Talk:2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence

Criticism

Although a staunch Keynesian, I can tell the "Criticism" section has been written by strong proponents of Keynesian policies who have had only a half-hearted shot at neutrality. The first paragraph is irrelevant as it does not refer to criticism: it even mentions a few worthy objectives which might or might not be achieved by Keynesian policies (like a shift to a 'green economy').

"It is questioned by commentators on the left whether the Keynesian resurgence has been sufficiently strong" is not criticism of the resurgence, just as criticism on an article called "Cars" would not start by saying that perhaps there are not enough cars around. Similar case with the mention of Germany.

The rest of the criticism is more spot-on, but needs to be expanded and revamped. It feels as though the author did not really understand the points made by the opposing side, and has just gathered snippets from media coverage. "Various other technical reasons" is unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

Hope someone is more productive than myself and makes these changes! Good luck, and keep developing a promising article. 23.40 GMT, 01 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.157.249 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes 157.249 , and you are not wrong about the section being written by a Keynes Fan! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a more robust Criticism section as well, since its hard to tell what logic could lead people to claim more tax cuts are the solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.8.47 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be exspanding and sharpening the Criticism section in the next few weeks if no one else does - i was hopeing for the sake of balance an editor with free market sympatheis would step up! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added the best sources of the free market point of view I know. Unlike the Monetarists / New Keynesians, the Austrian School is well placed to attack Keynes as at least their theory has not been tried and found wanting. Despite what I've said on talk pages about the free market I very much believe that there are still sincere and intelligent folk who believe the free market is in the peoples best interests and it would be great if any pro free market editors want to exspand or re-write the criticism section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

comparison to early New Deal versus World War II economic mobilization

The entry 2008-2009 Keynesian resurgence fits well, IMO, the facts rapidly unfolding around the world. These facts include the widely held belief that the early New Deal was trial and error not Keynesian - and the only real test of Keynesian power to produce and pay for output was during the period of economic mobilization that gave WW II: money matched to output (not financial debt); heavily emphasized private savings to reduce demand (and reduce concern that high taxes may or may not be in store for a nation's grand-children - depending on productivity potentials and revolutions in technology); criminal process to prevent hoarding and the like; wage and price control, and rationing; and effective long term interest management.

All these tools were necessary to minimize after war inflation - which, nevertheless, on account of pent up demand and ending of controls, unleashed an acceptable high level of post war pricing.

Today's debate universally recognizes that trial and error New Deal-ism asks for considerable time to go from error to new trial. Economic mobilization does not ask for very much time at all. The fact that economic mobilization was the only timely sure cure ever found for deflation (the admitted current condition) is often glossed over.

It is therefore logically necessary for this criticism of the Keynesian resurgence to emphasize: the missing savings aspect of the success from 1942-1946; the missing very low taxes on the middle class in that period (the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class occurred in the post war period, after the Kennedy tax cut); the financial cooperation between the central bank and Treasury which appears to be returning without an agreement or legal basis; the acceptance of government spending in place of private spending - which is presently not accepted - and which is the only way to win wars against real enemies and against global environmental collapse; and the creation of confidence - that all parties (Keynesian and non-Keynesian) cry for - based on patriotism more than fortunate optimism.

It may be that only the President has the power to mobilize the economy. But the intellectual recognition of the power of Keynesian theory has the duty to admit its only proof came when its purpose was clear and its grip was steady.

John, thanks for your interesting perspective and your contribution to the main article. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be good to see policies to tackle the issue of debt in general and in particular to avoid additional tax burden for future generations. That said, your section reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry. Also as you seem to admit you're advocating something that no significant sources have been talking about in the media. I'm tagging your entry as original research, with a view to removing it to the talk page in the next week or so. Of course it can stay if you can find references to support that what you're saying is a POV shared by significant sources (even if just a minority). Lots of commentators are advising folk to pay off their personal debt if they're able, but Im not aware of anyone suggesting that we ought to further dampen consumer demand and encourage savings. Im not too sure if that's what you meant, but it read that way. Its actually the opposite of what Keynesian economists are advocating . Successful Keynesian policy as implemented in the 50s and 60s discouraged excessive saving and purposefully stimulated demand. Im not sure how one can argue that measures appropriate during WWII and the immediate aftermath apply to our present situation. Sorry if I have misunderstood what you are saying! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Feyd,

Thank you for your accurate appraisal of current Keynesian pro-private-spending strategies. They are, in by view, similar to "guns and butter" models during the Vietnam war. They will, in my view, risk too high inflation too soon -- and ought to be challenged now. The absence of calls for economic mobilization now to rapidly deliver what Obama promised is sad. The current congressional criticism of Obama's recovery plan has raised all the issues BUT NONE OF THE SOLUTIONS I have introduced into this article. If you remove it to the discussion page, it may not attract the help it needs to be brought to the attention of the world's currently floundering experts on how you substitute planned government spending for consumer and profit-seeking spending when the fate of humanity hangs in the balance. I know Wikipedia is young and is learning to accomplish its purposes. Fortunately for poor people, Wikipedia's fate is also at risk if we drift away from effective communication of knowledge to pursuit of the unrelated ideal of avoiding anything new. There is nothing original about the way economic mobilization looks at supply, demand, cost accounting, and the power of Keynesian thought to influence monetary systems of production. The knowledge is seventy years old and older. Its application is a matter of logic not research or opinion.

Signed: John Gelles

introducing new article

The entry for the Keynesian Resurgence began as a sub-section of the influence section of the main John Maynard Keynes article. Several editors contributed to it and more than likely there will be many more relevant developments as the year unfolds. Rather than unbalance the main bio article I thought it might be nice to have a separate article so editors are more free to help us capture this very important phenomena. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I have not yet heard the term "Keynesian Resurgence" or "Keynesian Revival". The bold introductory paragraph needs support from reliable sources.

I'm especially surprised to hear about a "Resurgence" because to the best of my knowledge variations on Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking ever since Keynes. Keynesian economics has been challenged by a number of competing schools: Monetarism in the 1960s-70s; New Classical Macroeconomics in the 1980s; and Real Business Cycle Theory in the 1990s. You might argue that in the late 1970s or early 1980s Keynesianism was really out of fashion and Monetarism was somewhat more influential. But versions of Keynesianism really never disappeared and never ceased to be influential. A good history of all these recent economic debates is given by Michael Woodford in 'Revolution and evolution in 20th century macroeconomics'. His overall point is that Keynesianism has been the predominant viewpoint in macroeconomics ever since the Great Depression, though it has repeatedly absorbed insights from competing schools of thought.

To say that Keynesianism came back in 2008 especially shows ignorance of New Keynesian economics. The development of New Keynesian DSGE models of the macroeconomy has probably been the main area of macroeconomic research for the last ten years, and these are now widely accepted and used by policy makers (especially in central banks). The main reason newspaper editors think something is new in 2008 is that we are facing a really deep recession (possibly depression) for the first time in decades. The standard Keynesian prescription in that sort of circumstance is massive fiscal policy stimulus. The reason it's happening now is not because Keynesianism just returned, it's because mainstream Keynesian policy requires this kind of action in the circumstances we face today. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there Rinconsoliao, that’s an interesting perspective.I’ll grant Keynesianism never really went away, in that neo-Classical economists used some of Keynes work to make their new synthesis. I understand what you’re saying about New Keynesian economics, and I’ve skimmed through the Woodford presentation. If this article was written from an academic perspective I’d agree the implication of a recent paradigm shift would be highly dubious.

This article is written with a view to capture changes in policy making, and to a lesser extent there practical implications. The coupling between economics as a discipline with government policy making is far looser than many academics appreciate - influences much closer to actual decision makers are the key global institutions like the IMF, World Bank and influential normative media like the FT and Economist ( Ravenhill 2005) . As you imply independent central banks do indeed tend to make decisions more in line with current reccomnendations from accademia, and the very fact they have the independence to do so is one of the remaining victories of Monetarism. As per the article and various references, senior individuals in those orgs are not merely advising different policies to suit different conditions, they are at least partially admitted their previous ideological commitment to free market was mistaken. I haven’t yet added links for Green span admitting his mistakes or u-turn by IMF boss - okay I am titleing those a bit more loosely than i would on a main article page, lol.

To appreciate the sea change in policy making terms, consider how here in Britain the recession of the early 80s and the early 90s were largely allowed to run their course with no substantial fiscal intervention, despite the jobless total exceeding 3 million in both cases (a lot higher than it is now) - okay you could argue that and granted there was no comparable financial dimension. But what about the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis  ?- they were literally crying out for a Keynesian style solution but it was denied partly as the dominant view among decision makers was strongly pro free market – not the Keynesian / neo classical syntheses that’s consistently been taught at most universities. .

A difference between those earlier recessions and today, is that during early - mid 2008 folk like myself were hard at work having face to face meetings and written communication with senior politicians up to and including Mr Brown himself, who as you know was leading the world wide response in the crucial period after October. The ability to influence decision makers isnt a function of academic expertise as much being in the right place at the right time and the grace of the Holy Spirit. So though it might look like Im following newspaper writers, thats not really the case, Im just following wikki protocol. To see a blog post where I predicted the revival and the agency of Mr Brown before Keynes was being widely talked about just search for 'farewell to capitalism'.

