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Also, these so called schools of economic thought have no bearing on relevant macroeconomics and are very outdated and not used by anyone who knows economics anymore.

can i know more about the goals of macro economics?

am a young economist and i wish to ask certain questions on national income yes you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.186.12.249 (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In reply to this pertainent question I had written an explanationn which is now included in the discussion further below (having been rejected from the article itself, shame!). The short answer is: a) to enable us to understand of what our social system consists b) to describe how our system works and c) to allow us to forecast how it will behave in the future. I might add that none of these aims are properly satisfied by present macroeconomic theory and analysis, although some useful pointers are available for governmental policy decisions.Macrocompassion (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

investigate the requirement at the different stages of growth of an organisation?

investigate the requirement at the different stages of growth of an organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.3 (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Circulation in macroeconomics

This image may be better than the current one. I translated it from the French and Spanish versions. Thoughts? --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Diagram for Describing Circulation in a Macroeconomics System

The diagram that was at the beginning of this article (and shown above) is unsatisfctory and it has a number of faults.

1. Confusion between what is flowing and the entities or agents between which the flow exits or enters.

2. Insufficient agents. For a good representation of a social system of a country (not including The Rest of The World) a minimum of 6 are necessary and these need a minimum of 19 connecting double flows.

3. The place where the transactions take place is irrevalent and should be omitted.

4. Flow quantities have two names to define the kind of goods, services, valuable documents flowing in one direction ad to specify the money flowing in the reciprocal direction.

5. Thus each flow is a mutual flow having two opposing components.

A diagram which satisfies these requirements does more than indicate the circulation of money and goods etc. It also shows the model that is being used to represent the system. Such a diagram has now been included. It is a more suitable diagram, which does not have these faults and which can be used in general macroeconomics work and study, without having the implications of the present limited diagram. It is now available in wikicommons, Social Science, title: Diagram For A Functional Macroeconomics System (closed economy). file image: DiagFuncMacroSyst[1].pdf Macrocompassion (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Macrocompassion (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)85.65.139.173 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Need for a more complete explanation

Although the following (and corrected) text was rejected by an editor, who claimed it is more like an essay, it is my claim that something like this is a necessary way of starting this important subject. The past article on macroeconomics is inadequate in a number of ways and it surely deserves better introductory and explanatory words. I therefore wish to present the same material here and for this editor to re-consider how best it might be included, instead of rejecting it out of hand, in a manner that is not in the Wikipedia spirit!Macrocompassion (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Origins and General Statements

Whilst there is a degree of uncertancy about macroeconomics, it is regarded as a science and as a result it has both theoretical and practical sides that are related. In discussing the subject is important to cover both of these aspects of the knowledge that comprises this inexact science.

Practical macroeconomics phenomena can be measured and related to the theoretical side, but in general the theories so far submitted are not sufficiently close to the actual society-at-large behavour as to properly explain how it works and to be able to forecast what will happen in future times. Experience is regarded as a good means of estimating what will happen too. For this reason a branch of economics called econometrics has been developed, which is based solely on the past performance of the social system. This performance is expressed mathematically in terms of statistical data and various coefficients for use in suitable time-dependent equations, for determining the behavour of various economics functions and variables. It has failed however, to provide a satisfactory means of telling when a sudden change is due and in general it becomes progressively less accurate in forecasting, as increasing future time intervals are taken.

In considering the theoretical aspects of macroeconomics a number of schools of thought have emerged, none of them being sufficiently complete or precise as to to be able to claim that their version of the science is completely correct. However, progress has been made and it can be said that some of the government policy decision-making as based on the theory has been useful, in that it has helped to both stabilize and advance the progress of the social system. Many alternate theories have been tried, but not all of them have worked properly and some have been adverse to progress. So that for all the profoundity, vitality and need to do the right thing for society-at-large, in fact it is the somewhat more selfish political considerations rather than the ideal theoretical ones that have dominated governmental policy-making.

In considering theoretical macroeconomics the first stage is one of defning terms and trying to set up a clear understanding of what is involved. This is difficult in that many theoretical studies seem to begin without a full statement of the assumptions, axioms and meanings of the terms being used. Thus the resulting (limited) theories, which in fact cover only some of the aspects of the social system-at-large, are not able to be properly joined together, nor do they find application to the whole of the community. Even so, the next stage in the process of developing a theory must then be to establish a suitable model that represents all or part of the social system. It is generally but not always conceded that the whole system is so big and complicated that it is impractical to represent it all, and consequently a smaller partial model is constructed with the unlikely assumption of there being no outside effects occurring during the operation of this model and within the limits of what it represents. Probably because of this, there has been so little agreement about how in theory the system actually works!

The early theories were directed at the aspects of production and consumption of goods so only the householders and producers were included. This is strange because the three factors of production, land, labor and durable capital goods, (and their returns ground-rent, wages and dividends/yield/interest) had already been defined by Adam Smith in 1765. Later theories concerned the effect of trade abroard and the relative effects of prices on the quantities of goods needed for both home and foreign businesses. A theory of money and its circulation was also developed but as can be seen there ideas are difficult as separated theories to become one seamless whole. Also in this discussion it is easy to confuse some of the microeconomics theories, such as those of supply and demand and the associated equilibrium assumptions and anaylses, with the macroeconomics ones which were fewer and less exacting as explained above.85.65.139.173 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Macrocompassion (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the editor who originally removed the text, but I agree that it doesn't belong in the article. It's uncited and unencyclopedic. The text includes a lot of commentary that's POV and unnecessary. The writer should take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There is a lot that still needs to be added to this article, but I don't think much can be taken from the above text.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

All right then, in this case we should begin our criticisms and improvements in the logical way of finding the various sub-headings for the various aspects of macroeconomics that need to be included in this broad subject. The openning statement in the article has ref.3 (Blanchard) as the source for this, but better encyclopediac help should be given to the reader who seeks and needs to see these parts directly. (However these various parts of the main subject are not stated.) So if this discussion about presentation of the subject is to lead somewhere, we need to work out such a list of sub-heading subjects and then supply them with more details in the text. I suggest that "Macroeconomics" has as sub-headings the following (provisional) general topics:

Definitions of, Place Within Social Science, Understanding Nature of, Purpose of, Theories About, Collection of Various Data and Their Use, Statistical Analysis (Econometrics), Schools of Thought, Development of (History), Government Policies from, Political Aspects (of Policy-Making), Mathematical Analysis for, Usefullness of, Forcasts of, Relation with Microeconomics, Educational Aspects.

Some of these subjects have already been included in the main text and more are covered in my edited by rejected details (which would otherwise have been open to modification and expansion, with the ability to place them as sub-headed matters), so what is of use here should be some agreement about their presentation in a logical way. I hope editors will continue with these suggestions and not reject them too! 85.65.139.173 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)