Talk:Foundations of Economic Analysis

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

[Untitled]

Welcome. Your turn, either here or with edits in the article. As Prof. Samuelson would say, Skoal!' Thomasmeeks 10:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main contribution?

Thomas-- thanks for writing a great and important article, but I feel it's really dense reading. Starting with a long quote from the book makes it hard for the reader to get a quick idea of the main point.

Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to state at the very beginning of the article why Samuelson's book is considered so important. As I understand, it is principally recognized for introducing the comparative statics method. --Rinconsoleao 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your comments, Rinconsoleao. I'm taking what you said in the spirit in which it was given --constructively-- & will try to come up with something that would address your concern in a definitive way (if I can) in the next few days. That's assuming you don't write first what I wish had, which would be fine too. Samuelson's quotation that you mention is itself a classic, esp. given its length. Who says Samuelson didn't give fair warning (and the article too?)? I did work in the Kehoe (1987, p. 517) reference, which I think accurately assesses Samuelson's contribution to comparative statics (in particular, relative to Hicks's Value and Capital). Excellent Metzler book review that you added. I'll probably consult that further. --Thomasmeeks 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try too... and I will leave a note on your page whenever I get around to it. --Rinconsoleao 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moore's general analysis

The Gibbs quotation bears glossing.

I don't have time to Wikify this, but it should be useful:

@InCollection{moo10,

 title={Introduction to a Form of General Analysis},
 author={Moore, Eliakim Hastings},
 pages={1--150},
 BookTitle={The {New Haven} Colloquium},
 Note={Lectures delivered before members of the {American Mathematical Society} in connection with the summer meeting held~5--8 {S}eptember~1906},
 editor={Moore, Eliakim Hastings and Wilczynski, Ernest Julius and Mason, Max},
 year={2008 [1910]},
 publisher={American Mathematical Society},
 edition={2008 Reprinting of 1910 {New Haven: Yale University Press} (ISSN 0065-9258)},
 series={American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications},
 volume={2},

ISBN-10={0-8218-4591-8}, ISBN-13={978-0-8218-4591-2}, ISBN={0-8218-4591-8, 978-0-8218-4591-2}, }

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]