This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 201.208.189.225 (talk) at 12:43, 6 November 2014 (→Excesive savings.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:43, 6 November 2014 by 201.208.189.225 (talk) (→Excesive savings.: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keynesian economics 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: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keynesian economics 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: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 |
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links : |
Prononuciation of "Keynes"
How to pronounce "Keynes"? Here's a .wav file: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/k/k0046600.html Can someone edit it nicely into the page? I seem to have difficulties with it. (Anonymous 21th June 2006 at 6:10 AM)
What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?
This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.209 (talk • contribs)
spending and investment
"If the government increases its spending, then the citizens are encouraged to spend more because more money is in circulation. People will start to invest more, and the economy will climb back up to normal."
that is not even a crude simplification ... it's somewhat wrong
private spending = consumption
private saving = investemt
Definition
I made a change to the definition recently from "a macroeconomic school based on K" to "the group of macroeconomic schools based on K". I did this because of the name--Keynesian economics, as in Keynes. Any macroeconomic school of thought based on his stuff should be called "Keynesian" and any macroeconomic school of thought called "Keynesian" should be based on his stuff (unless it's based on another Keynes). Historically, "Keynesian economics" has referred to a specific set of theories, but if someone took Keynes' work and offered a different spin on it, it would still be "Keynesian" as long as it borrowed heavily from his work. Furthermore, there are profound doctrinal differences between various sub-schools of Keynesianism, so it would appear that "Keynesian economics" as it is commonly understood (as a group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes as opposed to any group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes) is already a group of schools and not one school. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 April 2012
Undid revision 532035545 by 130.126.241.243
No reason was given for adding the request for citation. I believe that such a request needs to be discussed in "Talk." Citation doesn't seem possible to me. If someone does feel the need and is able to add a citation to content "The bidding up of house prices due to the abundance of credit prior to the Global Financial Crisis add credibility to the Austrian perspective, but does not form part of the mainstream thought." at the end of section "Austrian School," by all means please go ahead and do so. SteveT (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Revision 585418614
Doesn't the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=585418614&oldid=585418472 merit some discussion, first? It seems somewhat arbitrary to me -- what makes Hazlitt "not notable?" He's a relatively well-known figure among us students of economics. SteveT (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hazlitt is not in any history of economic thought textbook that I know of. He is a journalist, and only relatively well-known among adherents of Austrian economists. I'll be happy to see any critiques sourced to a standard textbook of macroeconomics or economic history. LK (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Does the fact that he wrote one | Economics in one lesson - Henry Hazlitt - Google Books) that sold over a million copies count? SteveT (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it's Austrian School, it's still fringe and contradicted by reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I might say that if it's Keynesian, it's fringe and contradicted by reliable sources, but that would be my opinion and, since I am not a "notable economist," everyone else would be justified in considering such a claim laughable.
- My reply to Lawrencekhoo (and to which I'd like to hear others' replies, since I am not willing to accept only Lawrencekhoo's judgment) remains: , does the fact the Hazlitt wrote a textbook that has sold over a million copies count? I would consider Paul Samuelson to be a "noted economist -- despite being a Keynesian <grin> on that basis, so I would hope the same principle would apply to Hazlitt, a student of the Austrian School. SteveT (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Samuelson was a Nobel laureate in economics. Hazlitt was a journalist and pundit, but not a scholar or a theoretician. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any peer-reviewed secondary sources which take any of the Austrian School principles seriously, or have been able to confirm them with simulations or empirical studies? Supply-side trickle-down nonsense is thoroughly discredited in the reliable sources, no matter how many people in the armchair libertarian contingent wish it was respectable. EllenCT (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- My reply to Lawrencekhoo (and to which I'd like to hear others' replies, since I am not willing to accept only Lawrencekhoo's judgment) remains: , does the fact the Hazlitt wrote a textbook that has sold over a million copies count? I would consider Paul Samuelson to be a "noted economist -- despite being a Keynesian <grin> on that basis, so I would hope the same principle would apply to Hazlitt, a student of the Austrian School. SteveT (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion of supply-side and Austrian (which have a few commonalities but are not the same thing) economics and of the value of peer review of economic philosophy is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It is of no more intrinsic value than that of anyone else. SteveT (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion is based on my study of the peer-reviewed literature, and the value of peer review is part of Misplaced Pages's WP:V policy ("peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources"). What is yours based on? Again, are there any peer-reviewed secondary sources which take any of the Austrian School principles seriously, or have been able to confirm them with simulations or empirical studies? EllenCT (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, peer-reviews are of some value only when there is not an overwhelming consensus against a reasonable school of thought, as for example the consensus against freeing African-American slaves in pre-Civil war Southern US. Note the word "usually" in the WP policy. Empirical studies and results of simulations are not very useful when considering the work of a school of thought that eschews quantitative approaches and relies instead on reasoning that starts with a particular understanding of human nature and develops on through an expectation of outcomes. You don't accept their approach; fine, you are under no obligation to do so. But you have no authoritative standing to denigrate those of us who do (although you are more than welcome to do so). SteveT (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that it is okay to accept a theory which does not make accurate predictions