Talk:Alfred Marshall
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as High-importance on the importance scale |
Ţhis guy is sweet
Marshall needs more material. Pick up any Microeconomics text book today and it will be a knock-off of Samuelson's rewrite of Marshall, he is that influential. -E Plumlee (11/10)
I totally agree, he is a sweet guy.-HAMMIE!!!!
[edit] Supply and Demand
Not to take away from Marshall, who was a sweet guy, but I understand Cournot was the first to derive supply and demand curves, back in 1848. Marshall just popularized it. I don't have a reference handy but I think it's pretty well established in History of Economic Thought literature radek 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Original Research Badly Written, Really?
Radeksz removed my commentray on Marshall's critics, and the removal is not neutral. Perhaps the commentary was badly written. In that case, the edit should have improved the writing. I am adding a section named 'Marshall's Analytical Approach'. Gani 13:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't just that it was badly written. It was basically an opinion peace (not to say a 'rant') full of POV and original research. Stuff like "partial equilibrium is easy but general equilibrium is hard" and "Here's the difference between a partial derivative and a partial equilibrium..." just doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. If you want a put in a section on Marshall's critics or criticisms of partial equilibrium that's fine. But it should be sourced and NPOV - i.e. report what the criticisms are without 1) making up some of your own, and 2) saying the critics are right and Marshall wrong. In fact, it's best of all to discuss this sort of thing on the talk page first.radek 22:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess I now see why wikipedia is not the right place for original reseach. ThanksGani 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merchant Taylors'
1) It's Merchant Taylors' School, not Taylor's 2) The school was at Suffolk Lane in the City of London until 1875, when it moved to Charterhouse Square. It only moved out of the City to Northwood in 1933.
82.21.253.16 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote of the letter from the main article seems wrong [maybe it's about other letter, I don't know]
This is what I have found:
“But I know I had a growing feeling in the later years of my work at the subject that a good mathematical theorem dealing with economic hypothesis was very unlikely to be good economics: and I went more and more on the rules - (1) use mathematics as a short hand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them till you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life. (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can’t succeed in four, burn three. This last I did it often… I think you should do all you can to prevent people from using mathematics in cases in which the English language is as short as the mathematical.”
The quote is taken from: Weintraub, Roy, E.: “How Economics became a mathematical science”, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2002, page 22, which cites Groenewegen, 1995, 413 And: it is about a letter of Alfred Marshall addressed to Arthur Bowley from 27 February 1906.
Cristiann (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
