| Revision as of 12:19, 6 February 2013 editByronmercury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,669 editsm →Taylor and Calvo← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:20, 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 odds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER |
:::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 odds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER 2008)rather than sticky information models, although of course the argument is exactly the same.] (]) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:20, 6 February 2013
 | Economics Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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 odds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER 2008)rather than sticky information models, although of course the argument is exactly the same.Byronmercury (talk) 11:51, 6 February 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)