Talk:Economic equilibrium

Sweet spot (economics) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 December 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Economic equilibrium. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic equilibrium article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Great Famine (Ireland)#Food exports during Famine|food was exported]] The anchor (#Food exports during Famine) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Great Famine (Ireland)#Food exports during Famine|Great Famine (Ireland): Food exports to England]] The anchor (#Food exports during Famine) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

not just perfect competition

As I said below, the old version equated equilibrium with perfect competition which is clearly wrong. The concept of equilibrium is more of a general concept that applies also to Nash equilibrium (as in Cournot oligopoly etc). I introduced the more general concept. I will add the discussion of Cournot oligopoly and possibly the Keynesian cross. Byronmercury (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--OK, take your point that perfect competition is not the only equilibrium, but for a long time it was the only form of equilibrium and longer still the main one. It is therefore more than just an "example". But I agree, you need a more general approach which encompasses the Nash equilibrium and so on.

added Nash equilibrium. Simple version, I know, but avoided technicalities! will add some more on mormative properties (i.e. Nash equilibria, pareto optimality etc.)Byronmercury (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P4 proposed by Dr Dubey. I have deleted the proposed P4. Whilst it is not unreasonable point for some equilibria, it is not a general property. For example, in many economic models there might be no direct modelling of consumers. You can always add a section later about equilibrium and consumer rationality.Byronmercury (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

market equilibrium

The picture suggest that this page is talking about market equilibrium. I will add to the information here as such. 128.101.70.95 16:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

" The concept of equilibrium is also applied to describe and understand other sub-systems of the economy that do not follow the logic of supply and demand, for example, population growth. (If economic growth encourages population growth, and vice-versa, we might see this two-way relationship attaining balance or equilibrium.) This entry concerns only issues of supply and demand. " This came from this page. If this sentance says anything at all, it should be in the end as a linker to related topics. 128.101.70.95 16:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

Re this bit in the first paragraph of "Traits": "In most simple microeconomic stories of supply and demand in a market, we see a static equilibrium in a market; however, economic equilibrium can exist in non-market relationships and be dynamic. This example is also partial equilibrium, while equilibrium may be multi-market or general."

How about changing it to this:

"In most simple microeconomic stories of supply and demand in a market, we see a static equilibrium in a market; however, economic equilibrium can exist in non-market relationships and can be dynamic. Equilibrium may also be multi-market or general, as opposed to the partial equilibrium of a single market." --Coppertwig 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. Since no one objected, I went ahead and made this edit.

Also, the link to the disambiguation page Equilibrium needs to be disambiguated. --Coppertwig 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I wonder whether it would be a good idea to merge Static equilibrium (economics) and/or Competitive equilibrium with this page. --Coppertwig 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd delete Static equilibrium (economics) (its a stub and is redundent with Supply and demand. Competitive equilibrium looks like it is a sketch for an exposition of general equilibrium. That should probably be merged, either here or a similar location. Joel Kincaid 22:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think these articles should merge following brief edits. Dwilso 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: not a good idea. At the mement, the current "equilibrium" article focusses on just the competitive equiilibrium. I think we need to MOVE some of this page onto Competitive equilibrium and allow this page to look at a wider range of equilibria used in economics. In fact, this is done in the article "Equilibrium and Explanation" referenced at the bottom of the page, but not in the wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byronmercury (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

There have been some recent changes by a series of annonymous editors. One of these is major. Basically, a whole lot of material from another page, Normal profits was just cut and pasted. Most of this is not really relevant to the concept of "equilibrium" and there is no need to duplicate it. I will reverse the edit. Please discuss matters here before you make such major changes.Byronmercury (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the material about entry and profits should be in the article, but in terms of "long run equilibrium with entry". This should be an additional section.Byronmercury (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]