Talk:History of economics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to History of economics —Mets501 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

History of economic thought → History of economics — Should be moved to History of economics for parallelism with the other History of science articles. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• support Septentrionalis 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Peter O. (Talk) 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I wasn't gonna be obstinate about this, but we can't really speak of a history of economics that covers Aristotle and other pre-SmithEdgeworthian philosophers. Also, the article (probably rightfully) ignores game theory, econometrics and almost the whole technical side of economics, so the term "economic thought" is more apt than "economics". ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | Addendum if I'm the only one disagreeing we should move. ~ trialsanderrors 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems rather fine-drawn; most of Aristotle's economic thought is in the Oeconomica. Septentrionalis 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Moved to discussion.
  • History of physics says less than this article about the second half of the twentieth century. Septentrionalis 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• The problem is that the term "economics" is really comparatively young and is sometimes meant to stand for "technical inquiry into the economy". Although I don't think laypersons know the distinction or care. ~ trialsanderrors 03:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Shouldn't this be a merge? (Feel free to leave me a message if I forget to check back.) Sofeil 11:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • History of economics redirects here. Septentrionalis 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Moved here from survey

I know. My distinction is between economy and economics. I should've said pre-Edgeworthian since Adam Smith to Karl Marx dabbled in (political) (o)economy. Economics technically is only the part of the history since the late-19th century. Here's what Robert Heilbroner writes on William Stanley Jevons (who published the General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy): "Perhaps even more noteworthy, he planned to write (although he did not live to do so) a book called Principles of Economics: it is significant that political economy was now called economics". But I don't really feel strongly about it, if the consensus is to go with the common term and accept the imprecision that goes with it I can live with it. I just wanted to bring it up as a point to consider. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But Oeconomica is a (neuter) plural; and economics is formed after it. Septentrionalis 19:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As is economy. The point is here that economics is ambiguous, it could retroactively be applied to all of history or just stand for the history since ca. 1880. "Economic thought" doesn't have that problem. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As for moving, give it the five days, and I'll think about this. Not convinced now. Septentrionalis 03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.