Revision as of 01:31, 22 March 2012 editBkwillwm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,035 edits →Logical Presentation of This Subject: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:43, 17 July 2024 edit undoRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers108,817 edits OneClickArchived "Short-run link" to Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive 1 | ||
(37 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Top}} | |||
{{IEP assignment|course=Misplaced Pages:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Macroeconomics|university=Symbiosis School of Economics|term=2011 Q3}} | |||
{{WikiProject Globalization|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Trade|importance=Top}} | |||
{{Talkheader}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
|archive = Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=c|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Economics|class=C|importance=top}} | |||
== The Flow diagram of the Economy == | |||
The Flow diagram of the Economy, does not reflect current economic thinking and is a idiological representation. (its quite marxist in its ontology) It should be substitute by something that corresponds with todays text books. | |||
It could be also regarded as original research as it has no reference and I am unaware who today would produce such a flow diagram. (see also comment below, that indicate that this model original research. | |||
Davoud Taghawi-Nejad | |||
:Agreed. I don't think the current flow diagram uses a typical representation. It also doesn't offer much since its hard to read the text in the thumbnail, which makes it hard to make sense out of the flows.--] (]) 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Comment by ] == | |||
Four-rate formula and Exchange-rate Formula? | |||
Four-rate formula explains the mathematical relation of change rate in price, wage, interest rate and GDP (or GNP). | |||
Exchange rate reqlll8888888888formula help to calculate exchange rate between different money with different productivity. | |||
This book introduces a new theory of price system and a general theory of interest rate. | |||
Please read a new mook: | |||
THING AND ITS LAW, Chapter 3: Productive force ( the theory of price system)ISBN 1-58939-525-5. Published 2003 by Virtualbookworm.com Publishing Inc. | |||
xiaozhong zhai | |||
== Comment by ] == | |||
People who edit this page should know something about economics. Do you think that Lucas would have received the nobel prize for simply a suggesting? | |||
Furthermore, New Keysian economics does not provide strong micro foundations to Keysian economics. | |||
Also, these so called schools of economic thought have no bearing on relevant macroeconomics and are very outdated and not used by anyone who knows economics anymore. | |||
== Short-run link == | |||
I know nothing about economics, but it's not clear to me that link to short-run links to the correct article. It doesn't seem related. | |||
== ''Need for a more complete explanation'' == | |||
''Although the following (and corrected) text was rejected by an editor, who claimed it is more like an essay, it is my claim that something like this is a necessary way of starting this important subject. The past article on macroeconomics is inadequate in a number of ways and it surely deserves better introductory and explanatory words. I therefore wish to present the same material here and for this editor to re-consider how best it might be included, instead of rejecting it out of hand, in a manner that is not in the Misplaced Pages spirit!] (]) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)'' | |||
===Origins and General Statements=== | |||
Whilst there is a degree of uncertancy about macroeconomics, it is regarded as a science and as a result it has both theoretical and practical sides that are related. In discussing the subject is important to cover both of these aspects of the knowledge that comprises this inexact science. | |||
Practical macroeconomics phenomena can be measured and related to the theoretical side, but in general the theories so far submitted are not sufficiently close to the actual society-at-large behavour as to properly explain how it works and to be able to forecast what will happen in future times. Experience is regarded as a good means of estimating what will happen too. For this reason a branch of economics called ] has been developed, which is based solely on the past performance of the social system. This performance is expressed mathematically in terms of statistical data and various coefficients for use in suitable time-dependent equations, for determining the behavour of various economics functions and variables. It has failed however, to provide a satisfactory means of telling when a sudden change is due and in general it becomes progressively less accurate in forecasting, as increasing future time intervals are taken. | |||
In considering the theoretical aspects of macroeconomics a number of schools of thought have emerged, none of them being sufficiently complete or precise as to to be able to claim that their version of the science is completely correct. However, progress has been made and it can be said that some of the government policy decision-making as based on the theory has been useful, in that it has helped to both stabilize and advance the progress of the social system. Many alternate theories have been tried, but not all of them have worked properly and some have been adverse to progress. So that for all the profoundity, vitality and need to do the right thing for society-at-large, in fact it is the somewhat more selfish political considerations rather than the ideal theoretical ones that have dominated governmental policy-making. | |||
In considering theoretical macroeconomics the first stage is one of defning terms and trying to set up a clear understanding of what is involved. This is difficult in that many theoretical studies seem to begin without a full statement of the assumptions, axioms and meanings of the terms being used. Thus the resulting (limited) theories, which in fact cover only some of the aspects of the social system-at-large, are not able to be properly joined together, nor do they find application to the whole of the community. Even so, the next stage in the process of developing a theory must then be to establish a suitable model that represents all or part of the social system. It is generally but not always conceded that the whole system is so big and complicated that it is impractical to represent it all, and consequently a smaller partial model is constructed with the unlikely assumption of there being no outside effects occurring during the operation of this model and within the limits of what it represents. Probably because of this, there has been so little agreement about how in theory the system actually works! | |||
The early theories were directed at the aspects of production and consumption of goods so only the householders and producers were included. This is strange because the three factors of production, land, labor and durable capital goods, (and their returns ground-rent, wages and dividends/yield/interest) had already been defined by Adam Smith in 1765. Later theories concerned the effect of trade abroard and the relative effects of prices on the quantities of goods needed for both home and foreign businesses. A theory of money and its circulation was also developed but as can be seen there ideas are difficult as separated theories to become one seamless whole. Also in this discussion it is easy to confuse some of the microeconomics theories, such as those of supply and demand and the associated equilibrium assumptions and anaylses, with the macroeconomics ones which were fewer and less exacting as explained above.] (]) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I wasn't the editor who originally removed the text, but I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. It's uncited and unencyclopedic. The text includes a lot of commentary that's POV and unnecessary. The writer should take a look at ]. There is a lot that still needs to be added to this article, but I don't think much can be taken from the above text.--] (]) 01:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:All right then, in this case we should begin our criticisms and improvements in the logical way of finding the various sub-headings for the various aspects of macroeconomics that need to be included in this broad subject. The openning statement in the article has ref.3 (Blanchard) as the source for this, but better encyclopediac help should be given to the reader who seeks and needs to see these parts directly. (However these various parts of the main subject are not stated.) So if this discussion about presentation of the subject is to lead somewhere, we need to work out such a list of sub-heading subjects and then supply them with more details in the text. I suggest that "Macroeconomics" has as sub-headings the following (provisional) general topics: | |||
== India Education Program course assignment == | |||
''Definitions of, Place Within Social Science, Understanding Nature of, Purpose of, Theories About, Collection of Various Data and Their Use, Statistical Analysis (Econometrics), Schools of Thought, Development of (History), Government Policies from, Political Aspects (of Policy-Making), Mathematical Analysis for, Usefullness of, Forcasts of, Relation with Microeconomics, Educational Aspects.'' | |||
] This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by ] through the ] during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available ].] ] | |||
{{small|The above message was substituted from {{tlc|IEP assignment}} by ] (]) on 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
:Some of these subjects have already been included in the main text and more are covered in my edited by rejected details (which would otherwise have been open to modification and expansion, with the ability to place them as sub-headed matters), so what is of use here should be some agreement about their presentation in a logical way. I hope editors will continue with these suggestions and not reject them too! ] (]) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Modern Monetary Theory == | |||
::I disagree with most of the proposed list. I was planning on expanding on this article by presenting some basic textbook models. I would mainly focus on IS-LM/AS-AD and also cover growth (focus on Solow model with a discussion of new growth) and open economy (focus on Mundell-Flemming with discussion of new open economy macro. I would then address macro policy given the IS-LM/AS-AD framework with discussion of alternative theories. After those sections are added, I think the core part of the article will be done. In your list, I think "Nature of" and "Purpose of" would be too subjective and POV. "Usefulness" is definitely POV. I'm not sure what value there would be in "educational aspects." I suggest looking at other encyclopedia articles and textbook treatment of this topic to guide it's content.--] (]) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Why is their no mention of MMT in this article about macro economics? MMT is an important theoretical framework for understanding macro econ. We should at least link to the substantial ] in the See Also section, if not devote a section of this article to it. ] (]) 15:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Look out for possible copyright violations in this article == | |||
== Non Pseudo-Science Macroeconomics == | |||
This article has been found to be edited by students of the ] project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the ] for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --] (]) 12:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
From what I have seen just about all the experts in this difficult subject regard macroeconomics as a pseudo-science. In fact, I have found only one book that shows how it is really a true science when it is expressed as an engineer might regard any other kind of system. That is in "Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works". In this book the author shows that our past confusion is due to the failure to properly define various parts of it in a proper way. When he does so he can then construct a simple model of what it really comprises. The resulting analysis, which is based on logical argument, then is used to show how it really works. This book was published in 2015 as a soft-cover edition, but it is also available for free as an e-copy when you send a message to its author.] (]) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
== trouble with new material == | |||
== A New Way to Present this Badly Confused and Complex Subject == | |||
I'm going to revert . On the whole, they don't help the article, although they're much closer than some other recent things. There are four broad problems with the edits: | |||
* I can't verify that the book they're supposedly referenced to exists. Help in really identifying the book would be good. | |||
* They're not placed at all correctly within the article. It seems as if the editor wants to start a new article from scratch, but there's already stuff here and it should be worked with. | |||
* Related to the above, some of the material is redundant. | |||
* They don't seem to show very good understanding. The bit, "Micro Economics is a '''Single Economy''' whereas, Macro Economics is a '''large Economy''' for example:- Micro Economics consist of a single family but in Macro Economics we consider large number of families." is just wrong, for instance. A large number of families use gasoline, but the market for gasoline is primarily a matter of microeconomic analysis. | |||
Anyway, overall I just don't think the edits help the article. All the above points need to be dealt with, but the edits also just need improvement. ](]/]) 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Making Macroeconomics a Much More Exact Science | |||
Today macroeconomics is treated inexactly within the humanities, because it appears to be a very complex and easily confused matter. But this does not give it fair justice, because we should be trying to find a viable approach to the topic and examine it in a way that avoids these problems, and for us to better understand of what it comprises and how it actually works. Suppose we ask ourselves the question: “how many different KINDS of financial (business) transaction occur within our society?” | |||
To start with showing a macroeconomics flow-diagram is a good idea, however the present diagram is inadequate because it does not include sufficient sectors nor their correct connections. At least 6 sectors should be shown on the diagram which are Landlords, Capitalists, Government, Producers, Householders and Banks (Financial Institutions). There are 19 relationships between them as shown previously. The present model which is from an older era also confuses the functions and natures of the various elements. The model which I previously posted does not have these faults and the previous discussion that was provided to justify its use has been eliminated! Also I am not a Marxist and the comment that this model was so is completely unjustified. So I would be grateful if the person whom changed my postings and data would reverse what he/she has done. | |||
The simple and direct answer shows that that only a limited number of them are possible or necessary. Although our sociological system comprises of many millions of participants, to properly answer this question we should be ready to consider the averages of the various kinds of activities (no matter who or what organization performs them), and simultaneously to idealize these activities so that they fall into a number of commonly shared operations. This approach uses some general terms for expressing the various types of these transactions, into what becomes a relatively small number. Here, each kind is found to apply between a particular pair of agents, (sectors or entities), each one of which has individual properties. Then to cover the whole sociological system of a country, it requires only 19 kinds of exchanges of the goods, services, access rights, taxes, credits, investments, valuable legal documents, etc., versus the mutual and opposing flows of money. | |||
I realise that Macroeconomics is a difficult topic and I have not tried to make a nusence of myself over what I regard as some unthinking comments and changes. There is no guarentee that the textbooks are correct and it certainly is time for a change from the old dogged style of presentation which is not useful nor able to satisfactorily explain many recent macroeconomic phenomena. | |||
] (]) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
The argument that led to this initially unexpected result was prepared by the author. It may be found in his working paper (on the internet) as SSRN 2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modelling”. In this model these double-flows of money versus goods, etc., necessarily pass between only 6 kinds of role-playing entities (or agents). Of course, there are a number of different configurations that are possible for this type of simplification, but if one tries to eliminate all the unnecessary complications and sticks to the more basic activities, then these particular quantities and flows provide the most concise yet fully comprehensive result, which is presentable in a seamless manner, for our whole social system and one that is suitable for its further analysis. | |||
:There were a few concerns with the previous diagram. For one, do you have a source for it? I favor the current one since it is a simpler representation. The previous diagram was very complicated and required clicking on it to get much out of it. What makes you think that the current model is from an "older era"? It looks pretty conventional to me. If anything, the divisions of "landlords" and "capitalists" seem outdated. Generally, I am not a big fan of flow diagrams. They are used in introductory materials and bare little resemblance to the macromodels economists actually use. I don't see an advantage in a complicated diagram that gets all the sectors and flows "right." The virtue of flow diagrams is their simplicity not their ability to represent every complexity of an economy. | |||
Surprisingly, past representation of our sociological system by this kind of an interpretation model has neither been properly derived nor formally presented before. Previously, other partial versions have been modelled (even using up to 4 agents, as by Professor Hudson), but they are inexact due to their being over-simplified. Alternatively, in the case of econometrics, the representations are far too complicated and almost impossible for students to follow. These two reasons of over-simplification and of complexity are why this pseudo or non-scientific confusion has been created by many economists, and it explains their failure to obtain a good understanding about how the whole system works. | |||
:Yes, there is no guarantee that the textbooks are correct, but Misplaced Pages policies are based on working from sources and not including original research. If you want to introduce material to this article, you should work from a source. Arguing that uncited ideas or presentations are better than published, textbook based edits won't be fruitful. | |||
The model being described here in this paper is unique, in being the first to include, along with some additional aspects, all the 3 factors of production, in Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations” book of 1776. These factors are Land, Labour and Capital, along with their returns of Ground-Rent, Wages and Interest/Dividends, respectively. All of them are all included in the model, which as a diagram is included in the paper. | |||
:Your previous comments were not removed. They have been archived in a standard, automatic process. They are still available here: ].--] (]) 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
(Economics’ historians will recall, as originally explained by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, that there are prescribed independent functions of the land-owners and the capitalists. The land-owners speculate in the land-values and rent it to tenants, whilst the capitalists are actually the owners/managers of the durable capital goods used in industry. These items may be hired out for use. Regrettably, for political and commercial reasons, the concept of these 2 different functions were combined by John Bates Clark and company, about 1900, resulting in the later neglect of their different influences on our sociological system-- the terms landlord and capitalist becoming virtually synonymous along with the expression for property as real-estate.) | |||
== Logical Presentation of This Subject == | |||
The diagram of this model is in my paper (noted above). A mention of the related teaching process is also provided in my short working paper SSRN 2600103 “A Mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics”. With this model in an alternative form, the various parts and activities of the Big Picture of our sociological system can be properly identified and defined. | |||
The current Misplaced Pages presentation of Macroeconomics is inadequate and makes no attempt to present the subject in a comprehensive way. Granted that macroeconomics is a much debated subject with a number of schools of thought, it is still necessary to provide some general facts about it before entering into the variations. So I suggest that the editors for this subject begin to re-organize it according to a more logical and systematic basis. | |||
Subsequently by analysis, the way our sociological system works can then be properly seen, calculated and illustrated. This analysis is introduced by the mathematics and logic, which was devised by Nobel Laureate Wellesley W. Leontief, when he invented the important "Input-Output" matrix methodology (that he originally applied only to the production sector). This short-hand method of modelling the whole system replaces the above-mentioned block-and-flow diagram. It enables one to really get to grips with what is going-on within our sociological system. It is the topology of the matrix which actually provides the key to this. | |||
The first thing that is missing is a statement about what macroeconomics actually is. This should not just define it but also describe what it is and what it does. Which parts of human society are involved and under which kind of general heading does it fall? Then we need to supply some general features about the subject which are distinct from microeconomics and which will not cause a student to get confused between the two. An illustration of the flow of money and materials within the whole social system would be useful at the start and help to focus the reader on the various aspects of the subject. The present diagram is unsatisfactory in this respect. It is both confusing and incomplete (see my other Talk). | |||
The logic and math are not hard and are suitable for high-school students, who have been shown the basic properties of square-matrices and the notation of the calculus. By this technique it is comparatively easy to introduce any change to a pre-set sociological system that is theoretically in equilibrium (even though we know that this ideal is never actually attained--it simply being a convenient way to begin the study). This change creates an imbalance and we need to regain equilibrium again. Thus, sudden changes or policy decisions may be simulated and the effects of them determined, which will point the way to what policy is best. In my book about it, (see below) 3 changes associated with taxation are investigated in hand-worked numerical examples. In fact, when I first worked it out, the irrefutable logical results were a surprise, even to me! | |||
The various division of the subject also need to be listed so that at least the following are mentioned: | |||
General Macroeconomics, Econometrics, Theoretical Macroeconomics, History of Macroeconomics, Moneist Theory, Keynesian Theories and subsequent Methods of Mnalysis, various other Schools of Thought in Macroeconomics, Mathematical and other Modeling in Macroeconomics to include the early Phillips Water Model and to continue with later models. These should cover various developments for both Short-Term Stability with Equilibrium and Long-term Dynamics including "Business Cycles", Ethics, Competition, Monopolies, Socialism, Taxation, Inflation, Government Policies and their effects. | |||
Developments of these ideas about making our subject more truly scientific (thereby avoiding the past pseudo-science being taught at universities), may be found in my recent book: “Consequential Macroeconomics—Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works”. | |||
No politics but the mention of lots of independent ideas are mandatory. The present write-up should be completely overhauled. Reference to the other articles on this subject would do much to save space here and make the subject more easy to understand and to find. (In other words, before re-writing a lot of planning is needed so as to cover the whole subject in a number of articles, some of which already exist.) The single main reference book most quoted at the end of the present artical implies that the article is written by somebody with a bias toward it! Surely we can do better than that!] (]) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Please write to me at chestdher@gmail.com for a free e-copy of this 310-page book and for any additional information. ] (]) 15:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think this article is by any means complete, and I'm very open to substantial changes, but I disagree with most with most of your implied reorganization. Topics involving competition, especially monopolies, are generally considered micro topics (macro models may be based on perfect or imperfect competition, but these topics are usually treated as micro). Distinctions between methods of analysis, mathematical modeling, "other modeling," theory, and econometrics do not make sense. There is a lot of overlap. Generally, I think the best distinction would be between theory and empirical work, which still have a lot of overlap. Phillip's ] is very interesting, but it was a physical representation of prior theory not a breakthrough. It didn't have much influence. | |||
== Illegal/black markets == | |||
:My long-run list of planned topics is: overview (covering micro vs. macro distinction, etc); basic concepts (similar to whats there now); basic textbook models covering short-run, medium-run, growth, and the open economy with some discussion of more recent work where applicable (new open economy macro and new growth); macroeconomic policy divided between fiscal and monetary; history of macroeconomic theory; finally, empirical methods. I don't think this is an ideal organization, but I think it's sensible and covers everything an introduction to macroeconomics should. | |||
Insurance, etc macro or micro? ] (]) 11:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I object to the implication that I was biased in using Blanchard. Yes, this article needs more sources, but it's still a work progress. Most of the references are to Blanchard are to his short history of macro in his textbook. I used this reference because I thought it was a good, concise summary. I don't see how it is substantively different from the content in the article ], which uses a wide variety of sources. Please explain where you think there is bias. Yes, a section shouldn't rely on a single source, but this is a work in progress, and other sources can be readily added.--] (]) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 03:43, 17 July 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macroeconomics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Symbiosis School of Economics supported by Misplaced Pages Ambassadors through the India Education Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}}
by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Modern Monetary Theory
Why is their no mention of MMT in this article about macro economics? MMT is an important theoretical framework for understanding macro econ. We should at least link to the substantial MMT page in the See Also section, if not devote a section of this article to it. UberFefa (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Non Pseudo-Science Macroeconomics
From what I have seen just about all the experts in this difficult subject regard macroeconomics as a pseudo-science. In fact, I have found only one book that shows how it is really a true science when it is expressed as an engineer might regard any other kind of system. That is in "Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works". In this book the author shows that our past confusion is due to the failure to properly define various parts of it in a proper way. When he does so he can then construct a simple model of what it really comprises. The resulting analysis, which is based on logical argument, then is used to show how it really works. This book was published in 2015 as a soft-cover edition, but it is also available for free as an e-copy when you send a message to its author.Macrocompassion (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
A New Way to Present this Badly Confused and Complex Subject
Making Macroeconomics a Much More Exact Science
Today macroeconomics is treated inexactly within the humanities, because it appears to be a very complex and easily confused matter. But this does not give it fair justice, because we should be trying to find a viable approach to the topic and examine it in a way that avoids these problems, and for us to better understand of what it comprises and how it actually works. Suppose we ask ourselves the question: “how many different KINDS of financial (business) transaction occur within our society?”
The simple and direct answer shows that that only a limited number of them are possible or necessary. Although our sociological system comprises of many millions of participants, to properly answer this question we should be ready to consider the averages of the various kinds of activities (no matter who or what organization performs them), and simultaneously to idealize these activities so that they fall into a number of commonly shared operations. This approach uses some general terms for expressing the various types of these transactions, into what becomes a relatively small number. Here, each kind is found to apply between a particular pair of agents, (sectors or entities), each one of which has individual properties. Then to cover the whole sociological system of a country, it requires only 19 kinds of exchanges of the goods, services, access rights, taxes, credits, investments, valuable legal documents, etc., versus the mutual and opposing flows of money.
The argument that led to this initially unexpected result was prepared by the author. It may be found in his working paper (on the internet) as SSRN 2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modelling”. In this model these double-flows of money versus goods, etc., necessarily pass between only 6 kinds of role-playing entities (or agents). Of course, there are a number of different configurations that are possible for this type of simplification, but if one tries to eliminate all the unnecessary complications and sticks to the more basic activities, then these particular quantities and flows provide the most concise yet fully comprehensive result, which is presentable in a seamless manner, for our whole social system and one that is suitable for its further analysis.
Surprisingly, past representation of our sociological system by this kind of an interpretation model has neither been properly derived nor formally presented before. Previously, other partial versions have been modelled (even using up to 4 agents, as by Professor Hudson), but they are inexact due to their being over-simplified. Alternatively, in the case of econometrics, the representations are far too complicated and almost impossible for students to follow. These two reasons of over-simplification and of complexity are why this pseudo or non-scientific confusion has been created by many economists, and it explains their failure to obtain a good understanding about how the whole system works.
The model being described here in this paper is unique, in being the first to include, along with some additional aspects, all the 3 factors of production, in Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations” book of 1776. These factors are Land, Labour and Capital, along with their returns of Ground-Rent, Wages and Interest/Dividends, respectively. All of them are all included in the model, which as a diagram is included in the paper.
(Economics’ historians will recall, as originally explained by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, that there are prescribed independent functions of the land-owners and the capitalists. The land-owners speculate in the land-values and rent it to tenants, whilst the capitalists are actually the owners/managers of the durable capital goods used in industry. These items may be hired out for use. Regrettably, for political and commercial reasons, the concept of these 2 different functions were combined by John Bates Clark and company, about 1900, resulting in the later neglect of their different influences on our sociological system-- the terms landlord and capitalist becoming virtually synonymous along with the expression for property as real-estate.)
The diagram of this model is in my paper (noted above). A mention of the related teaching process is also provided in my short working paper SSRN 2600103 “A Mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics”. With this model in an alternative form, the various parts and activities of the Big Picture of our sociological system can be properly identified and defined.
Subsequently by analysis, the way our sociological system works can then be properly seen, calculated and illustrated. This analysis is introduced by the mathematics and logic, which was devised by Nobel Laureate Wellesley W. Leontief, when he invented the important "Input-Output" matrix methodology (that he originally applied only to the production sector). This short-hand method of modelling the whole system replaces the above-mentioned block-and-flow diagram. It enables one to really get to grips with what is going-on within our sociological system. It is the topology of the matrix which actually provides the key to this.
The logic and math are not hard and are suitable for high-school students, who have been shown the basic properties of square-matrices and the notation of the calculus. By this technique it is comparatively easy to introduce any change to a pre-set sociological system that is theoretically in equilibrium (even though we know that this ideal is never actually attained--it simply being a convenient way to begin the study). This change creates an imbalance and we need to regain equilibrium again. Thus, sudden changes or policy decisions may be simulated and the effects of them determined, which will point the way to what policy is best. In my book about it, (see below) 3 changes associated with taxation are investigated in hand-worked numerical examples. In fact, when I first worked it out, the irrefutable logical results were a surprise, even to me!
Developments of these ideas about making our subject more truly scientific (thereby avoiding the past pseudo-science being taught at universities), may be found in my recent book: “Consequential Macroeconomics—Rationalizing About How Our Social System Works”.
Please write to me at chestdher@gmail.com for a free e-copy of this 310-page book and for any additional information. Macrocompassion (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Illegal/black markets
Insurance, etc macro or micro? 71.178.33.122 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Top-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class Globalization articles
- Top-importance Globalization articles
- C-Class Trade articles
- Top-importance Trade articles
- WikiProject Trade articles
- India Education Program student projects, 2011 Q3
- India Education Program student projects