|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Adaptive expectations will also get you a shifting Phillips curve. You don't need rational expectations. In fact, Friedman's original critique was made within a adaptive expectations framework.radek 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There should be an example of this shift somewhere in the article, especially in the Stagflation section.
The image appears corrupt to me? hammodt 02:18, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Same here :/ - Marc K 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
An image of the Philips curve itself really should be first priority. - Slagfart
I added a simple definition at the front, that was sorely needed. I paraphrased some reliable textbook definitions obtained from a Google search "Phillips curve definition". (Jonfernquest 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC))
We need to put in some references in this article. --RickardV 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
"Pragmatic" Economists Use the Phillips Curve?
I have talked to economists, and be they Austrian, Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, or supply-side, no one thinks the Phillips Curve has any validity. - MSTCrow 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have talked to economists as well, and few have said that it has no validity whatsoever. They recognize that it is fundamentally flawed, sure, but not without any merit at all. Either way, it is a relatively important concept in the history of economic thought and should be addressed as it is.184.108.40.206 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure I agree. But not having talked to economists there is the distinction between the original Philips curve and the Philips curve that is mounted with rational choice theory leading to a straight up line with just one level of unemployment. So what do these economists not find valid? RickardV 10:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Empirical or theoretical?
The first line of the article defines the Phillips curve as a historical (ie empirical) relationship. If we define it as an empirical relationship, then we should distinguish that from any theory which purports to explain the empirical relationship. Therefore I deleted the words "in the theory" and also "tradeoff" from the opening definition.
Of course, it might be better to state two related definitions of 'Phillips curve': it referred originally to an empirical relationship observed in the data, but nowadays it also often refers to a theoretical relationship that occurs in (some) macroeconomic models. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have some problems with the Stagflation section. It doesn't differentiate between the short run and the long run, and simply says:
- Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman—arguing that the demonstrable failure of the relationship demanded a return to non-interventionist, free market policies. The idea that there was one simple, predictable, and persistent relationship between inflation and unemployment was, at least, questioned.
- I changed the information a bit. The sections was never really on stagflation. It might be better just to erase it.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
when inflation was high, unemployment was low
The implication in this section sound like an attempt to make a causal link. e.g High inflation promotes unemployment.
However, if you have high employment (low unemployment), then people have more money to spend. More money chasing similar levels of goods produces inflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Should the question of the impact of the Baby Boom in this era be raised in this article on Phillips? Like Expectational Theory, economic demography was raise by researchers such as Susan Wachter (Wharton) in an attempt to explain how stagflation was occurring at the time. I am commenting from memory.Charley sf (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)