Talk:New Keynesian economics

former copyright violation

There used to be a copyright violation on this page; after it had been noted, someone replaced it with the stub that now fills the page. I deleted the page to get the copyright violation out of the history, then re-created the page with the stub. Andre Engels

Paul Davidson

I think the link to Paul Davidsion in the "Relation to other macroeconomic schools" can't be right. This guy has nothing to with economics what so ever and on the Post-Keynesian_economics page the link is red as well. --58.105.106.2 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Here is the right link: Paul Davidson (economist). Rinconsoleao 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

op. cit.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style advises against abbreviations like op. cit., suggesting "named references" instead. However, the Manual of Style also advocates using the most specific reference possible: references to a specific page or specific chapter instead of a whole work. Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no way to use a single named reference to refer repeatedly to different chapters or pages of the same work. Therefore I have used op. cit. instead of "named references". But if someone else knows a better way of dealing with this, please go ahead. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is in the wrong section, but I don't know how to start a new one. The problem is that in the section Microfoundations of price stickiness, second paragraph, there is a mention to Ball and Romer, but no link or reference is provided. Does anyone know which work is being mentioned, and if yes, could you provide the link or reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viviannevilar (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference is likely to:

• Ball, Laurence & Romer, David, 1991. "Sticky Prices as Coordination Failure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 539-52, June.

Or perhaps,

• Ball, L., and D. Romer (1990): “Real Rigidities and the Nonneutrality of Money,” Review of Economic Studies, 57(April), 539–552.

LK (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

merge with neo-Keynesian

• Disagree Not a good idea IMHO. Neo-Keynesian has a number of connotations, being used in the early days to describe both the neoclassical synthesis and post Keynesian economics, which could not be more different! New Keynesian is pretty well established now. Simem007 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree Merge tag should be removed. Both articles need work, but the terms 'New Keynesian' and 'Neo-Keynesian' refer to distinctly different things. The former refers to a school of thought based on Mankiw and Romer's work done in the 90's, the later to schools of thought that developed in the 1960's.LK (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree Different schools of thought, both theoretically and historically. Seems silly that this keeps getting suggested for merging. Claphands (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems consensus is to NOT merge. I'll remove the tags in a few days unless someone objects. LK (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags removed. LK (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Paul Krugman really a New Keynesian economist?

Paul Krugmam is mostly an international trade economist and doesn't really seem to be involved in the New Keynesian "movement." From this article in the New York times, he also seems very critical of rational expectations and New Keynesian theory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Doktorsleepless (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

His textbook and writings are consistently in the New Keynesian tradition. His essays on currency crisis, liquidity traps and Japan's 'Lost Decade' are a large contribution to the literature, and are well known among New Keynesians. He has also described himself as such. LK (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

His textbook and policy advocacy are Keynesian, broadly speaking. But his research contributions are not particularly Keynesian. In terms of research, he would best be classified as a New Trade theorist, along with Marc Melitz, who is also mistakenly (in my opinion) on the New Keynesian list. Since most mainstream economists use (new) Keynesian ideas when they are discussing macroeconomic policy issues, it seems silly to me to classify them all as New Keynesians. The list of New Keynesians should be limited to the people who have made important theoretical or empirical contributions to New Keynesian economics. Here is a list: Template_talk:Keynesians with discussion of who should be included, and why. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)