Talk:Diminishing returns
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
[edit] cleanup requested
I'm only three weeks into my first economics class, so I don't feel at all qualified to adjust this, but it seems that the two major sections in the body of the article are merely restatements of each other. Am I missing something as to why the second example exists, if for any reason beyond using both dollars AND euros (sacrificing clarity and understanding for a non-USA bias, hah!)? It's confusing to say the least. --nick, 10/6/05 ___________________________________________
Plain English appreciated++' Is there a way to write some of this in simpler language? I'm not an Econ major and parts of this article may as well have been written in Greek. For example: "In economics, the term "marginal" is used to mean on the edge of productivity in a production system..." ----Chris 02/24/08
[edit] changing weights and measures
This is a good example, but I'm going to change the numbers:
- a kilogram of seed on one square meter is way too much
- a kilogram of seed should produce more than a kilogram of produce
[edit] application of term outside of economics
The law of Diminishing Returns can arguably apply(in both psychosocial and economic senses) to technological progress over time and to increasing social complexity.
[edit] Does The Title ==A law?== Require Cleanup?
100110100 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just beginign to learn economics and this is one of the most confusing wiki articles I've ever read, I notice it doen'st explain the CAUSE of diminishing returns
[edit] Deleted 2nd paragraph of "A law?" section
That paragraph is:
- For example, most people find that listening to the same piece of music over and over again during a day implies that each additional hearing is less pleasant than the previous one, at least after the initial stage of gaining familiarity with the piece. This is an example of diminishing marginal utility of the piece. (Case & Fair, 1999: pp. 135-137).
Perhaps it could be moved to another article or form the basis for a new article. 'Diminishing returns' in standard economic usage refers to a relation between a factor input (say labor) and output, not between consumption of a good and marginal utility. The deleted paragraph refers to the ""law" of 'diminishing marginal utility', which is different from 'decreasing returns'. Thomasmeeks 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Self-demonstration too subtle
The best example of the law of diminishing marginal returns is this page itself. The farm worker example should be clarified by stating that the "law" (which is quite a misnomer) applies only to the number of workers, i.e. increasing the number of workers will not necessarily increase the returns by the same proportion. However the "law" probably does not apply to all the inputs of the system, (i.e. workers, shovels, land, etc. etc.), as increasing all of these inputs together would almost certainly produce the same increase in return, unless the market is approaching saturation.
All in all, this article is more detrimental than it is helpful, unlike most other Wikipedia articles. This is clearly a diminishing return on the value of Wikipedia articles, and so this article demonstrates its point with itself. Unfortunately, this is far too subtle for most economists to appreciate.
[edit] "Law" or "Theory"
Law or Thoery? When I studied economics, we used to refer to it as Theory not law.
In my opinion: Diminishing marginal returns is a law, and I will attempt to disprove the fax machine example. The author is using Metcalfe's law, which says the value of a network increases as a square to the number of users. The more people who join a network, the law goes, the more valuable the network is. Well, is it not possible for the network to get so big and cumbersome it loses its value? Perhaps one could imagine a scenario where 500 googols of people had telephones. Perhaps the phone numbers would at that point get so large it would take a year to dial them. What would be the value of that network? No matter what network you use, you will have to use some form of notation to reach others, which could get out of hand on a cosmic scale. So, therefore, I argue that Metcalfes' law diminishes at a very tiny, tiny, tiny fractional rate but will indeed fall to the law of Diminishing Marginal returns at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A2470 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Example" section
On May 7 at 5:00 PDT, User:Asrultraz removed the entire section under "A Simple Example" without warning. I personally think the section is valuable for introducing the concept, and does a reasonably good job at it, but it may not match the tone of the rest of the article. Still, if anything it is the "Arguments for Diminishing Returns" section that is vague and unhelpful. Does anyone else think that one or both of these sections should be removed or redone? Jediknil 06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation needed
This article states what diminishing returns is and how it works, but then it doesn't explain WHY it works. Zero76 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 80 20 rule
Shouldn't this page mention the 80 20 (Pareto principle) rule? 77.99.57.229 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It is theory but true
Each variable resource added to the fixed resource --- at a certain point the output/returns will decrease. It is a simple theory and it is true. If it were not we could supply the world with corn from only a 1000 acres of land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.201.156 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
