Talk:Macroeconomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment by 80.161.140.17[edit]

      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[edit]

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Also, these so called schools of economic thought have no bearing on relevant macroeconomics and are very outdated and not used by anyone who knows economics anymore.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

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

The current Wikipedia 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)

Dimand[edit]

Two notes refererring to Dimand, but no further data over this book in the references. 198.184.231.254 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I added the Dimand reference.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image[edit]

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)