Talk:Commodity

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2016 2019 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Incorrect link to alternate-language article

The current revision of this article purports to be equivalent to the German Article for Waren, but that article instead describes commodities in the classical sense. Indeed, the German Ware is cognate with the English ware, which denotes articles for sale. In the sense of this Article, commodities are translated into German simply as Commodities. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Not primary sense of commodity

The current revision of this article is written as though it describes commodities in a general sense. But whenever I think of commodities, I scarcely think of fungibility and standardization: Instead, I think of things for sale; and I think it fairly safe to assume that general usage is likewise. This is well reflected, for example, by the article on commodification—i.e., the process of turning things into commodities by offering them for sale—and also by various historical sources, including dictionaries and at least one encyclopedia. In fact, even modern dictionaries primarily define commodities thus.

In particular, Ricardo still calls these articles commodities even “when by no possible device their quantity can be augmented” by others, in such a manner as to grant “a monopoly price”—in other words, in such a manner as not to be fungible.

I think Wikipedia should reflect this common usage by redirecting “commodity” to the other article, thereby making it the main one, since the current revision may mislead unwitting users. With that, I would recommend renaming this article to something like “Fungible commodity,” and the other one to “Commodity (classical economics).” In the alternative, I might recommend redirecting both pages to a disambiguation page. At the very least, however, I would ask that this article and the other implement a hatnote at the top referring to each other: perhaps {{For|goods and services that are sold|Commodity (Marxism)}} here, and {{For|articles whose price has become standardized by fungibility|Commodity}} in the other.OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I should add, perhaps, that the term also often signifies classes of commodity, i.e., classes of article on the market, rather than solely commodities as individual articles.

But the historical record makes it clear that a commodity—whether an individual article or a class of article—must, in fact, be on the market.OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from Fungible commodity, perhaps this article could be renamed to Homogenous commodity, as distinguished from non-homogenous, heterogenous, or differentiated commodity; and as generally distinguished from things intended for sale.

References

OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Principal Economic

topics Government policy 197.215.23.47 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Marx?

I majored in economics and never once encountered the name of Karl Marx in any textbook, or heard his name spoken by any professor at any point in any class. Yet I frequently come across him on Wikipedia, on economics articles, which should be reflecting modern, mainstream views. Why is Marx quoted several times throughout such a general article on what a commodity is? LTV is not a valid economic theory and should not be presented as if it is. ~2025-40079-71 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Coffe beans

Coffe beans are NOT a commodity, depending on the beans the coffee will taste different. therefore, showing a picture of Coffe beans in the article is incorrect. ~2026-13081-65 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and I'd say a valid one at that, although I'd also note that, in the other sense of the word, coffee absolutely is one. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge, and remove disambiguation page

The Marxist article called "Article of commerce" says correctly that "a commodity is any good or service ("products" or "activities")[1] produced by human labour[2] and offered as a product for general sale on the market." That definition applies exactly to Commodity (type of good) so the two articles should be merged, so that there is a chapter on "Marxist view" within the resulting single article.

The two articles, one of them not named "commodity", are the only substantial items in the new Commodity disambiguation page. It would make much more sense to delete that disambiguation page and have all articles that link(ed) to commodity pointing to this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

In the sense of this article, commodity refers to a specific type of good. Specifically, it refers to a homogenous and fungible type of resource, such as wheat or beans, whose homogeneity makes its price more-or-less standardized across the global market, which is an ideal condition for futures markets.

Article of commerce, on the other hand, refers to an article of personal property that is the subject or intended subject of a sale, trade, or other exchange. See § Not primary sense of commodity, above. Also relevant is the fact that the former refers to a type, whereas the latter typically refers to a token; see Type–token distinction. (Both senses have increasingly been applied to services as well.)

No merge. However, I would note that I did try renaming this page earlier to Commodity (type of good), with Commodity being the disambiguation page, for the sake of better disambiguating the terms, although @Metallurgist reverted it with the reason that I should have instead performed a move request, which I have yet to actually do because I've been focusing on other stuff. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Have been busy for awhile, but catching up now. More accurately I reverted it because it was a complicated move that impacted hundreds of pages and there were a number of issues. Having all of these uses of commodity go to a disambiguation page is far from ideal. A move request would help sort out the best route from a broader spectrum of expertise. IIRC, article of commerce was a mess of an article itself and we were trying to sort that out. I think this does need a broader discussion tho. I am probably going to bring the other one to AFD to help get it sorted out. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have proposed it for deletion or merger here. This does not necessarily mean it will be deleted, but it needs to be redone somehow. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)