Talk:History of economic thought/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New page

I've started this page in its own right, and as people can see at the moment, slowly working through the ages - only up to Adam Smith so far. I've also realised it might already be getting a bit long (and it doesn't even have all the authors it could, or go into adequate detail) so perhaps down the road it could be separated according to period. However, everyone can see I've already laid out a basic structure, so if anybody wants to jump ahead and edit that stuff, please do! Wikidea 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a separate page from History of economics?

I don't see any reason to distinguish the two, given that the existing page is already about economic thought, and given that there was already an existing consensus that that was the proper place for it. THF 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say "thank you" for this page about the history of economics. It's really clear in its layout and I've learned a lot by reading it. Cheers!Fuzzy180 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge of History of economics into History of economic thought JQ 12:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge, History of economics into this page. --lk (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Remarks

Some remarks per Wikidea's kind request for a very interesting article:

• First, the problem mentioned above: we have two articles overlapping. Merge them!  Done
• The lead

• The lead is nice but I have some doubts (maybe about my different approach of the lead, which also was clear during our dialogues about the Law article):

• A large part of the first par. is about Adam Smith. I think this may be too much. And he is mentioned again in the second par.  Done
• "the prevailing consensus broke down". What consensus? Was there ever a consensus?

I had in mind the post war Keynsian consensus; like Nixon saying "we're all Keynsians now" - made it clearer. Wikidea 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Men like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek caught the imagination of western leaders, warning of The Road to Serfdom and socialism." They didn't just do that. You should make clear in the lead what they represented, and IMO the magic word is Monetarism.  Done
• "Yet the twenty first century begins and the history of economic thought continues in an increasingly globalised economy." Far too vague even for a lead. And, since you speak about globalization, then you should also I think make a quick mention to some critical approaches, like the one of Joseph E. Stiglitz. In one sentence. At least, IMO he is more important in economics than Fukuyama!  Done
• "Economic thought has evolved through feudalism in the Middle Ages, through mercantilist theory in the renaissance". Again a very brief mentioning in the lead of the Early Economic Thought wouldn't hurt.  Done

• Early Economic Thought

• Where from is Aristotle's excerpt? Politics, probably ... You should make clear that in the citations as well ... And include the book in the References, where I do not see it.  Done

• Mercantilism

• Try to cite all your assertions. Even in sections like the one about "Mun", where there is a main article, you should again have citations.
• The section about "Philipp von Hörnigk" is as long as the main article about him! Where is WP:SS? In general, you follow a structure putting one theorist after the other, and presenting their ideas. Personally, I would create more concise sections, e.g. Mercantilism in an article written by me would have no sub-sections, and I would include all the theorists of the era in one concise section. But again, this may be a different approach ... One result of your approach is that the article tends to become too long. Think about it ...
• The quote in Hörnigk is uncited (and possibly too long per my above remark).
• More for Hörnigk than for Colbert? Hmmmm ....

• British enlightenment

• See also "Thomas Hobbes", but nothing about Hobbes in the text! And he spoke about property before Locke. Again, my comments about the section's structure stand.

• Maybe The Wealth of Nations could also be a bit more concise, keeping what it serves the needs of the broader topic of the article. Per WP:SS the reader can go to The Wealth of Nations article for further details.

• "Limitations" is a section full of quotes. I do not like in a section most of it to be quotes. I prefer narration that flows well. But again you can also listen to other opinions.

• Classical Economy

• In Bentham:"The aim of legal policy must be to decrease misery and suffering so far as possible while producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number..." It is not clear for me in the analysis of all this paragraph the connection of Bentham's legal theory about misery-happiness, and prisons' reform with economy. The section should be clearer, and more to the point.
• Malthus: What does he propose to tackle population growth? The main article is clearer here: "Malthus favored moral restraint (including late marriage and sexual abstinence) as a check on population growth. However, it is worth noting that Malthus proposed this only for the working and poor classes. Thus, the lower social classes took a great deal of responsibility for societal ills, according to his theory. In his work An Essay on the Principle of Population, he proposed the gradual abolition of poor laws."
• "David Ricardo"'s section is one of the best of the article. It flows well, and presents in an excellent way his theory. But again no citations!
• "Mill was a child prodigy, reading Ancient Greek from the age of 3, and being vigorously schooled by his father James Mill. " Do we need in the article biographical remarks like this one? Maybe this is one of the results of the "structure problem" I analyzed above, by presenting one theorist after the other, by arranging biographies in rows.

• Marx

• "Capitalism" as the section's heading? Maybe social economy?

I thought Capitalism is a good title because that was the focus for the Marxian critique (and he made the word up!) Wikidea 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Again in the sections about Marx I think you overexpand. "Context" belongs IMO to an article about Marx's philosophy, and here could just be a short paragraph of the next section.
• To the contrary, "After Marx" could have some more analysis. And even something about "Before Marx"! I think there were businessmen and societies in England who tried to implement "socialist" ideas, but without success. For instance, you say nothing about Robert Owen.  Done

The stuff about Owen is already in the context section for instance; point taken about the overall length. Wikidea 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keynes

• "He helped formulate the plans for the International Monetary Fund at the Bretton Woods conference." And for the International Trade Organization as well.  Done

And again you have so much more to write, and I cannot imagine how long is this article going to get! Think about the structure ... And think also about the structure of you references: many sub-categories. I am not sure they are necessary.  Done --Yannismarou 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article status?

