Talk:Marginalism

Archives
Some earlier messages may be found
· in Archive 1.
· in Archive 2.

Possible addition?

Hi there, fellow collaborators. I posted this suggestion earlier, but it was archived the same day so it never got a chance to be discussed (the archivist said the discussion was 'stale'; an oversight I presume). Anyway, I'm wondering how the concept of Marginalism of workers might be worked into the article. I'm not quite WP:BOLD enough to just rudely shoehorn it in there, which is why I brought it to talk in the first place... (should I just be bold, or...?) I figured I'd do the collaborative thing and suggest it here on the talk page so others can weigh in (that's what talk is for, after all, to discuss article changes, right?):

• When a business falls on hard times, workers are the first to feel the pinch. Wages are lowered; jobs are cut. Profits are sacrificed last.

• When costs go up, consumers (i.e., workers) pay the difference. Profits are sacrificed last.

• Profits are like the last bag of grain; the capitalist values his profits above the workers.

I suppose this may be too controversial (hey, I'm certainly no Austrian School economist!), but there it is, FWIW. (I hope this is noticed before the next archive!) Cheers, all. --70.105.228.24 (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

None of this theory would be within the scope of this article, even if it weren't “original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very peculiar. The IP above has a talk page headed IP's are people too. But that edit actually came from a different IP 209.217.195.144. I guess their IP keeps changing but then they have to put in the original IP. Using a username is so much less bother. I'll ask why they do it. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History section

At this stage, the history section covers notions of marginal utility (and antecedent utility notions) fairly well. It still lacks and probably needs some discussion of notions of marginal physical product (since the mainstream tradition has leaned so heavily upon it); I have some notes and ideas on a subsection covering this area.

Beyond that, the section might explore the development of various other concepts employed by marginalism. I'm not sure how thorough this article should seek to be, how much history should be delegated to articles specific to each concept, how much of the history of marginalism Wikipedia in toto should try to cover. —SlamDiego_←T 06:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

“not unreasonable” v. “reasonable”.

In general, double negatives are often weakened positives. And “not unreasonable” carries a different sense than “reasonable”. The former is a failure to reject; the later is an endorsement. —SlamDiego_←T 03:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow the WP:MoS, please.

Even regarding spelling. The guidelines for the preferred variant are clear. Further, not only does the use of this variant not improve the article in anyway, but it actually hurts the quality and plainly violates the guidelines on clarity as the presence of obscure spellings, with characters not in the alphabet, serves only to obfuscate the meaning. Further, it undermines functionality of tools like spell check and search functions and makes maintaining consistency more difficult as it requires a character that is not present on a standard English Keyboard. Let's keep the encyclopedia in the vernacular, okay? M ^t/c 07:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, this is not an obscure spelling; it is in fact listed in almost every authoritative dictionary, and in some modern dictionaries it remains the preferred spelling. (By happenstance, it is also the spelling used in the book on decision-theory, copyrighted 2000, that I'm reading these days.) The MoS says nothing that actually supports its removal. The article shouldn't be expected to have the word further introduced a great many times, and maintaining consistency has only been a problem for people attempting to impose a new spelling. —SlamDiego_←T 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not question that it is a legitimate variant, but I am outlining why it is not the preferred variant. Works that use spellings with diacritics are rare exceptions nowadays, and generally only do so out of stubborn refusal to get off their high horse and accept the evolution of the English language over the last century. M ^t/c 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have employed a series of falsified claims: The spelling is not obsolete, and remains the preferred spelling in some modern, authoritative dictionaries; it does not violate the MoS; there is no reson to expect that maintaining consistency will be a problem. You are simply changing what was the original spelling in this article to suit your sense of æsthetics, which is why your edit is a disruptive leg-lift edit. (And restoring that spelling is not a leg-lift edit of any sort.) —SlamDiego_←T 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the edit and talk, this discussion is likely going nowhere. So I'll make it blunt. You seem to be engaged in edit warring and judging by the article history and talk archives this is not a new issue. You also seem to be violating the spirit of WP:OWN. Further reverting will result in a report for edit warring. Thank You. M ^t/c 06:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If the party to whom you make such a complaint does not attend to the point that each of your arguments for changing from the original spelling has been falsified, then you'll be told that we are both edit warring. If the party does attend to that point, then you'll be told that you're trolling or somesuch. —SlamDiego_←T 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)