Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidstrauss (talk | contribs) at 03:08, 23 August 2005 (→Comment by [] on []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 formula 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Also, these so called schools of economic thought have no bearing on relevant macroeconomics and are very outdated and not used by anyone who knows economics anymore.

Comment by 203.146.108.8 on User talk:Mark

Mark:

The changes you are reverting to Macroeconomics page are NOT a neutral point of view. The are clearly written by someone who (1) favors Keynsian economics and (2) does not understand economics. Much of what is written is irrevant to current Macroeconomic thought and represents a lay-persons thoughts and NOT the thoughts of the economics profession and some of the statements are just wrong!

Hello. While I do not know about "New Keynesian Theory", probably the main reason for me reverting your edit was your wholesale blanking of all the different schools of macroeconomic thought. Misplaced Pages is not a textbook, so we do not need to worry about whether we are supporting the 'one true Economic theory'. We instead should outline them all equally and fairly. Saying that "Robert Lucas Jr proved ... that at all traditional Keynesian macroeconomic models were questionable" conveys the message that his conclusions were correct and unequivocal. If you feel that New Keynesian economics shouldn't be mentioned, remove that, but do not remove all reference to some of the most pivotal economists of the past century and competing economic theories at the same time. As for your educational and employment history, good for you. - Mark 07:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark:

So it goes then with uneducated people watching over this project.

If it makes you feel any better, I could ask the professors of economics at my univserity to read the article and suggest any changes. I'm sorry, but I trust their knowledge slightly more than that of a person who claims to have been a presidential staffer and yet feels a good argument can be made by saying "Fuck off Mark". - Mark 08:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(VIA WP:RFC) ... Mark's version seems fine. The one change I would suggest making is to somehow differentiate the positive and normative aspects of the different approaches; as it is they are mashed together in a somewhat confusing fashion. e.g. differentiate between Keynes's models and Keynesian policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:18, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

(VIA WP:RFC) ... Mark's versions is far more NPOV. However, I think there's value in mentioning which schools have more followers. We should still have a description of each school. It's not like we should remove the alchemy article because we have chemistry now. --Davidstrauss 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)