Talk:Marginalism

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

Template:Maintained

Economics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]