Talk:Macroeconomics - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Njd-de (talk | contribs) at 21:58, 3 November 2022 (rm useless threads). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:58, 3 November 2022 by Njd-de (talk | contribs) (rm useless threads)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

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.

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Top‑importance

	Business and economics portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Globalization Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Trade Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:IEP assignment

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.

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)

The main objection to the existing diagram is that in common with the loss of the landlord's entity wikipedia has follow suit. This occurred about 1900 when John Bates Clark removed it from what Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Henry George and Karl Marx all recognized as being part of the basic structure. This change was politically inspired by landed monopolists and was utterly wrong because landlords continue to exist and to speculate in land values. So what is shown here is incorrect and it will lead to worse trouble during analysis.Macrocompassion (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.149.1 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Dai's comment on this article

Dr. Dai has reviewed this Misplaced Pages page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

1) "The IS–LM model represents the equilibrium in interest rates and output given by the equilibrium in the goods and money markets"
to be replaced by "The IS–LM model represents all the combinations of interest rates and output that ensure the equilibrium in the goods and money markets"
2) "Banks continuously shift the money supply ..." to be changed to "Central banks continuously shift the money supply... "
3) "Some banks allow the interest rate to fluctuate " to be changed to "Some of them allow the interest rate to fluctuate "
4) "implement quantitative easing by buying other assets such as corporate bonds," to be changed as "can implement quantitative easing by buying not only government bonds, but also other assets such as corporate bonds,"
5) "The rigidity of new Keynesian theory" to be replaced by
"The nominal rigidity of new Keynesian theory"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Misplaced Pages article:

Reference : Dai, Meixing, 2009. "On the role of money growth targeting under inflation targeting regime," MPRA Paper 13780, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again..

What's the point of citing a criticism of macroeconomics in the lead? Right in the beginning it reads,

"evidence regarding the consequences of different macroeconomic policies is still highly imperfect and open to serious criticism."

You know that there are few areas of research that are not open to 'serious criticism'? The whole point of scholarship is that ideas are open to criticism, and knowledge improves by a process of critical analysis. History, sociology, even the natural sciences function this way.

Actually this line is very much in the tradition of certain Misplaced Pages editors going out of their way to single out the discipline of economics as an illegitimate or questionable field of inquiry. There's no problem on here citing other controversial areas of research as fact, but there is certainly a crusade against economics. If it were just an article or two it wouldn't be worth addressing, but this is a reoccurring theme in the economics space.

If you really can't resist criticizing macroeconomics, and you have a sufficient number of reliable sources critiquing it in this way (not just one or two), why not just add a criticism section? The lead is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, and currently there is no section that critiques macroeconomics in this article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories: