Misplaced Pages

Talk:Consumer sovereignty: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:05, 10 February 2013 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,510 edits →The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism← Previous edit Revision as of 20:15, 10 February 2013 edit undoXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits →The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism: NADNext edit →
Line 38: Line 38:


:That's a fruitless avenue of discourse, Graphica. If you disagree with Rich's assertion, simply . It's not appropriate for you to assign chores to Rich. Please consider. ] ] 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC) :That's a fruitless avenue of discourse, Graphica. If you disagree with Rich's assertion, simply . It's not appropriate for you to assign chores to Rich. Please consider. ] ] 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
::Why would Rizzo have a footnote that isn't relevant to some passage in the paper? Either you didn't read Rich's assertion...or... Which is it?

::How did Rich find the footnote...but not the relevant passage? Let me guess...he simply searched the paper for "consumer sovereignty" rather than actually read through the paper in order to see if any of the material was relevant to the concept. This article is about the concept...not the term itself. Did you know that ]? --] (]) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:15, 10 February 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconRetailing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing
Retailing To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

'Consumer sovereignty' does not refer to demand for labor

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 derived demand 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 Marxian school argues that the concentration of purchasing power in the hands of a small minority (the capitalists) means that the bourgeoisie is the sovereign in both product and labor markets. This is reinforced by the normal existence of the "reserve army of labor" which restricts workers' ability to choose between jobs.

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 Misplaced Pages:No original research in adapting consumer sovereignty to the demand for labor by employees. --Thomasmeeks 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

huh?

The term can prescribe what consumers should be permitted, or describe what consumers are permitted.

Eh? What does this mean? —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really understand it either. So I added a quite understandable passage by Bastiat. --Xerographica (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See also - Scroogenomics, tax choice

I added Scroogenomics and Tax choice but Rubin removed them because they are "tangentially and indirectly relevant". Does anybody else not see the relevance? --Xerographica (talk) 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 Consumer spending. Tax choice is clearly not relevant as it deals with a political topic. – S. Rich (talk) 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? --Xerographica (talk) 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...

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? --Xerographica (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a fruitless avenue of discourse, Graphica. If you disagree with Rich's assertion, simply quote the passage from Rizzo that proves you correct and you will have prevailed. It's not appropriate for you to assign chores to Rich. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Why would Rizzo have a footnote that isn't relevant to some passage in the paper? Either you didn't read Rich's assertion...or... Which is it?
How did Rich find the footnote...but not the relevant passage? Let me guess...he simply searched the paper for "consumer sovereignty" rather than actually read through the paper in order to see if any of the material was relevant to the concept. This article is about the concept...not the term itself. Did you know that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories: