Talk:Market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Market is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.


WikiProject: Business & Economics
Here are some business and economics related tasks you can do:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch

Contents

[edit] early discussion

"The traditional market is a city square where traders set up stalls and buyers browse the merchandise. This kind of market is very old, and countless such markets are still in operation around the whole world. In the USA such markets fell out of favor..."

Such markets are the primary way commerce is set up in the US. Commercial plazas and shopping malls are perfect examples of traditional markets. Considering the millions of Americans that visit these markets daily, how can it be said that they fell out of favor?

Of course they aren't. You don't seem to understand the non-US usage of the term. An American shopping mall is as good an example of a traditional market as Wal-Mart is an example of a mom and pop shop. Bhoeble 00:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of a mess

This article is a bit of a mess because it is about such a wide range of things. It needs to be reorganised and probably split in two. Bhoeble 00:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making this article useful

Part about "Economic markets and marketspaces" needs to be merged into Financial markets, and the rest of the article merged to Marketplace (current article by that name is more or less useless). This article should then be used as disambig page. Who's in?

Support
  1. Dijxtra 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Durantalk 11:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. M.J.L.Chapman says Aye!: 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. In everyday English the normal term for a retail market is market, not marketplace. Hawkestone 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment

Seems logical - Duran

[edit] jumping in way late

Apparently this page in not on my watchlist. Anyway, there simply needs to be an article here to describe what a market is and its permutations. Markets, as in spaces in which items are traded for other items/currency, are pretty fundamental. I will take a stab at it at some point, but it looks like the "economic model" article actually has the beginning of a general definition. - BanyanTree 15:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, after not hearing any objections, I merged Market (economics) here and tried to get a general article started. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion from Talk:Market (economics)

A market can be seen as a place (sometimes virtual) where prices are discovered and negociated. It can be organised in different ways: Sellers can say publicly their price. It can be auctions, reverse-auctions, etc... It would be very interesting to describe how interaction can be organised between economic actors.

New models are also possible. On a barter market for example, it is now possible to let actors make a commitment to exchange, keeping secret this commitment, and let a computer find a compromise that proposes a contract that makes the profit maximum and distributing the profit made by the relation equally between co-contractants. This model is prototyped on http://www.openbarter.net

[edit] Weakness of sides in markets and internal norms and limitations

I had removed the following line from this article in relation to skewed markets, The same is true for the inverse condition when one side is specially weak instead of strong, fragmented or underpowered, the sellers or the buyers (even if the underpowerment aspect is less treated in the literature or media). I am admittedly not a professional economist, but this is very confusing, as the baseline assumption of economics is that neither buyers nor sellers are especially powerful, and therefore create a "perfect" market.

If you understand that when a strong side as a monopoly exists, a market is controled by the powerful, surely you can understand that if a side is weak the other side will be dominant. This is usually not talked about in general bussiness literature and general media since the weak and underpowered side is the general public, and the idea is to get better control of the purchase process, not think and talk about how the weak is weak, but how the strong is strong without explicitly mentioning a weak side. Although this weak side is very much studied in specialist literature, called "consumer behaviour", the objetive of this scientific branch is to know how the consumer behaves, to make consumers buy the way the big sellers wants. Pablo2garcia 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have similar thoughts about this paragraph that has been reinserted:

Markets are also many times closed for entry to one or both sides. Either by some sort of human norms many times internal to one or both of the market parties. Or by the practical requirements to interact in that market, some controllable and some less so (as location or size). There are always many norms around any market, even a free market, since there are many things that can happen and the norms try at the same time to reduce the possible outcomes and to make the exchange conditions in all possibilities agreeable and better for one or both parties.

I couldn't think of any examples off the top of my head and feel that this crosses the line from general to ambiguous. Could the writer reword for clarity? I simply do not understand what is being said here. - BanyanTree 18:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have put back a paragraph and a line I contributed and were deleted:

"The same is true for the inverse condition when one side is fragmented or underpowered, the sellers or the buyers (even if this losing aspect is less treated in the literature or media)."

"Markets are also many times closed to entry for one or both sides, either by some sort of human norms many times internal to one of the market parties, or by the practical requirements to interact in that market some controllable and some less so (as location or size). There are always many norms around any market, even a free market, since there are many things that can happen and the norms try at the same time to reduce the possible outcomes and to make the exchange conditions in all possibilities agreeable and better for one or both parties."

I have let go another paragraph which effectivly was just talking about general limitations to knowledge as BanyanTree pointed out when he or she deleted all my contris.

I belive my contributions point out a deeper understanding of markets. Things well known by scholars but not so spread about as the interested enterprise point of view. The fact that a market can have a strong side as in a monopoly, is always talked about, but the situation where one side is weak is not addressed, being obviously also a reason for "market failiure". Also the idea of "free market" is usually directed to talk about external limitations on the market and nothing is said about limitations and norms with an internal origin. Pablo2garcia 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The dialogue begins. Think about when you grab something and put it in your basket. ¿How much time did you spend in that purchase choice? ¿What information did you have? ¿Did you ask for help to experts in that purchase? In all those questions, for a particular purchase, even of a car, the seller has invested much more time, money and expert knowledge than you. You might even have no other knowledge available than the writing around the product and that other "knowledge" of ads he produced. Pablo2garcia 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Addressing your two paragraphs on purchase choice, I would prefer to simply refer the reader to the article consumer behaviour, rather than try to explain that article here. I propose substituting the line about the strong and the weak with: "While economic theory assumes that identical goods or services will be bought only according to price, sellers attempt to alter consumer behaviour through methods such as branding."
Do not agree at all. Please explain why do you oppose to speak of the possibility of one side being weak, since it is strictily important and central to the market reality. Pablo2garcia 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)\
I'm afraid we must be having a problem of word choice, as I obviously do not understand what you mean by "weak". The article already mentions monopoly and oligopoly, as examples of failed markets. I assume that you agree that these examples where a seller or sellers may dictate prices to buyers are examples of "weak buyers". Similarly, it mentions monopsony, where a single buyer is able to dictate prices to the sellers, which is an example of "weak sellers". - BanyanTree 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak means weak. The cases of monopoly and oligopoly, talk about a powerful few, but it is also possible to have a broader number of sellers (or buyers) that are better prepared than the other side. Examples... supermarkets, trade between informed and uninformed (imagine as example the trading with indians and new settlers in westerns, that is films). If you are not willing to see what I mean this make take long, but I see it as simple. Please try to understand my words and not reduce them to yours. Pablo2garcia 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that this article makes a point of stating Economic models assume that such knowledge is perfect, including in knowledge of alternatives and other factors affecting the proposed sale/purchase, which is obviously not the case. There are clearly all manner of ways in which real-world markets are not economically-perfect and, rather than make this article a laundry list of the hundreds of exceptions and interpretations of those exceptions, I would prefer to link readers onward to the relevant articles as smoothly as possible. This is not to say that this article couldn't do with a bit more of a critical tone but details need to be pushed down the article hierarchy as much as possible. - BanyanTree 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
¿What is "economically-perfect"? Without my contribution it seems that economical perfection is something to do with the sellers side. Speaking mostly of sellers, of non interference of outside forces from the market to bring a "free market", and not speaking about the relations between sellers and buyers, as if inside the market everything was plain and simple. This is a big error, and an interested error, since the already prevailing superiority of big sellers do not want to speak and develop the idea of the relation between sellers and buyers, and the fact that there exist norms and limitations created inside the market. Pablo2garcia 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read the article Perfect competition for the use of the word "perfect" in economics. If you are taking as a starting point that sellers can influence prices, then you are already not in a perfect market, in the economic sense, and the pure market model described here no longer applies. - BanyanTree 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I see it plain ridiculous to speak only of "economically-perfect" markets in this article. They are so simple, unhistoric and untrue that five lines would do. I suggest you create an article about "economically perfect markets" instead. I remind you that the opening line in this article is: "A market is a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange." I see it apropiate to speak about some types of economic analysis (one of which would be "economically-perfect markets"), but not at all to reduce this article about a very important social reality since the beginning of written history to a specific economic model of markets. Pablo2garcia 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
For the idea of norms internal to markets think about bank products, or ask in a grocery post in a street market how do different traders get along and if there are any problems and if there are norms to follow. Pablo2garcia 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot do that as it would constitute original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Please explain this line of reasoning and how it relates to markets in general. - BanyanTree 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I was answering your comment "I couldn't think of any examples off the top of my head", not opening a wikipedia investigation. I belive thinking or asking people about things is not forbidden in Wikipedia. I wanted you to think if there might exist rules between posts in a grocery market, or if there are norms to know about in a bank product. Pablo2garcia 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Would rewording to specify that this article is about "market" in the sense used in economic models and theory, rather than as real world case studies of markets, be acceptable? You seem to think that this article actually explains a particular market structure, when it does not and is not intended to. - BanyanTree 20:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I answered this above. I oppose completly. This is a social phenomenon, as stated in the opening line of the article, with a vast history and crucial to mankind. Your reduction can have its own space in a "perfect market models" article or the like, but not be the only thing addressed in this article. That is my opinion. Pablo2garcia 18:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that there are many related ideas being separated into threads so am retabbing here.

Here is my perspective on this article and your stance.

  1. You appear to want an article explaining the actual functioning and development of markets.
  2. Such an article would be useful and welcome on the wiki.
  3. This entire article (Market) is written from the perspective of economic theory.
  4. I know because I wrote the entire article from scratch because it was previously a disambiguation page.
  5. You have told me to start a "perfect markets model" article. This is that article.
  6. You are adding into the middle of this article about the theoretical market allusions to actual examples without actually stating those examples.
  7. This is confusing.
  8. When I have asked you for examples, you have made vague reference to supermarkets and the old west.
  9. You would have much more credibility if you could reference specific market structures that have been studied by economists interested in the behavior of markets.
  10. I advise you to start an article at History of markets, Divergence between model and actual markets or some similar title
  11. I am reverting you as I have left the article in your preferred version for several weeks as you prepare a response and you continue repeating the same ambiguities.
    BanyanTree 19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weakness of sides in markets and internal norms and limitations (redundant)

I have put back a paragraph and a line I contributed and were deleted:

"The same is true for the inverse condition when one side is fragmented or underpowered, the sellers or the buyers (even if this losing aspect is less treated in the literature or media)."

"Markets are also many times closed to entry for one or both sides, either by some sort of human norms many times internal to one of the market parties, or by the practical requirements to interact in that market some controllable and some less so (as location or size). There are always many norms around any market, even a free market, since there are many things that can happen and the norms try at the same time to reduce the possible outcomes and to make the exchange conditions in all possibilities agreeable and better for one or both parties."

I have let go another paragraph which effectivly was just talking about general limitations to knowledge as BanyanTree pointed out when he or she deleted all my contris.

I belive my contributions point out a deeper understanding of markets. Things well known by scholars but not so spread about as the interested enterprise point of view. The fact that a market can have a strong side as in a monopoly, is always talked about, but the situation where one side is weak is not addressed, being obviously also a reason for "market failiure". Also the idea of "free market" is usually directed to talk about external limitations on the market and nothing is said about limitations and norms with an internal origin. Pablo2garcia 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested - both Pablo2garcia and I apparently wrote the above sections using new section link so didn't realize we were doing so simulataneously.  :-)
Pablo2garcia, do you want to merge these two sections for clarity or would you prefer if we discuss it using one of the two? - BanyanTree 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't really care. But would like to keep my section title existing since is more explicit. Pablo2garcia 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll reply above as you've already started there. - BanyanTree 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass market

"Mass market" is missing. It was unnoticed for quite some time because it was a redirect to "mass marketing", which is totally wrong, and I deleted it. (obviously everybody knows what mass market is, and didn't check the article). BTW "mass marketing" also requires serious rework. Unfortunately I can be only a whistleblower in this area of knowledge. `'mikka (t) 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] public call to revise critically this article

Just want to bring to notice that this article is flawed in view point. The supposedly economical view point to this article is in truth a "rich man" economical view point. Or an american big company "economical market view".

From long ago, economical scholars and real life economists, no longer think or anylize markets as ideal places where there are no power struggles or were forces in each side are equal, or were information is equally distributed.

BanyanTree and some others share an old gone vision of markets, also very actively blocking other non-big-company alligned views (apart from trying to convey that markets do not affect people, or can be made by them).

The start definition of economics:

Economics, as a social science, studies human choice behavior and how it affects the production, distribution, and consumption of scarce resources. Economics studies how individuals and societies seek to satisfy needs and wants through incentives, choices, and allocation of scarce resources. Alfred Marshall in the late 19th century informally described economics as "the study of man in the ordinary business of life".

And in this light markets, from an "economic" view point also, have people in them. And people might be missinformed or have less power to negotiate or act in markets, thus resulting in practical outcomes. BanyanTree and others, only want to talk about the nicer words and lights of markets and hide people. If buyers have less negotiation power in a certain market this affects their "behaviour" in that market, clearly bringing different results than if they had equal negociation power or more than sellers. They also hide the idea that "efficient outcome" can me mesured for one side, for both, or for none, but markets go on all the same. And that no theory has yet put foward a way to sum the utility for sellers and buyers in markets where one of the sides uses "the product" or "service" for their own lives without reusing it completly to enter a new sale or sellable production.

In short: peoples utility of tomatoes to eat, or of medical atention, have never to date been summed up with the utility for an enterprise to sell that tomatoe or that medical service.

Messures of how price change or other "market variables" as presentation or points of sale, have been messured againt demand of the sale from buyers, but NEVER with actual utility for users.

Then when you talk about adjusting markets to even "utilities" for both sides, you are talking about different substances being leveled.

—

In the opening line:

A market is, as defined in economics, a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services. Along with a right to own property, it is one of the two key institutions that organize trade. Allowing markets to arrive at a pareto efficient outcome is one of the key components of capitalism.

why include?:

, as defined in economics,

It is unnecessary alltogether. Markets are in any view:

a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover information and carry out a voluntary exchange of goods or services.

I will delete this unnecessary commentary. And try to present (in what seems will be an organized battle on his side, and a less organized in my side) what many other economic scholars and market profesionals think and theorize about markets. Pablo2garcia 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

Critique of the text as of 22:19, 25 October 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market&oldid=83725622

The function of a market requires, at a minimum, that both parties expect to become better off as a result of the transaction.

What is "function of a market". If the condition were not to apply ¿would the market disapear?

Better:

Parties trading expect to become better off as a result of the transaction.

—

Markets generally rely on price adjustments to provide information to parties engaging in a transaction, so that each may accurately gauge the subsequent change of their welfare.

accurately? why? does one party need to be accurate in their messurement? if one party cant achive good meassurement? is "price" all we need to know to be accurate? if you buy a car in a market, how do you know your future welfare by knowing the price? if you buy shares of some company, is price all you need to know to messure your welfare? then buying stocks for 10 dollars is making you 10 dollars of welfare? or would you rather know everything about the future of the company? even better, everything about the future of the stocks in the stockmarket?

—

In less sophisticated markets, such as those involving barter, individual buyers and sellers must engage in a more lengthy process of haggling in order to gain the same information.

If process is more lengthy and involves showing of the product, it seems to me more sophisticated.

—

Markets are efficient when the price of a good or service attracts exactly as much demand as the market can currently supply.

How many mind numbling talk about how to get "efficient markets" with different conditions must we tolerate in this article?

Markets are efficient, when the owner of the market (not the parts trading) thinks that it is getting the best result for him or her. Who owns the stock-market of NY? Sometimes this means that some product that could be sold in the market is left out.

Also terms are terrible missplaced: markets supply demand? or markets supply transactions?

—

The chief function of a market, then, is to adjust prices to accommodate fluctuations in supply and demand in order to achieve allocative efficiency.

Markets do not adjust prices. People (or agents) in markets do.

The word "efficiency" is again used, as if having it near gave free heating for your house, or your economic phrase.

—

An economic system in which goods and services are exchanged by market functions is called a market economy. An alternative economic system in which non-market forces (often government mandates) determine prices are called planned economies or command economies. The attempt to combine socialist ideals with the incentive system of a market is known as market socialism.

What is a function? What is a "market function"? Please open up that article and explain to us, and then we will see if it has any sense to use that word to talk about markets. Maybe a "market function" is just a "market", but you are all lost, or want to lose us in the way.


—

more to come. Pablo2garcia 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMarket_400f.html"