -- and 'macroeconomics' is on the largest scale, so it leaves out the most detail''. <small> Dr. Roger A. McCain, Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University</small>.
 
 
This article is designed to build up a ''workable map'' of ''"Economics"''. In doing this, we will need to draw on a number of different traditions in economic thought -- some of them quite opposed to one another.  
[[User:João Prado Ribeiro Campos|JPRC]] 13:37, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 
I didn't realize that you had given such a complete justification of your approach here. Well, I won't argue with you!  After all, [[Biology]] and [[Philosophy]] also take historical approaches, but what they have which your article doesn't have, yet, is some pointers to subdisciplines. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:10, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
:::I am trying to put pointers, but there are no articles to poin to. I have put already some ones which are pointing to blank spaces.
 
João, thanks for your ongoing work on this.  Three stylistic points now.  Your paragraphs are too short, I think; quotations are not standardly italicized in either American or British English; and the article is simply getting too long. :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 
And a fourth point.  You still have links to external articles.  The rule is now official: [[CZ:Article Mechanics]].  Moreover, there are very, very few links to other CZ articles, whether existent or nonexistent.  The result of that will be to stymie development of further articles on economics.  For a good example of the sheer quantity (not necessarily the choice) of internal links we'd typically expect in an article, you can't do much worse than [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics Wikipedia's economics article.]

Latest revision as of 17:22, 19 April 2012

This article has a Citable Version.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Timelines [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  the historical development of economic thinking. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Economics and History [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  American English

Chicago school

The Chicago school is probably the single most important source of economic thought in recent decades, as proven by all those Nobel prizes (and reaffirmed by obits of Friedman this year). It's impossible to omit--we had it covered in two sections (monetarism and micro). 07:42, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I do not intend to omit it, but I think that it deserves a less cursory treatment, so I intend to replace the existing test with an entry that will (I hope) do it justice. Nick Gardner 11:41, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Please don't delete work without talking it over first. CZ has strict rules about that. Richard Jensen 23:14, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
I understand Nick to mean that he will ADD to the content, but perhaps he means something more complex. If there is any doubt, Nick, just paste the proposed new text here for approval. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:18, 24 October 2007 (CDT)
I would not really worry about losing anything to what someone adds. Everything is there in the history. Stephen Ewen 04:15, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry: I have not made myself clear. I propose to give due weight to the contributions of members of the Chicago School, including Friedman, Coase and Stigler, (noting their membership of the School in each case) at various points in the sections on the neoclassicals and the monetarists (and I have been wondering whether to do a "New Classical" paragraph, giving them yet more weight). I shall not delete a word of the existing paragraph about the Chicago School until all of that is done, and I shall then invite views as to whether that paragraph is worth retaining. Nick Gardner 09:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

i suggest that the Chicago School is so cohesive and so important it needs it own section in any case. Richard Jensen 12:35, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Finis?

I have nothing further to add to this article. Nick Gardner 07:56, 10 November 2007 (CST)

I was wrong - I needed to add a paragraph on financial economics. Having done so, I think the article is complete and ready for approval..Nick Gardner 05:18, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Diagrams/images

Are there any diagrams illustrating any concepts that can be created for this article? --Robert W King 15:03, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I hope to add diagrams to the articles to which this article is linked. I think they will be too numerous to replicate here. Nick Gardner 05:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Naming system

The article naming system (or lack thereof) on this project makes my head spin. I seem to recall lots of articles of the form "Foo, History of", but here we have "History of foo". Most confusing. J. Noel Chiappa 12:08, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

This is the result of a long-standing dispute between Larry and Richard Jensen. We have taken the "Larry approach" here! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Citations

Many of the links in this article are to encyclopedias. I don't understand the point of that. Furthermore, most of the citations are not to sources that back up the claims made in the article, but to online editions, encyclopedias, or institutions. Shouldn't those sorts of references be moved to the external links page? Russell D. Jones 13:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no views about this, so I would be content with alternatives that are considered more helpful to the reader. Nick Gardner 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Classical Economics

The paragraph on Smith says that he "identified what he considered to be the economic drawbacks of all forms of taxation" without telling us what he thought those "drawbacks" were. In the paragraph on Malthus, it says "Evidence in support of his postulates was lacking at the time and they have since been found to be mistaken." By whom and when was Malthus found to be mistaken? Russell D. Jones 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to extend the text by repeating Smith's analysis of the effects of taxation: it is readily accessible to the interested reader. As to the observed departures from Malthus' postulates, I am inclined to suppose that the increase in agricultural productivity (which he leaves out of account) is a matter of general knowledge. Nick Gardner 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Financial economics

Since this article was drafted, some highly critical analysis of the cited work on financial and monetary economics has emerged. I hope to add some reference to it in due course - unless someone else has already done so by then.Nick Gardner 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

bargained away

"He examined the relation of price to value and concluded that the “natural price” of a product was the same as its cost of production, and that divergences from it would eventually be bargained away"

What does it mean? (Chunbum Park 08:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

Adam Smith devotes many hundreds of words to his explanation of this, which you can consult at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300 page 36. I can think of no better way of summarising his argument. Nick Gardner 11:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I also have hard time understanding this statement:
"This postulate reflected the belief that money plays no part in the functioning of the economy beyond its role as a medium of exchange because it would be irrational to acquire money savings and so forfeit real benefits in terms of consumption or investment."
(Chunbum Park 08:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC))
I am not sure what part of the sentence causes you difficulty. When he says that money is nothing but a medium of exchange, Say is arguing that people use money only for buying things (including stocks and bonds). He justifies that assertion by arguing that it would be foolish to hold money out of circulation because that would mean needlessly going without things (or without dividends or interest). He took no account of the precautionary and speculative motives for holding on to money that were later identified by Keynes, and are essential to the understanding of macroeconomics. Does this help? Nick Gardner 11:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes it helps. Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 14:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

Lede sentence

Nick, the lede sentence reads:

"Modern economic thought is generally considered to have originated in the late eighteenth century with the work of David Hume and Adam Smith, and the foundation of classical economics."

The 'and' clause at the end of the sentence seems to hang there. Do you mean:

"Modern economic thought is generally considered to have originated in the late eighteenth century with the work of David Hume and Adam Smith, the founders of classical economics."

Or something else? —Anthony.Sebastian 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The latter certainly reads better. I'll change it. Thanks Anthony. Nick Gardner 06:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Question of target audience

Nick, I believe History of economic thought is ready for me to start the Approval Process. But before I do, I want to get your thoughts on the target audience, i.e., the qualifications of the readership who could best follow the narrative or benefit the most from reading/studying the article.

It seems to me that if you could articulate your thoughts on that, a brief statement to that effect up front, as we did for the Alcmaeon of Croton article, say, would add perspective value to the article.

What do you think? —Anthony.Sebastian 01:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea. I will give it some thought. I will also consider an update and expansion of the final paragraph. I'll deal with both sometime next week. Nick Gardner 07:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Great. I'll keep track, and we can decide together when to Start the Approval Process.  —Anthony.Sebastian 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Re issue of target audience, how about something like this for a header:
This article targets readers who are familiar with the basic principles of economics, and those with advanced knowledge of economics. For further pursuit of the topic, the article provides guidelines, in the Main Article and its references, in the annotated references on the Bibliography subpage, and the material in the other subpages.


Just a suggestion for you to modify as you see fit.  —Anthony.Sebastian 15:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager
I like your target audience textbox. Well done. Do you want to keep it there, within the lede, or above the lede, as in Alcmaeon of Croton? Anthony.Sebastian 03:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like it. I had not seen your suggestion (our lines crossed). I've moved it up. Nick Gardner 08:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nearly done!

A lot of economic water has flowed under the bridge since I started work on this article in 2007. I have tried to capture its essence in a new paragraph headed "recent developments". I want to spend a few days mulling it over, though, because I'm not convinced that I've got it right. In the meantime I should welcome comments on its clarity and intelligibility.

I have removed all links to the "history of pre-classical economic thought" because I am not convinced of its authenticity. I may reconsider when I have time.

Apart from the last paragraph, and (perhaps) some minor tweaks elsewhere, I've done with the main text, but I need to spend a little time on the subpages.

Nick Gardner 09:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick, in today's version, I found broken links at refs 55, 60, 83. I haven't checked above ref 55 yet.  —Anthony.Sebastian 21:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager
A lot of the links that were put in in 2007/8 are now broken. I have repaired some and deleted others. Nick Gardner 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I now plan to await comments before doing anything more to this article. Nick Gardner 22:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Shall I start the Approval Process, with a call for review? Anthony.Sebastian 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes please. Nick Gardner 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Approval Process: Approval certified

Call for review: Nick Gardner 09:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Call for Approval: Anthony.Sebastian 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Approval notice: Revision as of 07:34, 15 April 2012 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=History_of_economic_thought&oldid=100799890 Anthony.Sebastian 21:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Certification of Approval: Revision as of 07:34, 15 April 2012 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=History_of_economic_thought&oldid=100799890 Anthony.Sebastian 14:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss the article below, under 'Comments'. (History of economic thought/Approval is for brief official referee's only!)

Comments

Timelines subpage: 1742 link incorrect. Anthony.Sebastian 23:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected.Nick Gardner 06:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In Revision as of 06:43, 22 March 2012, the following links did not work for me: refs 25,26,30,40. Anthony.Sebastian 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Nick Gardner 06:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


The article looks great! Small grammatical, typographical changes suggested as per summary edit box notes. --Maria Cuervo 00:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry to interrupt. I have tried to simplify some of Richard Jensen's more convoluted sentences in the early paragraphs.)Nick Gardner 06:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Nick - for some reason the summary notes of some of my edits did not show up in the history for your article. Basically, there were some extra letters in Adam Smith and Marx sections. Marx was missing two letters and some spaces between words. I notice you already saw and dealt with the changes in "Other." Another thing - when I was editing I realized that there is a connection of some of these figures and philosophy, which is my area. For example Marx, whose philosophical thought I sometimes teach to undergraduate students. Although I am not an economist I am certainly willing to at least look at your articles grammatically and in general (since you did mention a lack of editors). Also, I would certainly be interested in editing or contributing to pages involving philosophical figures that intersect with your interest area (but I would keep to the philosophical parts). For example, I am very much interested in Marx's work on the 18th Brumaire. Maria Cuervo 16:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Maria. I should be happy to collaborate with you on articles on people who have contributed to both economics and philosophy. We might start by doing repair or rewrite jobs on the more inadequate of the existing articles (the Karl Marx article, for example - which virtually ignores his contributions to philosophy and economics!). I'll give it some thought and make some suggestions on your talk page. Nick Gardner 07:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a great I article, but I have a hard time understanding some passages as discussed above. (Chunbum Park 02:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC))

I have rephrased the passages to which you refer.Nick Gardner 10:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

+++++ Comments from User:Roger A. Lohmann:

This article looks suitable for approval to me; as with a number of other examples, we might leave the sub pages unapproved at this point, and continue to develop them. Economists are a contentious lot and there will always be points that someone or other will wish to challenge, but from the standpoint of an editor and economic fellow-traveler, I think this article does a nice job of emphasizing what needs to be emphasized. The article is also a good starting point (one of several, I expect) to a broad and growing range of additional topics explored under this heading.

The Related Articles page does not appear at first to be as complete as it might be, but the suite is constructed in such a way that subsidiary pages do the heavy lifting. The top links to Economic Glossary and Economic Topics open to a cornucopia of related pages, but this may not be immediately clear to a new reader. Perhaps a brief note of explanation of those two might make them more accessible?

The bibliography page isn't anywhere near complete, but it does offer an undergraduate (is that still our focus?) a good selection of readings to explore.

The timelines page is a start, but with three entries for the period since Alfred Marshall in 1890, it isn't very complete. It might be interesting to include major economic events such as depressions, recessions, Nobel prizes, the development of new subfields, and other such information as well. And it isn't clear that the numbers in brackets are the best way to convey that these are links to copies/exerpts from the cited works.

There is also a timelines page format somewhere.... I used it on the Civil Society timeline, for example. It would add to the appearance of this timelines page.

That said, I support the main article for immediate approval. +++++

Thank you Roger. I accept that I have given insufficient attention to the subpages, and I will now set about repairing their deficiencies. As you suggest, approval of the main page need not be held up until that has been done, since it has no links to subpages, and should be understandable without them. Nick Gardner 07:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have made some improvements to the subpages, and I am content that they are being considered for approval along with the main page.Nick Gardner 07:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Scope?

As a non-expert, I wonder if this is really a summary of the history of economic thought in general. It rather looks like a history of Anglosaxon economic thought -- what about continental Europe, or non-Western thought? What Mathematical economics is the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics
I do not criticize the article as such, and do not doubt that it is approvable. But I suspect that a more restrictive title would be more suitable. --Peter Schmitt 23:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Economics lacks the regional dimension that you suspect the article of reflecting. Contributions from thinkers in Britain and America (such as Keynes and Friedman) are interwoven with contributions from thinkers in Germany (such as Karl Marx}, in France (such as Jean-Baptiste Say), in Italy (such as Vilfredo Pareto) - (all of which are referred to in the article) - and elsewhere. So there is no such thing as Anglosaxon economic thought - any more than there is (say) Anglosaxon chemical thought. There are many Japanese economists too (not mentioned in the article), but I don't believe that any of them would recognise the concept of "non-Western economic thought". As to mathematical economics, Wikipedia describes it as " the application of mathematical methods to represent economic theories and analyze problems posed in economics". Mathematics has indeed figured in the development of economics, as it has to the development of physics and astronomy and other disciplines. The models referred to in the paragraph on financial economics are, of course, mathematical models. Mathematics has contributed to economics, but there is no distinct "mathematical economics" segment of the discipline with an existence that is distinguishable from the aspects of the discipline to which it has been applied .
The scope of the article is the same as that of the standard textbooks and university courses on the subject. I am confident that the existing title will convey that expectation to students and to others with some acquaintance with economics. Nick Gardner 07:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick, for your explanations. I trust your judgement. The reasons for my comment: I only browsed the article but, of course, I noticed that Marx was included. On the other hand, while the "Austrian school" is mentioned, too, only the Chicago school is treated. And I missed names I happen to know (Carl Menger, John Nash), but perphaps they do not belong in an overview like this. --Peter Schmitt 11:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_economic_thought/Draft&oldid=20117"