Talk:Diminishing returns

Ceteris paribus is jargon

I won't edit (not my area), but ceteris paribus is a jargon that puts off the non-initiated. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be accessible to the non-specialist educated reader. I suggest the latin expression be changed to "all other things being equal" or the like. Please keep Wikipedia readable; don't let economy get to the unintelligibility of statistics pages... Vmkern (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

changing weights and measures

This is a good example, but I'm going to change the numbers:

• a kilogram of seed on one square meter is way too much
• a kilogram of seed should produce more than a kilogram of produce

Self-demonstration too subtle

The best example of the law of diminishing marginal returns is this page itself. The farm worker example should be clarified by stating that the "law" (which is quite a misnomer) applies only to the number of workers, i.e. increasing the number of workers will not necessarily increase the returns by the same proportion. However the "law" probably does not apply to all the inputs of the system, (i.e. workers, els, land, etc. etc.), as increasing all of these inputs together would almost certainly produce the same increase in return, unless the market is approaching saturation.

All in all, this article is more detrimental than it is helpful, unlike most other Wikipedia articles. This is clearly a diminishing return on the value of Wikipedia articles, and so this article demonstrates its point with itself. Unfortunately, this is far too subtle for most economists to appreciate.

Clipboard for anyone who wishes to incorporate this

I'll try to incorporate this when I can find the time. I would do this part now bt I have addisional material. I just didn't want to loose it.

"The earth's fertility resembles a spring that is being pressed downwards by the addition of successive weights. If the weight is small and the spring is not very flexible, the first attempts will leave no results. But when the weight is enough to overcome the first resistance then it will give to the pressure. After yielding a certain amount it will again begin to resist the extra force put upon it, and weights that formerly would have caused a depression of an inch or more will now scarcely move it by a hair's breadth. And so the effect of additional weights will gradually diminish." (1)Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, Observation sur un Memoire de M. de Saint-Peravy (1767), ed. Gustave Schelle, Oeuvres de Turgot et Documents le Concernant, vol. 2 (Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan, 1914), p. 644.

Theoretical Stipulation

My understanding of diminishing returns is that they diminish up until the point that returns equal zero, usually where adding more units has no impact on output. If total output decreases, it has left the domain of diminishing returns, and is now negative returns. This is mostly backed up by the idea that diminishing is 'getting smaller' in terms of magnitude, whether positive or negative. If the returns cross zero positive return into increasingly negative return, they are not diminishing. That would be diminishing output, not diminishing return. Hope that's clear. And if it's not true, by all means revert it.

Histor

Just added a bit about how economists are looking at it, appropriate for modern application