Talk:Economic efficiency

Intro needs to be changed

The introduction needs work, as it appears below, it does not concur with the standard use of the term efficiency in economics. --lk (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Economic efficiency is a general term for the value assigned to a situation by some measure designed to capture the amount of waste or "friction" or other undesirable economic features present. The term microeconomic reform refers to any policy designed to increase economic efficiency.

The phrase "The efficiency of an economy is used to determine how well an economic system serves society." is not appropriate. "How well an economic system Italic textservices societyItalic text is a normative goal. It is true that some do use the concept to make a judgement about "the service" to the society, but it implies a political goal. MH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.146.62 (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

…Knowing the Value of The Dollar and exactly what Backs and or Represents the Dollar would be an evaluational effort towards economic efficiencyDavid George DeLancey (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First Assumption Is Either Trivial or Inane

"No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off"

Opportunity cost makes this a universal rule. When you use a resource for one thing, you cannot use it for another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.73.68 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a comment from someone who either never took a principles of econ course, or took a very inadequate one. I recommend that this article be edited primarily by people with PhDs in the subject. Hermitage (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

opening sentence still really wrong; I deleted it

This article started with the following sentence: "Economic efficiency is the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services."

With a reference to some book by Arthur O' Sullivan -- perhaps a lesser-known textbook for econ principles courses?

Anyway, this is really not correct. I teach economics at the college level, and I don't like the idea of my students reading this definition. For example, it is possible for an increase in leisure time to cause a decrease in the production of goods and services, but still increase efficiency. For example, if I voluntarily cut back my work hours from 40 to 35, and accept a pay cut from my employer that leaves their profit unchanged overall, this can be a Pareto improvement because I am made better off and no one is made worse off.

Better is probably to just start with the definition of Pareto efficiency and go from there. I'd look at how efficiency is defined in one of the more mainstream principles texts, like Krugman, or Mankiw, or Frank. I can come back to this at some point, but I don't have time to re-write the article at the moment. For now I just wanted to delete the opening sentence which was very wrong and misleading. Hermitage (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Molyneux's comment on this article

Dr. Molyneux has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

But for personal productivity, we always think about the time . Indeed, the economic efficiency of the individual work only on the ability of human individuals, no change in the ability of the former, one of the economic efficiency of the work is constant . This mechanical efficiency of machinery in the absence of a certain modification is the same. THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEARER

THE FOLLOWING IS ALSO SOMEWHAT UNCLEAR This efficiency is one of the ratio of output to input .

There are various products on the market to the exchange ratio, we call for the general exchange coefficient .

Exchange coefficient = Product 1 / 2 product (Formula 2-4-3 )

According to the efficiency of the preceding efficiency formula = product / ( labor + resources + tools ),

If two products into its meaning the same ( labor + resources + tools) .

1 = exchange factor productivity * Product Efficiency 2 ( type 2-4-4 )

That we can know our greatest economic efficiency in the same mode of production inputs through this proportion exchange coefficients.

Because national banknotes, banknote exchange coefficients expressing each product, the exchange coefficient is expressed in the form of price, so in a market economy country, everyone can find their own market prices to the greatest economic efficiency of production .

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Molyneux has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : John Goddard & Phil Molyneux & Jonathan Williams, 2013. "Dealing with Cross-Firm Heterogeneity in Bank Efficiency Estimates: Some evidence from Latin America," Working Papers 13011, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Dai's comment on this article

Dr. Dai has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article becomes quite obscure following the formula "Efficiency = product / (input resources+ input labor + input tool ". I cannot suggest any suggestions for improvements.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Dai, Meixing & Sidiropoulos, Moise, 2010. "Monetary and fiscal policy interactions with central bank transparency and public investment," MPRA Paper 23704, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Farsi's comment on this article

Dr. Farsi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think the article needs an opening text that defines the term. I propose the following text:

“Economic efficiency is usually defined for a single market or an economy formed by several markets. This definition is based on Pareto efficiency. An allocation of resources among economic agents is efficient if and only if there exists no reallocation that could improve the welfare of one or some agents without decreasing that of any other individual. Economic efficiency requires that all the possible voluntary transactions are achieved hence a zero deadweight loss. The deadweight loss can therefore measure the economic (in)efficiency of a market. Economic efficiency (aka profit efficiency) can also be defined for a production plan or a producing unit. In this case inefficiency arises from the producer’s failure in maximizing profits (x-inefficiency). Depending on the restrictions applied to the choice of production factors, economic efficiency in production corresponds to cost efficiency when the outputs are constrained or revenue efficiency when the inputs are restricted.”

The rest could be kept as it is.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Farsi has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Medhi Farsi & Massimo Filippini & Diego Lunati, 2008. "Economies of scale and efficiency measurement in Switzerland's Nursing homes," Quaderni della facolta di Scienze economiche dell'Universita di Lugano 0801, USI Universita della Svizzera italiana.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Увеличение производительности труда."

= увеличению "коэффициента полезного действия". 

P.S. "Послесловие".

Я придумал двухцилиндровый двухтактный паровой двигатель. Во время обратного хода поршня в первом цилиндре к началу следующего такта открываетца "перепускной клапан" обьединящий рабочие объёмы цилиндра над поршнем и под поршнем. И таким образом становитца "паровым котлом" для второго "парового мотора".

Когда поршень в первом цилиндре начинает повторять очередной цикл вращения вала "мотора" - тогда открываетца выпуской клапан для пара находящегося ПОД ПОРШНЕМ в первом цилиндре и для пара находящегося НАД ПОРШНЕМ во втором цилиндре.

Весь объём "отработавшего" пара оба поршня выталкивают в охладитель пара. Например до 98°С. Штобы потом затолкать поршнем ""водяного компрессора" в "испаритель". В нагревательный радиатор. Например горящщими углями. Может и древесными.

К.П.Д. дакого двигателя сравним с коэффициентами, например, "бензиновых двигателей". Такой двигатель двинет "К.П.Т ;) !! ..

P.P.S. И ещё раз написал !

176.59.211.23 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely how this helped the article but here is the translation of the comments. Thank you Google.

== "Increasing labor productivity." == increase in "efficiency".

P.S. "Afterword".

I came up with a two-cylinder two-stroke steam engine. During the return stroke of the piston in the first cylinder to the beginning of the next stroke of the opener "bypass valve" uniting the working volume of the cylinder above the piston and under the piston. And thus becoming a "steam boiler" for the second "steam engine".

When the piston in the first cylinder begins to repeat the next cycle of rotation of the “motor” shaft, then the opener will release a valve for the pair located UNDER PISTON in the first cylinder and for the pair located OVER PISTON in the second cylinder.

The entire volume of the "exhaust" steam, both pistons are pushed into the steam cooler. For example, up to 98 ° C. Then to push the "water compressor" into the "evaporator" with a piston. In a heating radiator. For example, burning coals. Maybe wood.

K.P.D. This engine is comparable with the coefficients of, for example, "gasoline engines". Such an engine will move "KPT;) !! ..

P.P.S. And I wrote again!

Cheers! Risk Engineer (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Strands of thought

The section mentions 'standards of thought". Is this an error? Madyno (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked and there are over 120 articles that have "strands of thought" in the body of the text but no definitions. I think it was meant to say "schools of thought" and there is an article on the subject. (think Platonic school, etc.) I propose to rename the section "school of thought" Cheers. Risk Engineer (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)