This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xerographica (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 10 February 2013 (→The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism: NAD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:15, 10 February 2013 by Xerographica (talk | contribs) (→The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism: NAD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
'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...
- Mario J. Rizzo and Douglas Glen Whitman - The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism
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)
- All unassessed articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Stub-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- Automatically assessed Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Stub-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- Stub-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
- Automatically assessed Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- Unassessed Retailing articles
- NA-importance Retailing pages
- WikiProject Retailing articles