Talk:Consumer sovereignty/Archives/2013

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 Wikipedia is not a dictionary? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a waste of time to speculate about what Rich did before he wrote his valid edit. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you know his edit is valid? Have you read the paper? Also, I'm still looking forward to your reply... Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rich is innocent of invalid editing until proven guilty. Please re-read the links I have shared with you. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea how ridiculously easy it is to prove that Rich's edit was nothing but disruptive. I just go to my database, search for "Rizzo" and then filter down to find the relevant passages...

• Thus, Waldfogel’s study provides at least suggestive evidence of the difficulty new paternalists will face in crafting wise policies. The basic problem is that paternalist policymakers need a baseline of “true” preferences to satisfy, but the knowledge of such preferences is very hard to access. That individuals sometimes have difficulty determining their own preferences does not mean outsiders will do any better; they can also do worse.
• If well-meaning policymakers possess all the relevant information about individuals' true preferences, their cognitive biases, and the choice contexts in which they manifest themselves, then policymakers could potentially implement paternalist policies that improve the welfare of individuals by their own standards. But lacking such information, we cannot conclude that actual paternalism will make their decisions better; under a wide range of circumstances, it will even make them worse. New paternalists have not taken the knowledge problems that are evident from the underlying behavioral and economic research seriously enough.

Those are obvious arguments against paternalism and in favor of consumer sovereignty. If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing. --Xerographica (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for a warning. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We would need a source (preferrably (p)reliable) that paternalist policymakers are opposed to "consumer soverignty"; they could be paternalistic about actions, rather than than about goods and services. (The parenthetical "p" is (p)silent.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Rubin's Relentless Red Tape. We need a source about a source about a source about a source. You tightly tie your hands with ridiculous red tape so you can rationalize why you consistently fail to add any content to economic articles. Why don't you first read this source...and then tell me what additional sources you want me to fetch for you. --Xerographica (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I read the quote, and I specified what I wanted a source for. Your source is not available on the Internet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This...The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism...is not available on the internet? --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Explain how that references "consumer sovereignty" except in the title of an article in a footnote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about the term or the concept? --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The term, as applied to economics. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Repurposed article

The new article, changing it from an economic principle to an economic theory, seems adequately written, although he it is probably relevant to a completely different set of economics articles than it was before. Thanks, SPECIFICO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)