This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm skeptical that this purported heterodox branch of economics actually exists as such. Is it just the brainchild of Henry George? Does anyone actually use the term "surplus economics"? These issues will have to be addressed eventually. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not completely made-up: [1]. Not sure yet if there's enough out there ti credit it as a field/school of thought/whatever, but there's something. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up tidbits, which may lead nowhere... Ronald L. Meek may be involved in all this. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an alternative field of economics and 'Surplus Economics' is not to be confused with 'Economic Surplus' - hence it is not a duplication. Perhaps a call for more information is better than censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelstor (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Poverty Imperative" section refers to a book that is "forthcoming" and did not return any results when I searched for it. Four paragraphs in Wikipedia feel like too much to go without a good reference. I found an article that has the same text as this section, which seems very odd. Who took from whom? I want to believe the section, but this stupid behavior makes it harder. Sanpitch (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]