as long as a group of people are convinced that it follows from first principles? EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is "nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it". It is up to the reader, not the editor, to decide which theories to "accept". Censoring by arbitrarily labeling an opposing idea "fringe" is not NPOV. Otherwise, perhaps you could use "simulations or empirical studies" to explain how Keynesian economics has prevented the global depression we're in now. Mikiemike (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Are you saying that it is okay to accept a theory which does not make accurate predictions as long as a group of people are convinced that it follows from first principles? EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO, peer-reviews are of some value only when there is not an overwhelming consensus against a reasonable school of thought, as for example the consensus against freeing African-American slaves in pre-Civil war Southern US. Note the word "usually" in the WP policy. Empirical studies and results of simulations are not very useful when considering the work of a school of thought that eschews quantitative approaches and relies instead on reasoning that starts with a particular understanding of human nature and develops on through an expectation of outcomes. You don't accept their approach; fine, you are under no obligation to do so. But you have no authoritative standing to denigrate those of us who do (although you are more than welcome to do so). SteveT (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion is based on my study of the peer-reviewed literature, and the value of peer review is part of Misplaced Pages's WP:V policy ("peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources"). What is yours based on? Again, are there any peer-reviewed secondary sources which take any of the Austrian School principles seriously, or have been able to confirm them with simulations or empirical studies? EllenCT (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion of supply-side and Austrian (which have a few commonalities but are not the same thing) economics and of the value of peer review of economic philosophy is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It is of no more intrinsic value than that of anyone else. SteveT (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I do not believe that "it is okay to accept a theory which does not make accurate predictions as long as a group of people are convinced that it follows from first principles" if you have a good reason to not accept it. I also do not believe that it is okay to reject a theory just because someone challenges it on what you believe to be inappropriate criteria. SteveT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:V is also a pillar policy, and says that peer reviewed sources are more accurate. Again, are there any peer-reviewed secondary sources which take any of the Austrian School principles seriously, or have been able to confirm them with simulations or empirical studies? Also, how do you feel about ? EllenCT (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- But WP:V does not say that peer reviewed sources are the only acceptable sources. By the very definition, peer reviewed articles of the ideas of minority schools of thought antithetical to the consensus view are not likely to take the minority views seriously and Austrian school theory minimizes the importance of empirical studies. Milton Friedman, an economist that does emprical work who is one of the most symptathetic to Austrian views, is taken seriously (isn't he?). SteveT (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting censoring Austrian school thought as undue weight, only merely pointing out that it does not comport with the peer reviewed literature which WP:V instructs is to be preferred in the mathematical sciences and historical and prescriptive arts, along with the fact that there are no Austrian School-based simulations which accurately predict historical outcomes from empirical data. EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- That there are no Austrian School-based simulations which accurately predict historical outcomes from empirical data is true. But that isn't because Austrian simulations fail to accurately predict historical outcomes but rather because Austrians generally do not accept that empirical data is appropriate as a yardstick for economic philosophy and, thus, there are no Austrian simulations! SteveT (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the statement that Austrians generally do not accept that empirical data is appropriate as a yardstick for economic philosophy? EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Among others, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/Austrian_school#Empirical_objections. SteveT (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the statement that Austrians generally do not accept that empirical data is appropriate as a yardstick for economic philosophy? EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- That there are no Austrian School-based simulations which accurately predict historical outcomes from empirical data is true. But that isn't because Austrian simulations fail to accurately predict historical outcomes but rather because Austrians generally do not accept that empirical data is appropriate as a yardstick for economic philosophy and, thus, there are no Austrian simulations! SteveT (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting censoring Austrian school thought as undue weight, only merely pointing out that it does not comport with the peer reviewed literature which WP:V instructs is to be preferred in the mathematical sciences and historical and prescriptive arts, along with the fact that there are no Austrian School-based simulations which accurately predict historical outcomes from empirical data. EllenCT (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Excesive savings.
This paragraph is absolutely wrong.
Drain end accounts, where capitals have no place to go, but MUST be invested in order to remain at PPP par (thereby becoming marauding capitals), are at fault, these capitals causing a severity of frequency derivatives onto an H(s=jw)= Output(s)/Input(s) composed of a Heavyside function. A VERY simple solution: The nation will purchase all excess capital by and through a PPP1 bond, 4.5M/100 years, with a drawout of 45k/annum, free of tributes, at the modicum rate of 45Euro´s/annum administrative fee. The obtained bills will NOT be redistributed but burned, thereby reducing marauding capitals attempting to maintain PPP1, and providing PAR returns.
[several points to place: first the financial. A) Normalized drawout upto 45k/annum, no costs, administration fee conglomerized over the totality of the economy, therefore NOT acruable to the generations bond. B) Second drawout, 45/annum, same yearspan, last month´s inflation rate, plus clawback administrative costs, out of standard norm, 45 Euro. C) Any addicional drawout, Clawback inflational rate of last time window year. D) No drawout, no administrative fee, norm drawout, no fees . E) Well, we leave these out, on this page.
The LACK, of MANY an economic theory, is their incapacity to do much in terms of function composed of time variables f(x,t), where time is ignored. .
Key nesian economics, is a con term. Key me in nescius, is perhaps more apt.
Categories: