Talk:Macroeconomics

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Also, these so called schools of economic thought have no bearing on relevant macroeconomics and are very outdated and not used by anyone who knows economics anymore.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

(VIA WP:RFC) ... I have to say that Mark's version presents a more compelte analysis of the topic, for the person in favor of Lucas, might I suggest adding information after Mark's that shows what exactly Lucas found wanting in Keynesian theory, thus creating a nice Positive/Negitive argument. Mbisanz 00:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

(VIA WP:RFC) ... Reacting solely to diff in RFC ... It is not a fair characterization that Lucas proved that all Keynesian models are wrong. Lucas's fundamental critique was that models of the time did not account for "rational expectations". That is, if agents expect a certain fiscal or monetary response to a shock, then they will react to it in advance. This insight is not really peculiar to Keynesian models, it is generally applicable. As to whether the model is "wrong", the test of a model, according to Milton Friedman, is whether it provides accurate predictions. The old workhorse IS-LM models are still what most real economic forecasting is based on, because they work ... they give pretty good predictions. To sum, I think that while the work of Lucas and others on the micro-foundations of macro-models is incredibly important: the statement that all Keynesian models are questionable is considerably overblown. Disclaimer: I have a Ph.D. in economics, but I do my research on the micro side. So, if there's a serious macroeconomics specialist here, I'd quickly defer. Derex 03:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hayek

I think a paragraph about Hayek could be added to this article. He has been somehow erased by Keynes' fame, but I think he deserves to be mentioned here, and maybe, if someone has substantial argument about that, the main points of quarrel with Keynes could be explained. After all, Hayek was admittedly appointed to the LSE as a reply to Keynes. Although he gave up his theory of business cycles, it could be mentioned anyway.

Peutch 20:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rational Expectations

I took out the following as it is totally wrong:

"*Rational Expectations represents a conservative school of macro-economics lead by Lucas, Prescott and Barro. It concentrates on the behavior at infinity of rational economic actors and the removal of barriers to the selection of rational strategies. It utilizes game theory among perfectly rational players to determine what the best strategy would be in the absence of other effects, and then in a normative fashion argues for the removal of "economic friction"."

First RE is NOT a "school" rather it is a hypothesis or an assumption. The behavior is NOT "at infinity" (whatever that means), it does not utilize game theory (???), there's no strategies just forecasts and the last part of the sentence makes absolutely no sense what so ever. RE should probably be mentioned somewhere in this article but correctly and in a relevant portion.radek 06:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This page has bad grammar

I noticed that this page has extremely bad grammar. It reads more like a power-point slide than an encyclopedic entry. I would be glad to improve upon the grammar if I understood the subject better. Could someone who knows something about economics clean up the non-sentences and such. Vitamin D 00:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Central Planning

Were missing the extreme left of macroeconomic thought, central planning, esp. in the template. Ksenon 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Placement course

I think a note should be added somewhere about Macroeconomics being an Advanced Placement course common in many schools throughout the world. The same goes for Microeconomics. I'm not exactly sure where to place this information, so if possible could someone else add it in. --Zeerus (ETC) 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Basic Macro-economics

This page has little to do with marco-economics; it fails to acknowledge that marco-economics has been arround a lot longer than the 1930s (see for instances Quesnay, who esstentially modeled the economy as a whole); Jan Tinbergen's model was not the first macro model, it was the first of a wide range of macro-econometric models; New-Keynsian economics is based on the notion that markets may be imperfect but that agents do poses rational expectations; Neo-Keynesians on the other hand feel that in the short run the economy may behave in a style close to that of Keynes but that in the long-run it behaves in a classical fashion; etctera. If I have some time in future I would be well willing to composes a new page on macro. If anybody else feels like doing so I would propose to raise the basic issue in macro based on a standard framework in which the difference in the schools may be seen. For instance along the lines of [1], though it is a bit technical it does cover the main attributes of macro.

El_Jogg 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

can i know more on something

 am called mehdi

can i know more

am a young economist and i wish to ask certain questions on national income

Some concerns about the introductory material

The text of the second sentence confounds several economic concepts. First there is the suggestion that GDP is somehow affected by changes in national income. This is formally correct because GDP is one measure of national income. Furthermore what is meant by "the rate of growth"? If GDP grows over time, then it exhibits a "growth rate", but it is not affected by the growth rate. The level of GDP is a measure of national income over a fixed period of time, and this level can change as the determinants of GDP change.

While I am an economist, I am not a macro-economist, and thus I do not feel qualified to edit the article. However, I would suggest that if one would want to succinctly introduce the main topics of macro-economics, those topics would be:

The determinants of long-run growth of income (as measured by GDP, GNP, etc.), the level of unemployment, the level of prices (and inflation), and the relationships between these three "big" macro-economic variables (income, prices, and employment).

I think this would be a good (but not easy!) project for a grad student with access to their core course notes, and modern macro texts at the undergrad, masters, and doctoral level.

Joel Kincaid 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts on Macroeconomics

Any of these exist?