How about putting this article up for review for Good Article status? As a complete aside, shouldn't Robert Solow and 'Growth Theory' be in the article? --lk (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I just came to the article for the first time and had the same though. I'm going to nominate it. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was always still getting around to finishing this, because as you can see, some sections are still stubs, at the bottom. I just haven't had the energy. Come June I will! But glad to watch how the GA nomination goes. Wikidea 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say what an outstanding article this is, as an Economist I highly respect the effort and time that has been spent to create this, and if I could I would recommend it as highly as I could. Very well done, A+! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.36.171 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Portions of this article are now horrible. What happened?radek (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The General Theory.gif

Image:The General Theory.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arabic thinkers

Unfortunately Jaggard85 seems to think that some people that nobody has ever heard of warrant an extra three paragraphs and a reworking of the introduction. This is supported by references (which I also deleted) from minor articles from unknown economists supporting the view. It isn't noteworthy.

I suggest that the links to these people in the see also titles across the tops of the sections are sufficient. The content which was there on Chanakya and Ibn Khaldun were flimsy, and really said very little about what they said or thought that has anything to do with economics - some waffle about which King they served and so on.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a compromise - perhaps the Duns Scotus paragraph could be expanded slightly and changed to include 'other mediaeval thought' to include this lot. But you, Jaggard85 have to make the case. It's not enough to say 'this guy came up with the labour theory of value' when of course it was material rediscovered AFTER a few centuries of people from Locke onwards talking about it. So far as the introduction goes, it's truly ridiculous to say "a competitor as the father of modern economics" is soandso. Give me one single introductory course on an Economic history programme which gives the weight you're trying to to these people and I might change my mind. Otherwise, I would settle with the links. Wikidea 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If Duns Scotus deserves a mention, then Ibn Khaldun certainly does. Ibn Khaldun touched on ideas that presaged modern growth theory, the labor theory of value, the functions of money, and the Laffer Curve. lk (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Karl Marx

I reccomend that the section currently entitled Capitalism should be renamed Karl Marx. The content of that section centers on his economic thought, so entitleing it Capitalism is only confusing. Worse, it may be come off as an expression of neo-classical POV. If there is no objections, I will make the change my self. Comte de Maistre (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the section, I think (or at least it should be in there!) that you'll find Karl Marx invented the word Capitalism. It's a good name for the section, because the term only came about through its most avid critics - and it's not just about Marx, but about Engels, Luxembourg, and other socialists. Wikidea 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your first point: I certainly understand your reasoning; but I still think it's confusing to discuss Karl Marx and other socialist thinkers under a section entitled "Capitallism". The main object of these men's work was creating a critique of the capitalist system and formulating an alternative vision of how society should work. Placing them under "Capitalism" would be like placing Adam Smith and the physiocrats under a section entitled "Mercantilism".

In response to your second point: I recognize that it does not speak only about Karl Marx, but the others are mentioned primerily in their relation to Marx himself, either as predicessors or as successors to his body of work (Engels being the exception). Further, it should be noted that Karl Marx is the central figure of the section's opening paragraph, and two of the subsections that follow are entitled "Das Kapital" and "After Marx".

If you do not like the name "Karl Marx" as a section heading, would "Challenging Classical Orthodoxy" be a more acceptable option ?

      With Respect,
      Comte de Maistre (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean some other name could do a better job - challenging classical orthodoxy just strikes as a touch cumbersome though. Any other suggestions? On the other hand, "capitalism" is a really misunderstood word, because we don't live in a capitalist world and haven't for a long time. It means private ownership of the means of production. We have a big public sector, on average 40% across developed nations, and even in the "private" sector, the largest stakes of investment capital derive from people's pensions. The company/corporation (depending on where you're from) is a method of socialising wealth, albeit that the methods of distribution of power through company law may favour certain groups over others, favouring managers over shareholders, for instance. In other words the latter half of the Nineteenth century was the high watermark of capitalism, when this was not the case. A large public sector only developed around the turn of the century. Company law wasn't in existence until 1865 in Britain, the first country to introduce limited liability and separate legal personality in a modern company act. So maybe the analogy to calling the Adam Smith section Mercantilism isn't too strong, because that had been around for 200 years before, and he spoke for the generation that was burying it. I know what you mean about confusing people, but of course the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people about things they mightn't have known before.

Are you an economist? Can you finish off the later sections for me on the modern economists? I have much less time outside of term break to do a proper job! Wikidea 23:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just on a note of interest, here's an interesting myth buster about "Marxism": a list of demands that the Communist Manifesto made in 1848:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Now how many of those demands have been achieved, wholly or partially? I'd say (with a bit of leeway, depending on your country) 2, 5 and 10 wholly; 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 partially (think of social housing and local council planning for the land ones) and only 4 and 9 that have not, for obviously good reasons. Marx's critique of capitalism was tremendously effective and influential. Even the cold warrior style politician that denounces "communism" as if there were no tomorrow would unwittingly agree to much of this. Oh the irony! Wikidea 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the question of the titles: Here are some suggestions I thought of: "19th century Socialism", "Rise of Communism","Socialism", "Marxian Economic". Personally, I would prefer to make the current section wholly about 19th century-early 20th century Marxism, and create seprate sections focusing on other radical economic movement in the 19th century (Anarchism, Utopian Socialism, etc.

On your questions about editing this article: Sadly, I do not have a degree in economics, nor am I currently studying in a college economics course. The kindest desription of my expertise in the field would be "informed layman". So I am not the to write about current debates and thinkers. However, I think I could write section about the Neo-Ricardians (who I did'nt see mentioned at all in this article), The Cambrage Capital Controversy, and a more detailed exposition of Praeto's economics.

On Capitalism: I agree somewhat with your declaration that we no longer live in a capitalist system. You are quite right in pointing out how the industrialized/post industrial economy has developed what could be called socialist features since the late 19th century. However, I think that declaring capitalism dead would be quite premature. Some of the economic roles performed by states, such as the national bank, would better be described as protections of the capitalist economy, rather than as forces which have supplemented the privite economy (see State Capitalism). Moreover, I belive historically that modren capitalism and the modren state have enjoyed since the beginning close relationships of mutual dependence(See Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th centuries]]. I am puzzled why you would think coporations (particuly large, publically traded coporations) are not capitalist enteprises. The fact that the lion's share of profits and power withen most such entities is concentrated in the hands of managers and stock owners, not the workers themselves makes them fit Marx understanding of capitalism perfectly. Finially, are you suggesting that cooperations were created after what you identify as the "highpoint of capitalistm" ? I was under the impression that joint stock companies had existed since at least the High-Middle Ages.

Don't interpret this as a challenge; the differences between my POV and yours need not lead to conflict on the content of this article, which has maintained a tone of neutrality throughout.

P.S I am not French, despite my username. Comte de Maistre (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg

Image:The Essential Galbraith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Western world POV

The article lacks the needed global perspective. There's no mention of any islamic thoughts of economy, nothing about Assyria nor anything about any other cultures' thinking in economic matters. Therefore the article clearly is POV, that is, biased towards western thinking. Popperipopp (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some stuff that was put in before because it overemphasised some scholars, just talking about them generally but saying little about what they've done. It's not true there's nothing in the article; there's lots of links to authors in seealso headers. I'm concerned that it's emphasising something for the sake of it. This article is clearly not POV on this basis at all. I fail to see what constructive suggestions you have. Also keep in mind that the islamic stuff is distinctly mediaeval, and on that basis alone is marginal. I did however suggest before, perhaps the section on Duns Scotus could be generalised to concern mediaeval scholarship. Wikidea 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the fact that the "islamic stuff" is medieval make it marginal? There's no suggestion in the title that the article is limited to modern thinking. And even if that would be so, islamic thoughts on economy still plays a crucial part in many modern states. Our corresponding Swedish article include sections about Assyria, ancient Greece, the Bible and the scholastics, and islamic thoughts. The constructiveness in this perhaps lays in that I'm willing to write som of the topics mentioned, granted we can agree that it's relevant. Popperipopp (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that mediaeval thought is marginal because if one wants to understand economics today, there are some periods that have contributed more, and some less, to modern thinking. I'm not saying at all it's unimportant, which would of course be completely wrong. I'm afraid I don't speak Swedish, but I'd suggest that giving twice as much weight to what Mohammed said in 700 AD to an explanation of Keynsianism is unbalanced, if not plain silly. The fact that it doesn't seem to mention even Ibn Khaldun would also seem odd. May I refer you to the main page, under that section: Ancient economic thought, where there is much room for expansion: for instance this Assyrian things (which I don't understand from the Swedish page I'm afraid!) doesn't appear at all there. I'm just concerned about making a long page even longer. Some people are necessarily left out, and it'd be wrong to say that's being done out of a Eurocentric, Anglo American or pro-West POV. Wikidea 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this article is horribly immersed in a Western POV. There must be a wealth of economic thought that came out of the development of the Silk Road during the Tang Dynasty in China, "the most important pre-modern Eurasian trade route," whose impact on the understanding of economics isn't even discussed in this article. -Miskaton (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vote for this to be a good article!

...and help to get it finished! Wikidea 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Veblen info.

Expanded the information on Veblen.. as it left out some of his important later work with the Technical Alliance. It was in this period that Veblen presented ideas for social change related to economic system. Made a link to a book he wrote during this period and an academic paper discussing economics and engineering. skip sievert (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sumer economic code beginning info.

Added some basic info on Mesopotamia and economic thought, which the article seemed to lack. Also made it more clear... that the two Pysiocrats mentioned were French economist of the Physiocratic school in their article box beginning right after their names are presented. Also moved that monk story a little down for continuity with the Sumer info. as it related more to the former written info. by it before. skip sievert (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

The (earliest known) treatise on economic principles was the Arthashastra by Chanakya, in ancient India. In Ancient Greece, Socrates and Plato discussed the natural process of specialisation of labour and production in The Republic. Plato's pupil, Aristotle, deepened the discussion from the point of view of a slave owning society, but also a city-state that produced a primitive (democracy). He examined household spending, market exchanges, and motivations for human action. Some of this was changed because these statement are not factual.

All of these were in a sense early economic treatises. Earlier collections of economic laws or codes include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).

It is not the earliest known and is in itself controversial as to when it was even written. Also primitive democracy... is not accurate or a proper description. It is considered by many to be the only real actual democracy... as it was invented and carried out by them. Primitive is not a good term and implies a value given by an editor that is purely not connected with the thing itself. skip sievert (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose all I meant was that the Arthashastra was the first piece of academic work (rather than a law regulating economic activity). I only say that we should probably put this in because it is a page about the history of economic thought.

As for the term primitive democracy, I think that you're right that a lot of people do consider it the forerunner. But then, what do you mean by democracy? Surely slavery is not democratic? If it was, then you could call a country democratic which didn't allow women to vote either; or for that matter, the poor! I don't think it's really a point of view, it's just up to par with modern conceptions. My own view is that the first democratic country was little New Zealand from 1902, because everyone was allowed the vote. Does that answer your concerns? As I said all the stuff you'd put in was really good, but I think inevitably on such a long page, things have to be left out, and put where they can be given proper attention on the specialist main pages. Wikidea 21:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortening

Wikidea, you are shortening the article in a way that reduces importance given to Chicago school of economics. Along with Classical, Keynesian and Marxian schools, Chicago school had the greatest impact on development of economic thought. Milton Friedman is considered to be the greatest economist of the second half of 20th century, and together with John Maynard Keynes the greatest economist of the 20th century. Economists from Chicago school have received nine Nobel Prizes in Economics and their work is discussed here less then Das Kapital. -- Vision Thing -- 15:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't deserve an explanation. But since other people might want to know, the point is that I trimmed parts (like too much on Coase, which you can find in the subpages, most of which I also wrote) and put more in on Hayek.

You consider that Friedman is the greatest economist, but I don't care what you think. You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't know very much. You repeatedly demonstrate that you're only interested in shoving in some rubbish from the right end of the spectrum. You don't know anything about Arrow, do you. Or Samuelson. You probably have heard of him, but I think you probably don't know much about Galbraith. I expect you don't know much about Friedman either. As I have said on the law and competition law pages, I wish you would go away, and find something that you're good at. Wikidea 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not only my opinion that he was one of the greatest economists, that conviction is shared across spectrum. Maybe you should read what Paul Krugman, neo-Keynesian, wrote about Friedman: "In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived." [1]. -- Vision Thing -- 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Vision thing... you should perhaps not be editing this if you bring this much baggage here and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. That is pretty ridiculous. Not because I like or dislike this person, because you are apparently are a believer and not a neutral editor. You just lost any credibility in the above argument with wikiidea. You are not neutral and He appears to be trying to be neutral. skip sievert (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I restate what I said; I don't care what you think about Friedman. I just don't, because I don't have any respect for your opinions anymore.

Oh, and, by the way, notice that there's more in there about Friedman than the others? Notice I didn't cut a word? No? That's because you did not read it, and I wish you would go away. Wikidea 09:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You did cut explanation of Friedman's work on permanent income hypothesis and his critique of the Phillips curve. Anyway, it's not important what you, I or skip think about Friedman, but what other economists think, and general consensus is that he is one of the greatest economists of all time. That claim is easily backed by reliable sources. -- Vision Thing -- 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith / father /etc

I don't think it's worth debating this in two places, so see the argument about whether Smith is seen as the father of economics at the Adam Smith talk page. Cretog8 (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith is not the father of economics... he is though someone that should be portrayed accurately. Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the father of modern political economy...... Now that is the reality of this argument. I would change it slightly though also so it does not sound so ridiculously paternalistic. Like Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the originator of what is viewed as modern political economy. That is then good and accurate info. skip sievert (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It so doesn't matter you two. I'm guessing one of you doesn't like Smith and another does! I'm happy to change the sentence to something like "the first person to systematically discuss economics in the modern way was Adam Smith". I think that you can find a whole bunch of phrases that'll say the same without using the metaphor "father". Whatever you think, you've got to admit, he put quite a lot of new and old ideas together, and a lot of his ideas have stuck. I'd just leave it as it is. Wikidea 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic approach is appealing. Saying "Smith is widely seen as the father of economics" or something of that like is very handy short-hand which is easily understood, and clearly true. It also has the advantage that it's not a statement about exactly how important Smith's contributions actually were (as is your phrasing above), which would be open to lots more debate, but about how his contributions are generally perceived. Wikidea, I'm not going to undo your change just yet, but "is sometimes seen" is too weak--if it's only "sometimes" or "seen by some", it probably doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article. What makes it belong there is how widely accepted it is.

(Since there's debate on this very topic going on over at Talk:Adam Smith, I'd really like to keep it in one place, so I'd rather continue there than here.) Cretog8 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The information is still not right... and I have nothing against Smith. He was an interesting character. His ideas are not currently modern in any sense Wikiidea... except for people locked in the 18th century... so your argument is not making a lot of sense. Smith is not widely viewed as the father of economics... and the tag that was added ... as the first one put on is bogus... and does not lead to any thing but a pathetic book review which is an advertisement... and a forced citation put on by an editor above to make it seem like the statement is sourced... by an authority of some kind. Neither belong in the article. Cretog you scrounged up the citation which is not connected to the debate. The citation you put on is not a magic symbol that makes every thing ok. --- Adam Smith (1723-1790) is popularly seen as the originator of what is viewed as modern political economy. That is then good and accurate info. He is not a father or the originator of economics That is gibberish or nonsense. Cretog.... I think the basic approach is appealing. Saying "Smith is widely seen as the father of economics" or something of that like is very handy short-hand which is easily understood, and clearly true. No... it is not true... and that is the point here. By the way... this is a different page with different editors... so why encourage people to not debate here?

I would take it a step further and say something like Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics Why perpetuate bad information... better to explain it reasonably so it can be understood... instead of turning it into an Urban myth that Smith originated something as a father... mother.. etc.... which was only recycled information.. cleverly recycled. If nothing else that sentence should be permanently dropped from the article as written now (my opinion). It appears to have been written by the Smith devotee`s club. By the way... according to that garbled nonsense of a sentence... does Smith remain the father of economics for all time, and can economics ever evolve or change into something unrelated to Smith ??? or can a new father or mother come forth one day? skip sievert (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, I don't want to respond to this at all, because once again you're accusing me of dishonest sourcing. If you have a problem with the reference I added, explain what that problem is. Cretog8 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate editing. The source is not good because it is not related... it is not connected to the sentence in question. You can not just throw up an economics article, and call that a reference in general for something. It is supposed to ref the sentence in the article. But it does not. There is no connection to the sentence. The other ref. is a book review... and the sentence reference is an offhand comment that is not done by anyone in particular but tossed of unrelated really to any thing serious. Dishonest no.. just disconnected... or not connected. skip sievert (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Hoaas&Madigan article is a survey of "10 of the top-selling principles textbooks in the field". In the article (p.528) they say, "In general, the texts are quite ready to give Smith credit for being the father of economics...". That's extremely precisely related. The book review I agree was not adequate as a main source, which is why I found another one. However, when saying something like "widely accepted" I figured it couldn't hurt as a second source. Cretog8 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like weasel words to me. For starters take off the times book review/commercial. Also just because something is poorly written with a paternal nonsense aspect does not mean it is good or accurate. In general.... quite ready again weaselish. It is a poorly phrased sentiment that is an antique in conception. Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics That is neutral and not patriarchal.skip sievert (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip, if you want to push your arguments why don't you provide sourcing for your statement (i.e., Adam Smith is widely seen regarded as the originator of what was viewed as political economy, a term which is mostly referred to now as economics). That would be a lot more persuasive than simply beating up Cretog's citations over and over again, which appear to be valid and NPOV. Remember (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying my sentence is perfect. Just that what is there now should be either dropped entirely because it is gratuitous, or rewritten to have more meaning. The sentence I proposed is just tossed off.... and could be written any number of ways... to get at a better meaning for the article. My only interest here is to not mislead people reading the article. The current phrase should have not been used in the first place... Weasel words are not neutral or encyclopedic. What is valid about a book review advertisement in the New York Times... making an offhand statement? Or a vague... some people imply other source? Why don't you source it as I wrote it?... or rewrite it? Or drop it from the article entirely? Because it is taken down repeatedly... I have not had a chance to source or cite anything... but.. as a statement who can disagree with it? It is merely factual. Because, if you can find one real argument against the change, make it. Many arguments can be made against the current edit. That is why it is being content disputed. It will be tagged shortly with the weasel words sticker.

Just about any thing is better than what is there now... Example Smith was an 18th century Scottish moral philosopher, whose impulses led to (many of) our modern day theories; his work marks the breakthrough of an evolutionary approach which progressively displaced the stationary Aristotelian view. http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Smith.htm skip sievert (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that on the Adam Smith page (where this contention originated), the edit was modified as to the contention above. This should also be modified now on this page. Cited as the father was used ... instead of widely seen so... change it or I will. That is still poorly phrased in the rest of the sentence... but it is some improvement. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The new classical assumptions

I placed the {{POV}} tag on the section, so I'll explain what I feel is wrong:

• "In a competitive economy, said the marginalists, people get what they had paid, or worked for." Kind of a vacuous statement.

It's not vacuous at all! This is in the context of Marx, remember who was talking all about alienation and exploitation. I'm trying to find the exact quote from Daniel Fusfeld's book, if you give me a bit of time; I'll give you a reference. Wikidea 22:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Then Leon Walras (1834-1910), again working independently, generalised marginal theory..." No mention in this section that almost the entire basis for General equilibrium stems from this notion. Also, markets aren't required to be competitive in order for an equilibrium to exist.

Just put in another sentence then on what you mean. I'm sure you're right. Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "After finding a statistical correlation of sunspots and business fluctuations and commenting on Mill's assertion of crisis being "the destruction of belief and hope in the minds of merchants and bankers", Stanley Jevons wrote..." Heaps WP:UNDUE weight upon this failing of Jevons.

I don't agree. All the rest is about the things they got right. I think it's interesting and notable, because people were serious about these kinds of things, and it's important to understand people's mistakes. Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest is not about what Jevon's did or didn't get right. All we see from this article is that jevons was some guy who thought that sunspots made bankers crazy and that correlation was causation. The only hint we have to the contrary is a picture and a caption noting offhand that he was basically the father of neoclassical economics. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sunspots are staying, but yes, perhaps you're right that it's a bit unfair on Jevons, because there isn't anything else about him. Could you write a sentence adding another specific contribution he made? Also, I haven't put in his birth and death dates yet. Wikidea 22:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid, nothing. If you want the sunspots to stay but don't want to add more details to ensure that they aren't undue weight then the tag can stay. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, let me put that differently. I think that if we balance out Jevons work with another sentence or two on his work with equilibrium theory, then it'd be better. Wikidea 10:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This version of the Jevons sunspots theory is wrong (though he might have said something about bankers acting crazy). Basically at the time people believed that sunspots caused fluctuations in the weather. And weather affects agricultural output. And agriculture at the time was a large part of the economy. Hence, sunspots caused fluctuations in the economy. It's not correct, but it's logical (one of the premises (sunspots --> weather) is just false) and you can see how he made the mistake. And yes, it's a bit undue weight what with the quote and all. Maybe just a mention that Jevons had one of the earliest theories of the business cycle or something.radek (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "...best known for developing the concept of the circumstance under which nobody need be made worse off, and nobody better off through wealth redistribution. When this situation exists, the economy is said to be "Pareto efficient"." Not really NPOV, but this isn't really accurate.

So please adjust it to make it so. Wikidea 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Pareto devised mathematical representations for this optimal resource allocation, which when represented on a graph would yield a curve. Different points along the curve represent different allocations, but each would be optimally efficient." Also not NPOV, but I think the credit for the contract curve goes to Edgeworth or more precisely to Arthur Lyon Bowley in The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics: an Introductory Treatise (1924).

Perhaps you could put this in yourself? You seem to know what you're talking about! Wikidea 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it in once I've brought the mathematical econ draft I have in my userspace into the mainspace. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Rather than using the persuasive language of classical economists like Mill, the Pareto efficient curve could be represented with a precise mathematical formula" How or why is Mill's language "persuasive" but Pareto's formulation not?  Done

So that's about it. Sorry for not detailing this earlier. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now we are past WP:BRD. that tag should be put back up until the issue is cleared up. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

When you said something "is not really NPOV" do you mean there is a neutrality problem or there isn't? Because "not NPOV" meants "not neutral point of view". Maybe I'm just reading you wrong but did you mean there is "not a point of view" i.e. those points are fine?

I just put that there to note that the specific problem I mentioned on that line wasn't a problem, sorry. Those points are/were fine for NPOV but weren't accurate. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Condensing, subsections by area/time period, and less focus on philosophers

There are a lot of biographical details on this page. Is it necessary? Also, there are often quotes, which I don't think are necessary. Unless the quote is especially succinct or enlightening, the information should be summarized. For example, Hörnigk's 9 principles seem really redundant, and come down to basically just standard protectionism. Quotes belong more on pages devoted to concepts or the philosopher's thought. This page needs to be condensed -- which was also Tom's comment in the GA assessment. The shorter we can say something without losing meaning, the better. (Unfortunately repeating myself.)

Each section could begin with a summary of the succeeding subsections (this is done OK so far). The subsections could be time periods or geographical areas rather than people's names. For example, the "Early economic thought" section might have, say, "Ancient Asian", "Ancient Greek" and "Medieval economics". I'm pretty sure we could find enough to fill all 3 of these proposed sections. We could probably also find some early Arabic economics; scholarship was flourishing in Arabia during the Middle Ages.

I added Xenophon to the early economic thought section, where he was entirely missing, which suggests there are others who are missing as well. I'm also not sure the focus is right. There's relatively quite a bit of information on philosophers like Aristotle, John Locke, and Bentham. I don't mean to denigrate the work done here, though; lots of interesting, well-written content here, Wikidea. II | (t - c) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate; I really have just been waiting to getting around to the condensing stuff. The Marx section for instance could be a lot more compact. I just haven't found the time yet. The problem as always with big topics like this is "who do you select"? Smith, Marx and Keynes are usually the "big three" that people deal with (e.g. Heilbroner's book, which I believe is the best selling short History of economic thought text, does this). I suppose I went into Aristotle, because I think that part about the public/private dichotomy - and the profit motive idea - is a source of debate, that is still with us in almost exactly the same form as today. What I'd like to have is each main section with subpages, that really cover all authors, and do it a little more fully, e.g. there are already fairly good attempts for the Chicago school of economics and the Classical economics page is ripe for that. So is mercantilism for putting in the extras (that's where Hoernigk, for example, fits in). Btw, have you also put Xenophon on the Ancient economic thought subpage? Wikidea 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Aristotle belongs on this page, but I don't see that compelling of a reason to give him so much more weight than people like Chanakya or Xenophon, and rather think the latter two deserve more weight. I hadn't looked at the Ancient economic thought page prior to making that edit, and Xenophon is covered pretty well there. I may start condensing this page; stop me if you see something you don't like. I'd prefer to adopt a summary style and not choose who to cover. The major figures get a bit more weight, but everyone significant gets a sentence or two. II | (t - c) 05:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

POV in the lead

I find this portion of the final lead paragraph somewhat POV and, well, inaccurate;

"Men like Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek caught the imagination of some western leaders, warning of The Road to Serfdom and socialism, focusing their theory on what could be achieved through better monetary policy and deregulation. However, the reaction of governments through the 1980s has been challenged, and development economists like Amartya Sen and information economists like Joseph Stiglitz are bringing new ideas to economic thought in the twenty first century."

First, the flow of the paragraph makes it seem like Friedman and Hayek had influence very early on after WWII, whereas they didn't really have any impact on policy until late 70's/early 80's (I'm not sure if Hayek ever had effect on policy. He was famously shunned by both academics and politicians during the peak of Keynesianism). Second, who are these "western leaders" the article's talking about? Thatcher and Reagan to be sure, but other than that? Mitterand? Willy Brandt? Helmut Schmidt? Don't think so. Third, the last sentence is unclear and misleading. I take it that "the reaction of governments through the 1980's has been challenged" refers to the challenge to the liberalization and deregulation of Reagan/Thacher years. At the very least it's just not written very clearly. Also the general "governments" is inappropriate here as mentioned above. Finally, why only focus on development and information economists like Sen and Stiglitz? And only left wing at that? What if someone wrote "...and macroeconomists like Edward Prescott are bringing new ideas to economic thought in the...". That would be just as relevant. Overall the whole lead's written a bit like it's trying to tell a nice, literary story - but this is an encyclopedia.

I thought I'd bring it up on talk page before making any major changes.radek (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about the sentence: it doesn't read very clearly. Hayek was influential though: Margaret Thatcher famously slammed a copy of one of his books (either the Road to Serfdom or one of the Law Legislation and Liberty volumes) on the top of the despatch box during PMQ's, booming "this is what we believe!" So it's from 1979 for the UK and 1980 for the US that they became influential, but also, I'd say, for Australia (John Howard), Canada (is it Stephen Dion??) and I expect the conservatives in NZ. Also, I think it's v. important that the policies of the IMF and World Bank, on the back of the Washington Consensus were shaped by the new conservative thinkers: this is what much of Stiglitz's work was about. Through those two, quite a lot of the planet was affected because to get loans, you needed to fulfill conditions: Argentina is I think the classic case. You're right that the French and the Germans weren't so much affected (although Sarkozy seems to be catching on)! Maybe you could alter that, while staying concise? It's all about being concise. It was written quickly, but I do think that it needs to be written like a nice, literary story (of course, not literally!). Britannica authors are pretty good at this, though it will always depend on the article and its nature. Wikidea 20:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on other authors, I don't know about Edward Prescott, but as you can see, the bottom of the page is still very incomplete. Perhaps you could put a few "see also"s down there for now - and more contemporary authors if you have more in mind? Wikidea 20:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Trolls should stay in their caves

Deleting large amounts of good material without explanation, as Vision Thing is characteristically doing, is unacceptable. I'm just posting a note about it, to let everyone know that he's a real jerk. He's pursuing a petty agenda across several pages, and despite my usual approach of at first being nice to him, he just proves himself to be an absolute creep and not worthy of any form of reasoning. He's a troll, and should stay in his cave. Please do help, as some of you already have been doing to revert the trolling in future. Wikidea 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't call other editors trolls unless you are actually in a venue to ask them to stop trolling and you have obvious diffs of behavior. I don't agree with his content removals but he doesn't need to be subjected to personal attacks in order for us to improve the article. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the mass deletions are uncalled for, even if some shortening of the article in general might be desirable. In reverting my reverting of his deletions VisionThing has asserted that the reasons for his/her deletions have been explained. Well, looking over the talk page I see no such explanations, and until they are provided (and accepted by consensus) I will continue to revert these deletions.radek (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Vision Thing's edit to some degree, and certainly object to calling him a troll. I think the Context is a little bit undue weight. This article needs to aim for a comprehensive summary, with a summary style, rather than bogging itself down with individual details. These details belong in subarticles. At the same time, the content is good, and it would be better for it to be moved into another article than deleted. II | (t - c) 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I say, you'd need to observe the pattern of behaviour over a long period of time to see why I call him a troll. He's a dirty, ugly troll. It's not really a personal attack, because he's part of a species. I aim to offend all trolls. Yours is absolutely the right approach II! This is the sort of stuff that people who give a little thought to their actions say. Notice, he's also pursuing this agenda about putting the Chicago school into separate paragraphs, when one of the things I did before I shortened that part was to expand the Chicago school of economists page. Trolls should stay in their caves. Wikidea 09:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Context and Chicago sections

I removed context sections because I don't think their content is relevant for the topic of this article (as I said in original edit summary). Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx have well developed articles and are well known so I don't believe we need special context sections about their work and ideas. At the same time this article has many holes but it is already longer then appropriate for Wikipedia article.

I see that nobody is discussing this but my revert (btw, properly described as such unlike Wikideas's who gave a false edit summary – always a red flag for me) also undid changes to "Chicago's conservationists" section. If we are going to have separate sections for the most notable economists then Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek deserve their own. -- Vision Thing -- 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The context section on Adam Smith in this article is quite different from the article on Adam Smith (for example, neither Pitt nor Burke are mentioned in AS article) and I happen to think that it provides a useful, well, context. At the moment I have no opinion on the Chicago thing.radek (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again the troll persists. The appropriate place for elaboration on Chicago is in the page on Chicago School of Economists. Wikidea 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask nicely. Again. Please don't call other editors trolls. I don't care what your opinion of Vision Thing is. Don't make personal attacks. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

radek, my understanding is that context should provide us with better insight into something (in this case that would be Smith's economic ideas). I'm not sure how well The Wealth of Nations context section does that. Also, there is a question of length. If we are going to be consistent we need to provide context sections for all major subsections of the article. However, that would cause problems with article size. Any proposals? -- Vision Thing -- 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, get lost. Stop vandalising the article. Wikidea 11:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, Wikidea? He's talking about the article, and you just call him a troll and vandal. How does this look to people joining the debate? Incidentally, "Chicago's conservationists" seems to be an invented title. I suggest using "Chicago school," which has a known meaning. Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article seems to be suffering from overly cutesy section headings. Let's make them descriptive, eh? Cool Hand Luke 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not sure who the troll here is supposed to be. But anyway, Vision Thing, yes, I'm sympathetic to shorter but better articles and I can see why you want to cut the section. But there's some good, useful info in there, and it is not duplicated in other articles. So either we should split that particular material off into a separate section or (better, imo) rewrite the context section to make it more concise, keep the main points and integrate it with other sections. In fact, having a separate "context" section is pretty much like having "this stuff is important too but we didn't quite know how to include it" section - again, I'm sympathetic. But I don't like deleting it wholesale. I'll give it a try but in the meantime if you want to combine the two sections and propose a combined version it here on the talk page I'm quite happy to listen.radek (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will wait for your proposal. -- Vision Thing -- 14:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Globalization and the Nobel prize winners

Well, first I'm not sure this section really belongs here. Maybe it'd be better to have something broader which covers the 90's+ in terms of development of economic theory. Second, if it is going to be globalization, shouldn't Robert Mundell be here as well? And in fact Stiglitz is really related to the topic only through his criticisms of the World Bank, but his academic work is really on subjects other than globalization. Also, I don't want to assume some kind of POV in bad faith here but it strikes me as odd that out of all the semi-recent laurates the three most left wing ones (all very deserving of the prize, btw) had been picked to be included here. Why not, say, Prescott and Kydland? In fact, since this is a HoET article it's pretty weak to end with Monetarism (which ended like 25 years ago) and then skip to Globalization, skipping folks like Robert Lucas or the whole DSGE macro which has been veru influential.radek (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All your points are useful: in fact you can see those sections aren't finished, as I said a number of times. But I was organising as much around the three very distinct subjects that have really grown in importance (development, information and international economics) as much as the three, as you say "left wing" guys. But I think they are all the most widely read, known and popular, outside economic fields as well as in. The more contemporary you get of course, the more people there are that everyone will go "oh s/he should go in". Are those you mentioned well treated in appropriate sub-pages? The title, "global times" was just to refer to the thinking that became accepted after the Berlin Wall fell, with the end of a bi-polar world. Funny that Krugman got the Bank of Sweden prize though. That makes all the last economists recipients. Wikidea 20:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he must have gotten added right before the prize was announced. Prescient.radek (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Split

When I edited the article, a message warned that "This page is 126 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." I suggest splitting this article into three articles:

1. History of early economic thought: from the beginning untill Smith
2. History of modern economic thought: Smith untill 1945 (including Keynes and the Austrian school)
3. History of contemporary economic thought: after 1945 or after Keynes

I am ready to contribute to this move, if it is needed. --Pah777 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already an early economic thought page entitled ancient economic thought. This article doesn't need to be entirely split. It needs to be converted into summary style. So individuals get a couple sentences, and the details are forked off into separate pages. II | (t - c) 18:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose to remove the quotes and some images. Some sections are too much long, such as that about the American way. The lenght of this section is disproportionate, comparing to the importance of this school of thought. The section about Adam Smith is also too long. Traditionnaly, Smith is classified as a "classical economist", along with Ricardo and Mill, I propose to merge the two sections Smith and the classical. Rather than writing very long section about few authors, maybe we should cite as many as possible economists and only say some words about, i.e. their major contribution to the economics. No need for biographies, images, long descriptions. --Pah777 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's useful to split the articles like that. There are already pages which you can put material in (e.g. Ancient economic thought, Classical economists, etc). I would work with those things. On the American stuff, can I recommend the page, Institutional economics, which you could move material to? Adam Smith should really stay, in his own right. Economic historians (e.g. Heilbroner) usually centre the story around him, Marx and Keynes, as three pivotal figures. You should know, by the way, that the length thing is only a guide. Also, taking pictures away is not really useful, it won't get rid of that message. Also, you will never be able to cite every economist. This is going to be a perennial problem on a page like this, because every idiot will want their pet love of a theorist to get some special mention (I'm sure you're not an idiot, but that's exactly what you've done with Schumpeter. No he did not say anything much that was new or interesting. His most interesting work was doing history of economic thought itself). That is precisely what the subpages are for. I've had a break from trying to defend this article from the encroaching whims of the ignorant, so I'll leave you with that. My advice for you if you want to be productive, is have a go at writing something in detail on one of the specialist pages. Wikidea 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, broadly, with Pah777. This should be a broad sketch of the history of economics, with a brief mention of many of them and their contributions. The people themselves and the in-depth descriptions of their work, and context, should go in other articles. It's not a guide to a few great economist. And while Schumpeter might not have been a revolutionary theorist, his intuitive grasp of economics was brilliant, and he was the thesis advisor for several great economists. He's also known for applying the term "creative destruction" to economics. Wikidea, you could copy this article onto your own website as a guide and claim it as yours, since you've largely written it. But it needs to be trimmed and turned into a narrative rather than a string of biographies.

Pah777's recent addition isn't a step in the right direction, either. It's too detailed and focused on the Kondratiev stuff, which is Schumpeter's most dubious contribution. II | (t - c) 03:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the theory of business cycles is really questionable, but it is an important theory in economics, and we must at least mention it. We can specify in the article that the theory is criticized today. I will rewrite the section. --Pah777 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I say split it. Most of Mathematical economics right now is a history of 19th century economics (minus Marshall, Fischer, the italians, ricardo, malthus, and some others.). If this were split up I could feel good merging most of that content over and summarizing the bit there. It would also help us clean up Marginalism#History. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• As an addendum, while I agree with splitting it, we really shouldn't get this into "cite as many economists as possible". We can split this and retain the basic structure. Also, we can split this article, then remake a "HOET" article as a summary of the three. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you what this looked like before I started, here. Wikidea 09:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article is very good untill Keynes (included). The main problem is about the economic thought after Keynes, because there is no dominant theories. About Schumpeter, I insist that we should at least mentionned him, because of his important works about innovation (I agree he is mostly an historian who mostly took existing theories, and that the theories about cycles are disputable). The main problem of the end of the article is that there are many economists who deserve to be mentionned, such as Buchanan, Lucas, Barro, Romer, Laffer, Solow or Kuznets. It seems that their contributions are not less important than that of Arrow, Krugman, Coase and Sen. Perhaps we do not need to shorten too much the sections or to split the article, either we should add longer introductions, some transitions and mention more post-1945 economists.--Pah777 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The end of the article is a real problem. I think we should avoid writing about any developments in economics in the last 15 years because we lack historical perspective to determine their relevance. -- Vision Thing -- 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We should rearrange sections about post-1945 economics. In particular, the section about the American way is very disputable. The contribution of Veben to economics was very limited, he was a sociologist, not an economist, I propose to delete the whole text about him. Berle and Means' works were not very important for the economics, they do not deserve to be mentionned (and Chandler's works about the corporate structure are much more renowned, with The Visible Hand). I propose to shorten a lot this section. --Pah777 (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Period stereotyping

The article is filled with stereotypes drawn from common periodisations. I removed some sentences about the dark middle ages and ignorance of this period. (A lack of sources should not induce us to judge). It is just as unclear what the "troubles" of the 17th century (fires and pestilences) have to do with economic thought presented here. I would like to read something on Isaac Newton and John Locke and their considerations of how a currency could be stabilised, on Bernard Mandeville and his thought of healthy circulation of money. Simply less sterotypes taken from handbooks of history and more talk directed to problems and solutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Simons (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mandeville appeared later on (why not as part of the British Enlightenment?) I cut away some of the stereotyping, yet remain helpless. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"A monk travelling back to Germany from a pilgrimage to Rome joined a band of merchants. He showed them a silver chalice he had purchased for his cathedral at home and told them what he paid for it. They laughed with astonishment and congratulated him, because he had made a killer of a bargain and they mused that an unworldly monk was able to drive an even better deal than any of them. The monk was so horrified at their reaction that he left immediately, and went back to Rome to pay more to the chalice maker for what should have been the just price."

The Parable of the Monk

I also removed the parable - as it was put into the article without source (to prove how decent but stupid people were in the early middle ages... I leave it here, in case that someone finds a better integration. --Olaf Simons (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)