Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-scarcity economics
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect. Babajobu 10:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- now redirected
This is a neologism. Google shows only 60 distinct hits. Apparently it is a phrase uttered by Cory Doctorow. From an economic perspective, this phrase is sheer nonsense (I'm an econ prof), and it is certainly not used in the profession. The article lists a few examples of near-zero marginal cost of production, an important and well-studied economic phenomenon. However, a techno-hipster neologism of no widespread use is not the place for a discussion of those issues. Also, this content is not a useful basis for such an article, it's just a couple of examples. Should this be deleted, I would be willing to write a proper economic article on this issue. (I usually avoid writing economics articles, because that's what I call work.) I have contacted the original author asking for some evidence that this term is notable, but received no reply. Derex 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am reasonably certain the phrase predates his usage. Post scarcity is used in my 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Although as I see post-scarcity comes out blue this can be deleted after all or possibly merged.--T. Anthony 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a redirect to that works for me, as it is quite clear about the sci-fi context. What worried me was seeing wikipedia used as a platform to spread this nonsense as a term about our actual economy (as it was written). I'll just redirect then, as the objection was mine, and that's a perfectly reasonable resolution. Derex 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly not a neologism; I heard the term as far back as 1971. It apparently fell out of fashion after the mid-70s oil shocks demonstrated that we weren't headed for a post-scarcity economy anytime soon. But it certainly was influential in some circles; one guy who believed in, talked about, and apparently acted on the concept was Mitch Kapor. Monicasdude 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, Kapor got mighty rich off something that wasn't scarce; wish I could figure out how to do that (economist joke about defn of scarcity). He wasn't the first either, guys like Ernest Hemingway and William Shakespeare did the same thing a long time before. Anyway, I didn't say the term "post scarcity" was a neologism, because I didn't look it up. "Post-scarcity economics" is, or at least it's a oldogism that hasn't been used in a long time per google. My point is that this is certainly not a branch, school, or tradition of economics as a science. It's fine as a sci-fi term. It may even be a notable "popular economics" term, though google thinks otherwise. If someone can properly source this article as being of some notability, I'll concede. I don't want to sound high-handed or snotty here, but frankly this is the sort of junk article that makes experts doubt the credibility of wikipedia; it made me cringe anyway. Derex 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'd say it's purely "sci-fi", but it is by definition highly speculative. There's no solid reason to think we'll reach a point where scarcity of all kinds will vanish.--T. Anthony 03:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, Kapor got mighty rich off something that wasn't scarce; wish I could figure out how to do that (economist joke about defn of scarcity). He wasn't the first either, guys like Ernest Hemingway and William Shakespeare did the same thing a long time before. Anyway, I didn't say the term "post scarcity" was a neologism, because I didn't look it up. "Post-scarcity economics" is, or at least it's a oldogism that hasn't been used in a long time per google. My point is that this is certainly not a branch, school, or tradition of economics as a science. It's fine as a sci-fi term. It may even be a notable "popular economics" term, though google thinks otherwise. If someone can properly source this article as being of some notability, I'll concede. I don't want to sound high-handed or snotty here, but frankly this is the sort of junk article that makes experts doubt the credibility of wikipedia; it made me cringe anyway. Derex 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.