Talk:List of unsolved problems in economics

AfD Result Notice

This article was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 20 August 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 18:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

General Discussion

"How does price formation occur" -- this sounds like a really silly question. Somebody makes a sticker. Where is the problem?

The problem is, we don't really understand how a firm determines what price to price a product at. Do firms use value added pricing? Do firms analyze demand curves to determine elasticity and revenue maximizing price? Or do they somehow estimate profit maximizing price? Also, in theory, in a competitive market prices adjust so that demand = supply, however, no single firm ever changes it's price, they just take price as given by the market, so how do prices ever adjust? --144.214.42.129 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but in the end different entitites do it differently. Would it be better to pose this problem "Classify all pricing methods." or "Classify all viable pricing methods."

There are very few good models of price formation in a competitive equalibrium. If you feel that this is trivial, the field would greatly appriciate your contribution. Of the listed open questions, this is the only one I have heard directly mentioned in a grad level course as an important open question.

"Is the money supply endogenous?" That's a classic case of economists asking the wrong question. Would you ask if the supply of GM stock is endogenous? Would you ask if the supply of call options on GM stock is endogenous? You wouldn't bother with either question, because a more fruitful question is "What determines the value of GM stock and call options?" In both cases, the answer hinges mostly on the assets backing the stock or options. The same is true of money. The value of green paper dollars is determined by the assets and liabilities of the Fed (See '[Real Bills Doctrine]'), and the value of checking account dollars is determined by the assets and liabilities of the private banks that issued them. Economics is not a science, so I would dispute the inclusion of this item in the unsolved problems category.

Economics is a science, but lets not have a dispute about that here. Enough to say that economists believe that economics is a science, so lets just take their word for it. --144.214.42.129 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make a quick point: In American English "science" usually refers to natural sciences, such as biology, physics and math. Those are often perceived as more accurate due to a better ability to prove theories by observation, experiment or mathematical proof. That was probably what was meant by the first writer. However, economics is generally included in the field of social sciences which is what it most certainly is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdirk (talk • contribs) 09:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. In American English, "science" is different from the "natural sciences"-- that's why we have the phrases "natural sciences" and "social sciences" to distinguish these fields from all of science. The only place where "science" refers only to the natural sciences is within the natural sciences. Indeed, using the definition suggested above (an "ability to prove theories by observation, experiment or mathematical proof"), economics is more of a science than some of the natural sciences. YardsGreen (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"What is the proper size and scope of government?" I think the issue has pretty much been dealt with at the theoretical level (Externalities, Second Best, Public Goods). The problem is that reality is too fuzzy to answer the question exactly.

"What is the proper size and scope of government?" This is more a philosophical than economic question. Economics can potentially identify what government maximizes production, but that isn't necessarily the "proper" one.

This is a horrible article

The greatest unsolved problem of economics is to distinguish communists, Rubinomicists, etc, from legitimate economists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

This article needs a more appropriate name

I wouldn't call these problems unsolved problems - most of the "problems" listed are economic issues with competing explanations. As far as I know many of the unsolved problems, or rather debate, in research economics concern with the empirical measurement of theoretical concepts. The lack of citations - in where have people acknowledged that these are "unsolved problems" - also makes this list looking rather dubious. About a decade ago there is a "column" in the Journal of Economic Perspectives where a author discussed some observations where they cannot find any explanations. A list such as this is supposed to be a good representation of what is going on in economics research. Therefore a list derived from reputable sources such as JEP or refereed journals with high impact factors would be convincing, blogs written by well respected economists (or well downloaded / high ranking economists from the IDEA website) is also acceptable, but all other magazines should be ruled out or only seen as secondary sources. Pelikan400119:34 6 June 2008 UTC

Post by Notsneaky referring to this page. Criticisms

http://notsneaky.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-should-top-unsolved-problems-in.html

Antagonist (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't finish this with the current title

I can't "finish" this article (I wanted to either today or tomorrow) because of the recently changed title. I used the 13 problems as a base, but this article wasn't going to only be that. For example, the equity premium puzzle isn't one of his problems. Can someone change the title back so I can fix it (I don't know how) Thanks Seels (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can change an article name by using the "move" tab. However, I don't suggest doing that without some discussion first, because the name change was part of the outcome of the AfD discussion. I suggested the name change and only one other editor explicitly endorsed the idea, so the name change doesn't have any great consensus behind it. Still, I think you should discuss before changing it back.

My reasoning for the name change is that I don't know of any well-recognized collection of "unsolved problems in economics", so it seems to me that creating an article on that topic might be hopelessly WP:OR. On the other hand, focusing on Morgenstern's "critical points" isn't OR, even if it leaves out some things which you feel belong. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can change it back, but as far as I can tell cretog is right. There isn't any good contemporary list of 'unsolved problems' for a variety of reasons, not least the ones I laid out in the AfD. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)