Talk:Factor endowment

Radical truncation

• before trunction — prior to 28 May 2020

outstanding flags

• This article needs attention from an expert in economics. (November 2008)
• This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (March 2009)
• This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2009)
• This article possibly contains original research. (April 2020)

I'm not especially attracted to neoliberal theory, but I've listened to nearly every weekly episode of EconTalk going back to 2006, and many of the guests come from other walks of economics, so I have a pretty good sense at this point of the range and styles of debate possible.

The existing version of this article had far more to say about exploitation as manifest in factor endowment than actual factor endowment. It was clearly OR, contained essentially no citations, contained hardly any encyclopedic content, and had persisted in this condition for the better part of TWELVE YEARS.

The only conclusion I could reach was that the existing state of the article was actively repelling constructive contribution.

There may well be some assertions from the culled material that could stand being added back to some future version of this page.

At this point, far down the road, let's solve the encyclopedic problem first, and then worry about the sanctity of past contributions second.

I don't think I've ever made an edit this bold before, and I've been around a long time. I've had direct contact with over 20,000 articles, and in a certain dimension, I don't think I've ever encountered a mess quite like this one ever before.

I'm not saying that the original content wasn't well-intentioned, or that other articles didn't start from a worse place, but for some reason this topic is not considered important enough by the vast majority of competent editors in the field of economics to jump in an make useful incremental changes given the current structure.

Reset overdue, IMHO.

That said, it's just one person's opinion, and I never protest my choices being reverted by the next guy or gal who comes along. I treat this mostly like baseball: if 40% of my more substantive and/or unorthodox edits survive unscathed, then I'm making a positive contribution in some useful dimension. I've decided to not be overly concerned with my K count (strikeouts), freeing me to somewhat more bold from time to time. — MaxEnt 18:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled, unsigned comment from 2013

what are the five levels of systems innovation methodology?