Didn't mention the human body directly as an object of economic disposal (labour (economics)), nor ethics, nor other foundations questions that basically determine what is meant by "scarcity". This could be dealt with under scarcity itself.

Fixed this a bit. The body as an object of economics, and ethical vs. economic choices, really is a very major study. Ther'es also law and economics which is probably the most rational place it is discussed...

Plus economics is one of those fields where most textbooks take an EPOV sadly. It is quite difficult to present these objectively.

Too difficult

Is this supposed to be simple English? Is is grossly the same as the normal version, is it?

Yeah, many articles here are not really simple for some reason. Please simplify as you see fit. --Menchi (Talk). 22:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This is still too complicated to explain to people with limited English. There has got to be a much simpler way to explain economics than "Economics is the study of how resources are distributed, giving the fact that there is an unlimited amount of "wants" and only a limited amount of goods available (known as scarcity)." That's a college textbook answer. Simple English is supposed to be simpler than that. Old64mb

Troll prose

removing this brilliant troll prose: This capital model is of particular interest in urban economics which studies "what makes a city work". One output of this work are the Bohemian Index and Gay Index which measure how well a city supports the artist and homosexual communities in it. This has proven the single most reliable indicator of economic growth as measured by GDP. Which may indicate both issues with GDP, and the key role of creativity in all economies. Pamri 14:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Economics as autistic

I have removed this POV section.

For these and other reasons relating to poor grounding in ethics, ecology, biology and a lack of a model of the human body that could differentiate human needs from "wants", many consider economics in its present form to be autistic, and not an effective or useful way to make decisions. For instance such measures as GDP lead to uneconomic growth if used to regulate money supply. This view is increasingly common even among mainstream economists, none of who would defend the use of these measures by government in monetary policy.

This article is about economics in general. Unless one is a serious environmental economist, most mainstream economists don't consider economics autistic. Besides, economics defines needs from wants quite well. There is a large body of work on this distinction. As an aside, does anyone know of a way to view the edits of There seem to be quite a bit of POV inserted by users with ending around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Descriptions of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics

I had to remove these ridiculous descriptions of macro and microeconomics.

Economic "choice" includes some things that are needs, such as food. Energy economics studies these needs on their own, and is a part of ecology.

This is really only a small subset of economics in general.

Most studies in economics are microeconomics. This means that they focus on supply and demand, and also transactions, which are offers and requests. Study at this level often assumes that nature's services of resource renewal and waste disposal continue in the background no matter what humans do. The field which does not assume this is called energy economics.
Macroeconomics often seems to say that there is not any ecological thing to stop on human activity on Earth, or that energy or creativity matter at all.

This is so POV and nonsensical it's almost laughable.

Economists and ecologists increasingly cooperate to measure nature's services, price of Earth, price of life, energy subsidy, and also human capital and human development. These come together in measuring well-being and advocating monetary reform based on this kind of measurement. This has led to better understanding of the productive capacity of living things as capital (economics), and of human waste and the ecological footprint that each human being uses on Earth.

Also, only a small part of economics in general. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Off track

As I read what you have produced so far, I think it has gone off track. This is much too complicated. At least have a simple introduction. Look at what was done first and how it has been muddied over the last few changes. Surely this text uses much more than the 850 Basic English word list!!!--Filll 13:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This page is not very neutral and presents opinions as facts for example "education is good" and "air pollution is bad"