Talk:History of economic thought/Draft

Chicago school

The Chicago school is probably the single most important source of economic thought in recent decades, as proven by all those Nobel prizes (and reaffirmed by obits of Friedman this year). It's impossible to omit--we had it covered in two sections (monetarism and micro). 07:42, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I do not intend to omit it, but I think that it deserves a less cursory treatment, so I intend to replace the existing test with an entry that will (I hope) do it justice. Nick Gardner 11:41, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Please don't delete work without talking it over first. CZ has strict rules about that. Richard Jensen 23:14, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I understand Nick to mean that he will ADD to the content, but perhaps he means something more complex. If there is any doubt, Nick, just paste the proposed new text here for approval. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:18, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I would not really worry about losing anything to what someone adds. Everything is there in the history. Stephen Ewen 04:15, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry: I have not made myself clear. I propose to give due weight to the contributions of members of the Chicago School, including Friedman, Coase and Stigler, (noting their membership of the School in each case) at various points in the sections on the neoclassicals and the monetarists (and I have been wondering whether to do a "New Classical" paragraph, giving them yet more weight). I shall not delete a word of the existing paragraph about the Chicago School until all of that is done, and I shall then invite views as to whether that paragraph is worth retaining. Nick Gardner 09:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

i suggest that the Chicago School is so cohesive and so important it needs it own section in any case. Richard Jensen 12:35, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Finis?

I have nothing further to add to this article. Nick Gardner 07:56, 10 November 2007 (CST)

I was wrong - I needed to add a paragraph on financial economics. Having done so, I think the article is complete and ready for approval..Nick Gardner 05:18, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Diagrams/images

Are there any diagrams illustrating any concepts that can be created for this article? --Robert W King 15:03, 8 January 2008 (CST)

I hope to add diagrams to the articles to which this article is linked. I think they will be too numerous to replicate here. Nick Gardner 05:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Naming system

The article naming system (or lack thereof) on this project makes my head spin. I seem to recall lots of articles of the form "Foo, History of", but here we have "History of foo". Most confusing. J. Noel Chiappa 12:08, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

This is the result of a long-standing dispute between Larry and Richard Jensen. We have taken the "Larry approach" here! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:21, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Citations

Many of the links in this article are to encyclopedias. I don't understand the point of that. Furthermore, most of the citations are not to sources that back up the claims made in the article, but to online editions, encyclopedias, or institutions. Shouldn't those sorts of references be moved to the external links page? Russell D. Jones 13:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no views about this, so I would be content with alternatives that are considered more helpful to the reader. Nick Gardner 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Classical Economics

The paragraph on Smith says that he "identified what he considered to be the economic drawbacks of all forms of taxation" without telling us what he thought those "drawbacks" were. In the paragraph on Malthus, it says "Evidence in support of his postulates was lacking at the time and they have since been found to be mistaken." By whom and when was Malthus found to be mistaken? Russell D. Jones 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)