| Revision as of 19:50, 10 February 2013 editXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits →The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:10, 13 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,268,041 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Business}}, {{WikiProject Capitalism}}, {{WikiProject Economics}}, {{WikiProject Finance}}, {{WikiProject Retailing}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (23 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|class=stub|auto=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=stub|auto=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Capitalism|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance|class=stub|auto=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Investment|class=stub|auto=yes|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Retailing}} |
|
{{WikiProject Retailing|importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Consumer sovereignty/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
=='Consumer sovereignty' does not refer to demand for labor== |
|
== Why consumer sovereignty doctrine is questionable in a free market economy == |
|
Last paragraph (below) of the article was deleted: |
|
|
:Does the doctrine of consumer sovereignty imply that the consumers of labor (the employers) are the sovereigns over the time supplied by workers? The neoclassical school, would argue no since workers can choose which employer to work for (as long as the employer will have them). Since the demand for labor is a ] what workers produce and how they do it is a direct result of the demand for products, and thus they are sovereigns, albeit at secondhand. Conversely, the ] school argues that the concentration of ] in the hands of a small minority (the ]s) means that the ] is the sovereign in both product and labor markets. This is reinforced by the normal existence of the "]" which restricts workers' ability to choose between jobs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why consumer sovereignty doctrine is questionable in a free market economy ] (]) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
In standard usage (e.g. Campbell R. McConnell and Brue, ''Economics'', 14th ed, p. 68), 'consumer sovereignty' refers to demand by "consumers" of goods and services. "Consumers of labor" above as a synonym for employers is non-standard usage. So, the above violates ] in adapting consumer sovereignty to the demand for labor by employees. --] 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Is it? The concept depends on the presence of competition, which is a sign of a relatively free market. —] (]) 02:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
== huh? == |
|
|
|
|
|
: ''The term can prescribe what consumers should be permitted, or describe what consumers are permitted.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Eh? What does this mean? —] (]) 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeah, I don't really understand it either. So I added a quite understandable passage by Bastiat. --] (]) 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also - Scroogenomics, tax choice == |
|
|
|
|
|
I added '']'' and ] but Rubin removed them because they are "tangentially and indirectly relevant". Does anybody else not see the relevance? --] (]) 21:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes. Scroogenomics pertains to how individuals buy gifts for their families and friends, not to the overall concept. It would fit better in ]. Tax choice is clearly not relevant as it deals with a political topic. – ] (]) 21:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::What's the argument of Scroogenomics? Have you read the reliable sources that I just added to this entry? --] (]) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism == |
|
|
|
|
|
Rich removed the following relevant and reliable source from the further reading section... |
|
|
|
|
|
* Mario J. Rizzo and Douglas Glen Whitman - |
|
|
|
|
|
Here was the explanation that he provided..."rizzo does not discuss CS (only has footnote pertaining to Waldfogel's article)" |
|
|
|
|
|
Rich, if Rizzo wasn't discussing CS in his paper...then what was he discussing? --] (]) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
