Talk:Competitive equilibrium

Merge?

I wonder whether this article, and Static equilibrium (economics), should be merged with Economic equilibrium. I suggest any discussion take place at Talk:Economic equilibrium#Merge?. --Coppertwig 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recursive competitive equilibrium

I guess recursive competitive equilibrium comes under competitive equilibrium. So, can't there be another sub heading under competitive equilibrium as recursive competitive equilibrium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj2026 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very unusual approach. If it's significantly notable (see WP:NOTE), then maybe it should get a small mention here and its own article. But it also looks like the references for it aren't published in peer-reviewed journals, which makes me think it's too minor to include. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gjerstad's comment on this article

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

This article is unusual for a Wikipedia article. I have read many Wikipedia articles that include substantial technical depth, but that usually comes after a well-written expository section that explains the issues and places the technical material in context. I suspected and found that the article was written either entirely or almost entirely by one person. That person seems to be knowledgeable about the topic, but there are elements of the article that make it suitable only as a reference section for students in an advanced undergraduate or beginning graduate economics course. It needs a thorough review of the exposition. It could also benefit from addition of some material from experiments.

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

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

Reference : Steven Gjerstad, 2004. "Market Dynamics in Edgeworth Exchange," Microeconomics 0401006, EconWPA.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the traditional concept?

A Pareto optimum which is not a ‘competitive equilibrium’

Can you justify the claim that ‘Competitive equilibrium... is the traditional concept of economic equilibrium’? Fig 15.B.14 in Mas-Colell et al’s ‘Microeconomic theory’ illustrates a point x* which is Pareto optimal and is a point of equilibrium in the traditional sense, but is not a ‘competitive equilibrium’. Or am I missing something? Colin.champion (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I added a diagram of my own... the point x is Mas-Colell et al’s x*. Colin.champion (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking silence for assent I’ve modified the first sentence of the article. Colin.champion (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]