References[edit]


Criticisms?[edit]

I myself am not in any way qualified to provide any criticisms of Marginal Theory but there must be some out there with at least some credibility in academic circles. I think it would round out the article if such criticisms could be including. Thank you. WjtWeston (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence imo wrong[edit]

I didn't want to change it right away, but in an academic discussion I got confronted with the opinion that marginal utility was defined as a marginal change in utility, with reference to this Wikipedia article, which starts as:

"In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the gain (or loss) from an increase (or decrease) in the consumption of that good or service."

This sentence is at best misleading (I would say it's bluntly wrong). What is described here is a change (not even necessarily a marginal one) of utility. The correct definition of marginal utility is later given in the section "Quantified_marginal_utility". Translating what is expressed here in equations this into words, the first sentence should read:

"In economics, the marginal utility of a good or service is the gain (or loss) OF UTILITY RESULTING from a SMALL increase (or decrease) in the consumption of that good or service, DIVIDED BY THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RESPECTIVE INCREASE OR DECREASE." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.65.150.125 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral Point of View?[edit]

The article dismisses marginal theory as a law with no citations but original research and thereby continues to refer to it as a law with a condescending tone, as if written by someone with propaganda. I'll try to make a few minor edits and add an original research tag to the section attempting to refute the argument. leaflord 20:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflord (talk • contribs)

Holy crap you've munged up the article pretty bad, removing links to other wiki pages and taking things out of order. 76.21.107.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Marginal Revolution[edit]

This article and Marginalism share a largely-identical section on The Marginal Revolution. Maintaining the same text in two different articles is inefficient, so I encourage editors of Marginalism and this article to come up with the best way of removing the redundancy. Perhaps The Marginal Revolution should have its own article? Or maybe its home should be one of these two articles, with a short summary and a link in the other? Also, the same argument applies to other content that is largely the same in these two articles.

Silver hr (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Utility Of Money[edit]

Marginal Utility of Money refers to 'worth of a rupee' to a consumer it means the utility consumed by a consumer in spending his one rupee. Example- if a consumer can buy 50 grams of rice , 30 grams of coffee and 100 gram of salt in one rupee and his total utility is 30 units then 30 is to be taken as its marginal utility of money . And the marginal utility of money remains constant. - Vaibhav Thapliyal (vthapliyal260@gmail.com , kingvaibhav007@fb.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.99.148 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marginal utility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marginal utility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of explanation: utility of eating the first and second pizza slices[edit]

I think that the edit between revisions shown by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marginal_utility&diff=1151309705&oldid=1145294118 may have introduced some confusion about the marginal utility of eating the first and second slice of a pizza:

In the absence of other information, it seems that the first and second pizza slice are likely to be of equal enjoyment value to the consumer. That is, the order of consumption of those two pizza slices does not affect the consumer.

The marginal utility from consuming the second slice of pizza is derived from the fact that the person eating the pizza enjoys the food -- so if each slice provides enjoyment value `n`, then the second slice allows the consumer to reach utility `2n`.

The current text seems to suggest otherwise: to me it reads as if the consumer somehow enjoys the second slice of pizza more than the first. In reality that's possible for various reasons, but I don't think that it matches the intent of the description of the theory of marginal utility (the purpose of the article). Jay.addison (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total utility, features of marginal utility, tips of utility[edit]

B.com first year.bussins economis 2409:4072:6C8B:C060:AA68:A477:1226:6BDA (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories