Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nominal rigidity: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:07, 9 January 2013 editByronmercury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,669 edits Taylor and Calvo← Previous edit Revision as of 11:51, 6 February 2013 edit undoByronmercury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,669 edits Taylor and CalvoNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
:Thanks for adding the sticky information section. It was definitely needed. The "Evaluation of sticky information models" section seems like it might have original research problems (see ]). It doesn't look like anybody has published the criticism that sticky information models lack nominal price rigidity. Am I missing something? Does one of the sources evaluate sticky information models based on their lack of nominal rigidities?--] (]) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC) :Thanks for adding the sticky information section. It was definitely needed. The "Evaluation of sticky information models" section seems like it might have original research problems (see ]). It doesn't look like anybody has published the criticism that sticky information models lack nominal price rigidity. Am I missing something? Does one of the sources evaluate sticky information models based on their lack of nominal rigidities?--] (]) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks for the encouragement. In the evaluation, I was just repeating what I had heard people say. However, you are quite right, the wikipedia guidelines require references. I will take a look at some articles to find a suitable reference and remove the evaluation section if I cannot find one. ] (]) 07:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ::Thanks for the encouragement. In the evaluation, I was just repeating what I had heard people say. However, you are quite right, the wikipedia guidelines require references. I will take a look at some articles to find a suitable reference and remove the evaluation section if I cannot find one. ] (]) 07:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
::added references. The Knotec is especially relevant and a really cute title. Thanks for your comment: it got me to read some new papers. Most of the references I first looked at were aimed at criticizing the indexation assumption for being at adds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER 2 2008)rather than sticky information models, although the argument is exactly the same.] (]) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:51, 6 February 2013

WikiProject iconEconomics Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
High traffic

On 30 May 2010, Nominal rigidity was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

"Jobless recovery"

I guess this is an American economic recovery? If so state that its American! This will lessen confusion. --Albert 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. --David Youngberg 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucas Imperfect info model

Aka "Islands" or "surprise model" is described in its own page -- Lucas-Islands_model . As another important explanation for price stickiness it's probably worth linking to from here. 128.164.16.120 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Taylor and Calvo

This section is still not very useful for the non-specialist. We need some further amplification on the taylor and Calvo models. They should really have their own pages. But in the meantime, why not add something here?Byronmercury (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

We could also do with a section on Sticky information. Again, I will do it eventually if no one wants to get started in the meantime (Basically: Stan Fischer's 1977 model, Mankiw and Reis 2002etc..Byronmercury (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

had a first go at this: plenty of room for improvement!Byronmercury (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the sticky information section. It was definitely needed. The "Evaluation of sticky information models" section seems like it might have original research problems (see WP:OR). It doesn't look like anybody has published the criticism that sticky information models lack nominal price rigidity. Am I missing something? Does one of the sources evaluate sticky information models based on their lack of nominal rigidities?--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. In the evaluation, I was just repeating what I had heard people say. However, you are quite right, the wikipedia guidelines require references. I will take a look at some articles to find a suitable reference and remove the evaluation section if I cannot find one. Byronmercury (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
added references. The Knotec is especially relevant and a really cute title. Thanks for your comment: it got me to read some new papers. Most of the references I first looked at were aimed at criticizing the indexation assumption for being at adds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER 2 2008)rather than sticky information models, although the argument is exactly the same.Byronmercury (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Categories: