| Revision as of 05:25, 22 March 2012 editBkwillwm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,035 editsm →Logical Presentation of This Subject: fix link← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:16, 2 April 2012 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 91d) to Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive 1.Next edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| 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. | 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: | |||
| ''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.'' | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| == Look out for possible copyright violations in this article == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == trouble with new material == | == trouble with new material == | ||
Revision as of 12:16, 2 April 2012
| 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  |
 | Business C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Economics C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by 80.161.140.17
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 203.146.108.8
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.
trouble with new material
I'm going to revert this series of edits. 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. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Macroeconomics
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.
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. Macrocompassion (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
- Your previous comments were not removed. They have been archived in a standard, automatic process. They are still available here: Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive_1#Diagram_for_Describing_Circulation_in_a_Macroeconomics_System.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Logical Presentation of This Subject
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.
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 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.
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!Macrocompassion (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (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 MONIAC is very interesting, but it was a physical representation of prior theory not a breakthrough. It didn't have much influence.
- 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.
- 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 History of macroeconomics, 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.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)