Talk:Binary economics: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Janos Abel
mNo edit summary
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
There was a useful discussion around an article on Binary Economics. An unresolved dispute occurred and as a result the article was withdrawn. However, the discussion had some important references to the fact that the issued raised in Binary Economics (a new paradigm of economic theory) need to be addressed.
{{subpages}}
 
There was a useful discussion around an article on Binary Economics. An unresolved dispute occurred and as a result the article was withdrawn by the original author. However, the discussion had some important references to the fact that the issued raised in Binary Economics (a new paradigm of economic theory) need to be addressed.


Is that discussion available somewhere for reference and possibly for another attempt to produce an article on the subject?
Is that discussion available somewhere for reference and possibly for another attempt to produce an article on the subject?
Line 6: Line 8:


[[User:Janos Abel|Janos Abel]] 06:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
[[User:Janos Abel|Janos Abel]] 06:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
:Ran a search for "binary economics" on google scholar. Gets 64 hits with 4-5 authors. So this is a tiny topic (cp. "fractional-reserve banking" got 725). Since CZ has only 93 economics articles, this would be lower than low priority I'd think. How about an article on "macroeconomics" or "econometrics," or maybe "pareto optimal" (24,000 hits)? That's my view. [[User:David Hoffman|David Hoffman]] 09:22, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, a reasonable standpoint. I was really hoping for some take up on the issue noted by Martin Baldwin-Edwards while discussing the problems of the article:
<blockquote>"... Notwithstanding all the above, I want to see a good entry on this topic (binary economics). The theoretical challenge to neo-classical and Keynesian economics may be muted, but its practical implications are important. In particular, wealth distribution as a key component in the functioning of capitalist economies is neglected in the classical literature. In my view, this problem is becoming increasingly visible across the world and may yet lead to new theoretical positions in mainstream economics. We have not yet reached that point, however...</blockquote>
[[User:Janos Abel|Janos Abel]] 11:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
::Hello Janos, sorry for my absence these last two weeks: I was away on a research trip. I will try to find someone who knows the topic well and is interested to write something for us. I think it will be possible. The relative marginality of binary economics in the mainstream literature does not mean that it should be excluded: my problem with the original article was how the topic was represented. Please be patient for a while, as I look for a solution! --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 15:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
:::Thank you, Martin, for confirming your awareness that something may be missing from orthodox economic theories. Any help with an acceptable presentation of b e (largely marginalized by academia for the past 70 years) will be appreciated. I am just a private student of bad economics, and of any viable alternatives on offer. -- [[User:Janos Abel|Janos Abel]] 06:53, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
== A stub for main article ==
Martin, this is not to preempt your above offer through impatience. I just think citizendium should have something on this development in economic theory claiming to explain the problem of wealth distribution which orthodox economic theory fails to explain and correct. When your search succeeds, the stub can be expanded, modified, or replaced.
[[User:Janos Abel|Janos Abel]] 08:57, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
No problem, Janos: thank you for putting something here. I have been a little tardy with this task -- apologies. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 11:02, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 07:10, 25 September 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition An economic paradigm based on the fact that most wealth is created by capital, managed and directed by humans. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Economics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

There was a useful discussion around an article on Binary Economics. An unresolved dispute occurred and as a result the article was withdrawn by the original author. However, the discussion had some important references to the fact that the issued raised in Binary Economics (a new paradigm of economic theory) need to be addressed.

Is that discussion available somewhere for reference and possibly for another attempt to produce an article on the subject?

Part of the difficulty lies in the paradigmatic nature of Binary economics: it is outside the conventional framework of economic thought (although it is not just original research). I believe that there must be a way of treating such "heretic" subjects and still comply with citizendium/wikipedia standards.

Janos Abel 06:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Ran a search for "binary economics" on google scholar. Gets 64 hits with 4-5 authors. So this is a tiny topic (cp. "fractional-reserve banking" got 725). Since CZ has only 93 economics articles, this would be lower than low priority I'd think. How about an article on "macroeconomics" or "econometrics," or maybe "pareto optimal" (24,000 hits)? That's my view. David Hoffman 09:22, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, a reasonable standpoint. I was really hoping for some take up on the issue noted by Martin Baldwin-Edwards while discussing the problems of the article:

"... Notwithstanding all the above, I want to see a good entry on this topic (binary economics). The theoretical challenge to neo-classical and Keynesian economics may be muted, but its practical implications are important. In particular, wealth distribution as a key component in the functioning of capitalist economies is neglected in the classical literature. In my view, this problem is becoming increasingly visible across the world and may yet lead to new theoretical positions in mainstream economics. We have not yet reached that point, however...

Janos Abel 11:40, 15 May 2007 (CDT)


Hello Janos, sorry for my absence these last two weeks: I was away on a research trip. I will try to find someone who knows the topic well and is interested to write something for us. I think it will be possible. The relative marginality of binary economics in the mainstream literature does not mean that it should be excluded: my problem with the original article was how the topic was represented. Please be patient for a while, as I look for a solution! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Thank you, Martin, for confirming your awareness that something may be missing from orthodox economic theories. Any help with an acceptable presentation of b e (largely marginalized by academia for the past 70 years) will be appreciated. I am just a private student of bad economics, and of any viable alternatives on offer. -- Janos Abel 06:53, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

A stub for main article

Martin, this is not to preempt your above offer through impatience. I just think citizendium should have something on this development in economic theory claiming to explain the problem of wealth distribution which orthodox economic theory fails to explain and correct. When your search succeeds, the stub can be expanded, modified, or replaced.

Janos Abel 08:57, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

No problem, Janos: thank you for putting something here. I have been a little tardy with this task -- apologies. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:02, 30 May 2007 (CDT)