Talk:Greater fool theory

This article has been written on the Indian stock market context

(content removed by Lawrence)

--PRASOON MUKHERJEE 08:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Prasoon. However this space should be used to discuss the article itself and how to improve it. Thank you. Lawrence Lavigne 14:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Pyramid Schemes?

Could this article be used in reference to Pyramid schemes? It seems like a similar concept (you buy into the pyramid schemes with hopes of finding a "bigger fool" to give you money.

Really, it would depend whether a reputable source has made that connection. It isn't for Wikipedia's editors to create connections. Notinasnaid 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PICKY PICKY PICKY - an image of a Russian coin is not copyrightable. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a maze of useless rules and self-appointed cops. 208.238.205.35 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just Economics

Ya' know, this also applies to many a strategy game. Often, all you can do is assume that it will take your opponent more effort undo your work than what you put in. Heck, this is the whole theory behind using turrets- It will take more work for your enemy to get past them than for you to put them up.
Anyway, I'm just saying that it doesn't just apply to Economics. Someone really should add something saying that (even quote me- I don't care), but I'm a bit too apathetic to do it... --A person without an account (sometimes called Driaquer) 1312 PST, July 13th, 2007

Pop Culture

• I felt it was a good idea to keep this section pending some consideration of support for it. I agree with Jeh's reasons for deleting it, but the answer isn't an immediate deletion, but a call for a citation. Not a direct citation of the episode, but a secondary source that uses the episode in context to the economic theory. This is what Wikipedia:IPC calls for. Like many economic topics, this concept can be somewhat difficult for novices to understand. Sometimes a cultural reference can make it easier for lay people to understand. If someone can find a good secondary source that uses the reference in context, then it would be an improvement to the article. I'll keep this on my Watchlist and I'll check on it in a few weeks to see if someone has addressed this. If they haven't, then it probably needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting user Thumperward (talk · contribs) in Talk:RS-232#Spitting_Image_Sketch: "The standard criteria apply: was there a notable real-world impact? Did the subject take notice of the reference? Did secondary sources pick up on the reference? In its present form, none of those criteria were met by this section, and it shouldn't go back in until such point as that's been remedied." Jeh (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to see if someone, anyone could come up with some citation that would put this mention in context. I think the episode does a good job of it, but I can't find any such mention in my web search. The problem with Wikipedia:IPC is that complex concepts like greater fool theory really need some popular culture to provide an analogy that puts it into context for the average reader. Not being an economist myself I find the article difficult to comprehend, but having seen the episode, I found the episode's analogy (and Sloane's description) to be better at explaining it. I think the Wikipedia style guide is short-sighted, at least as far as this article is concerned. Anyway, I'm going to look deeper into Wikipedia:IPC and post some questions on it's talk page to discuss this issue in a broader sense. AlanK (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is that an episode of a TV fiction series is not a WP:RS by any stretch, so we can't use the analogy given in it as a way to explain the concept here. If you want to use a similar analogy that explains the concept better than the existing article, look for one in a WP:RS. Jeh (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference to the Internet in 1973 edition?

This effect was explained by economics professor Burton Malkiel in his book A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973 first edition): A bubble starts when any group of stocks, in this case those associated with the excitement of the Internet, begin to rise.

The term "Internet" came up in 1974, so I doubt that it was already used in the 1973 first edition. This probably is cited from a post-2000 edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.96.68.145 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

First Hyperinflation Example not an example?

Is "Hyperinflation" an example of this? As written, these inflationary events are not "foolish pricing" but real reactions to real limitations of the ecconomy - prices are high because costs are high, not because anyone thinks they will be able to foster overprices items on some other sucker. I think this paragraph should be last in the section and begin with "In contrast..." j-beda (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Intrinsic value

This article repeatedly refers to "intrinsic value" without defining what it is. The term "intrinsic value" sounds clever, although it is a difficult concept to define with a lot of nuance. It is therefore often used in arguments by appeal to authority, even in the case of the Nobel laureates mentioned in the article. Keirfinlowbates (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)