Talk:Microeconomics

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..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as Top-importance on the importance scale

How is this article a stub if it's so long?

There are several basics that need to be worked on. First is basic consumer theory (indifference curves and how these cause a response to income and price changes) and producer theory (isoquants(sp?) marginal cost, etc), and how they combine to create demand and supply curves. Right now we have basically a dictionary with lots of terms, but no real link between them, because the underlying producer and consumer theory is missing. I mean, how can you possibly explain natural monopoly or factors of production adequately without a decent understanding of how producer theory works in the competitive state? I plan on working on these topics as I have time in the upcomming months, but I know that there are quite a few other people in wikipedia who know as much as I do on microeconomics topics. Jrincayc 15:27 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Added Consumer theory. I will start working on Producer theory soon. By the way, if I any of the microeconomics articles are confusing or need more examples, feel free to comment in the talk page or in my talk page. Jrincayc 13:09 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Barriers to entry

Should we add an article about "barriers to entry", or just leave it under the general spectrum of the other articles?

Sure, if you're got enough material for it, it could stand its own article. Make sure to check what else is out there, we have market power and I'm sure some other related material. If you do write it, make sure to cite your sources. - Taxman 02:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
The study of monopoly is important for microeconomics, especially given the fact that it can affect just ONE market, so the scope here is entirely appropiate. It's also a great example of a violation of the one fundamental assumption of competitive markets - the presence of many producers, suppliers. That being said, Barriers to Entry should be at least be casually mentioned as it relates to monopoly, but doesn't need to be fully explained within the article - Nuance13x 08:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)B.A. (Economics)

[edit] Monopolistic pricing

In this section of the article the image titled "Monopoly_pricing.png" is actually inaccurate. The shaded area is classed as profit for the monopoly, while it's actually the producer surplus. Profit of this magnitude would only occur if the firm had zero costs (which we know is not true). To calculate profit we need to know the average total cost and plot the curve on the graph. Until then, this article is lacking. I'll try and dig up something to fix the problem (i am computer illiterate, so it might be a while  :)) Dupz 14:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Length

This article is far too long and attempts to cover too many topics. I admit that I don't know how to break it up, but I'm listing it for cleanup. Melchoir 00:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I can't see from the mess that is the page history who is responsible, but the pag is so long because it contains full copies of other pages such as Supply and demand and Tax. - Taxman Talk 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of this could be moved to wikibooks- the microeconomics wikibook.... Wikibooks:User:Paul Lynch

[edit] Taxation

I don't think taxation is that important to the realm of microeconomics. Its impact on industry level markets should be addressed, but it's not an essential part of the topic (unless I slept through the Micro class on taxation, possible). Sections on topics like the "history of taxation" can go, especially when they are on other pages. I'll remove those soon unless someone objects.--Bkwillwm 19:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Agreed, a lot of the stuff doesn't make sense (history, who pays, morality.) The types of taxes and comparative statics stuff should stay, however. Feinstein 16:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Mass clean up

Ok, I am going to begin a mass clean up - starting with deletion of all the duplicated sh-t. Once I finish that, I am going to restructure this page into something sensible. This might take a few days. novacatz 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Well I cut down the article from a (whopping) 156k to less than 40k now (not a bad 1/2 hours work). Unfortuately, it looks like this article has no real content whatsoever. It is getting late, so I am not going to try and hunt down the source of the other text currently (but I strongly suspect it is copies as well). I will think of some way of doing a nice writeup-and-summary when I have a chance (still have a few days). novacatz 17:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Much longer than Macroeconomics

See how different the page for Macroeconomics is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics Kmarinas86 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The microeconomics article is a cacophonyKmarinas86 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) The article needs to first state the basic principles of microeconomics. And starting from those few priniciples, categorize the economic theories in relation to these fundamental prinicples.Kmarinas86

[edit] Cleanup

This article is currently a mess, which is a shame. I have some interest in helping to give it an overhaul, but I am not particularly knowledgeable on the topic (though I was an econ major for a while in college). If anyone wants to lead the way, I'd be happy help out, e.g., by improving a particular section. dbtfztalk 03:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Cleanup? This needs a complete rewrite. radek 08:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Proposal for Rewrite - an Outline

1. Definition, relation to economics as a whole, contrast with macro

2. Maybe some historical perspective. Marginal revolution. Walras. Marshall. Point out micro's de-emphass after Keynes and its resurgence with the Cowles Commission.

3. Coverage (this is the hard one)

3A Consumer Theory
3B Producer Theory
3C Partial Equilibrium
 3Ca Perfect Competition
 3Cb Imperfect Competition
  3Cb1 Monopoly
  3Cb2 Duopoly
  3Cb3 Monopolistic Competition
3D General equilibrium
  A lot of stuff here, probably best to link to relevant articles.
3E Information economics
  3E1 Assymetric info
  3E2 Search models
3F Something about Social Choice Theory, Representative Consumers, all that stuff
3G relatedly, micro foundations for macro models

And then.... radek 08:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I'm no expert. Might be a little overambitious for a single article, but we'll see. We should try to get the opinion of at least one other person who knows a lot about (micro)econ. I'll see if I can track such a Wikipedian down. dbtfztalk 08:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Requested feedback from User:Meelar, User:Mydogategodshat, User:Isomorphic, and User:Jrincayc. dbtfztalk 09:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite sounds reasonable. Jrincayc 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A re-write would be good. The current version is all over the place. I especially like the idea of adding historical context. This is the main article for the entire subject of macroeconomics, so we should try to keep it high-level and introductory. Heavy theory can go in more specialized articles. And we need to explain terms, even basic ones. The current article talks about surplus, but doesn't explain what surplus IS in the economic sense. One other thing: utility is central to microeconomics even more than to macro. It needs to be explained or at least linked to as soon as the article gets into theory. Isomorphic 23:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above. An icky, icky, article as it stands. The Land 16:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have gone through with the Holy Red Pen. Much of the out-of-place verbiage was forked from other articles. Now only to improve the article as it stands. The Land 17:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the rewrite is still needed on this article as its still quite a mess. For now I will tag it as start if that's ok. Karina.l.k 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Price theory"

I've added a reference to "price theory" at the very top of this article: that is the Chicago school (economics) term used for "microeconomics." Jeremy Tobacman 12:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "price theory" is a synonym for "microeconomics", so I don't think your change should stand in the long run. However, given the absence of any "price theory" article and the non-mention of "supply and demand" in the body of the microeconomics text, I'm not going to be the one to delete it. The fundamental question is "Why is the most successful tool of microeconomics being neglected in Wikipedia?" DCDuring 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question for the knowledgeable

Would the floating of a country's currency be considered a macroeconomic reform or a microeconomic reform? Thanks. Timeshift 06:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand...on the other hand -- never ask an economist such a question. Nonetheless, I suspect most would argue such a change would be macroeconomic. It would definitely have economy-wide impacts and thus suitable to macroeconomic analysis. On the other hand (I told you so) the theory of money is tied much more directly to microeconomic models than say a theory of the business cycle. If your thinking editing some material on such policies, I head to the macro subjects. My two cents Corebreeches 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corebreeches (talk • contribs)