Did you read the FT article which strongly implies in the first two paragraphs that the whole world is adopting Keynesian remedies, with only Germany having reservations ? I havent heard anyone else question the existence of a Keynesian revival, though as per criticism section many American politicians fear it isnt as strong as it needs to be, and here in Britain for example many MPs are rightly disappointed at the governments failure to Nationalise our troubled banks, with zero compensation to shareholder and a purge of senior management as was done in Norway in the 90s.

If you search for Keynesian revival / resurgence / renaissance there are hundreds of articles about the current phenomena, many are critical but none of the ones I’ve skimmed question the reality? I'll put a citation on the opening sentence as you requested. I hope you dont mind me removing your tags. With great respect there's nothing desperate about this article, the desperate ones are the rentier class who rue the now inevitable erosion of their wealth that will result from the elevation of prosperity for the disadvantaged and the long term relatively high (but managed) inflation that will result from the Keynesian Revival.

Sorry for going on so much, Im just not expecting to be online much these next few days so have tried hard to settle the discussion.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still doubts there has been a Keynesian Resurgence in terms of Policy making, a good FT article to check out is titled The undeniable shift to Keynes and says:

“ The sudden resurgence of Keynesian policy is a stunning reversal of the orthodoxy of the past several decades, which held that efforts to use fiscal policy to manage the economy and mitigate downturns were doomed to failure. Now only Germany remains publicly sceptical that fiscal stimulus will work . ”

FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Academia

With respect Rinconsoleao I again see nothing dubious about the claim. The paper you cited earlier, http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/macro20C.pdf , speaks about those few who opposed the neoclassical synthesis as 'Keynesian Zealots' It goes on to says

“ there is little point in insisting upon the specifically Keynesian character of the emerging theorectical synthesis" ”

And also in arguments about the efficacy of fiscal policy:

“ the modern literatrue sides with the critic of Keynesianism. ”

So your own link supports the view that untill very recently main stream economics had moved very far from Keynes position as a result of the counter -revolutions it talks about, even if evolved forms of some of Keynes insights are retained. New Keynesian Economics is Keynesian economics in name only - I wouldnt have been confident in saying that a few months ago, but I've read many papers and talked to several prominent economists since then.

Now as for your claim that the NY article I just added doesnt make a comparision between the 2008 & 2009 meetings, please can I draw your attention to this passages

“ At their last annual meeting, ideas about using public spending as a way to get out of a recession or about government taking a role to enhance a market system were relegated to progressives. The mainstream was skeptical or downright hostile to such suggestions. This time, virtually everyone voiced their support, returning to a way of thinking that had gone out of fashion in the 1970s" ”

Clearly this time is refering to the 2009 meeting which took place immediatly before the article was published , whereas last time would be the 2008 annual meeting. I looked at a few of your edits after the last time we talked, and you clearly know what your stuff in economics, i though maybe you are even an economics professor or something like that. So Im confused as to why it looks like you might be objecting without even carefully reading the sources!

You are right about the NYT article. I read it too fast. My apologies. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I appreciate it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The time to argue against Keynes would have been in early 2008 before the old pro free market concensus had been over turned. If were not for the harm free market fundamentalism has inflicted on millions of impoverished families, one would feel almost sorry for its advocates. (Im not saying youre a free market POV warrior Rinconsoleao , but Im confused about why you're objecting here)

Im sorry free marketeers - you're fighting a war, you've already lost.

Nonetheless, I still think the section on 'Academia' is a huge misrepresentation of the academic debate. It reads like original research, being basically a statement of opinion, and it seems to be an opinion based on reading newspapers instead of reading academic publications. It's just way too exaggerated and not at all sufficiently subtle. My understanding of recent academic literature is that the main points of Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking, both for policy makers and for academics, with the possible exception of the late 1970s and early 1980s (when the world was suffering a hangover from the excessive faith in Keynesianism during the 1960s). As I understand Woodford's point, above, he is saying that the main Keynesian ideas have become so deeply embedded in mainstream macroeconomic thinking that they are now part of the consensus; and another theme of his paper is that the majority of Keynesians have accepted some criticisms of early Keynesian ideas.

For example, even today, many macroeconomists (even those who consider themselves Keynesians) would agree with Milton Friedman's point that activist fiscal policy is usually dangerous because it's hard to get spending bills fast and efficiently through the legislative process, so the stimulus against a recession often comes too late, when the economy is already beginning to expand, and therefore does more harm than good. (I think that's what 'the modern literature sides with the critics of Keynesianism' means.) Krugman has defended massive fiscal stimulus, not because Friedman was wrong, but because people now expect this crisis to be so deep and long-lived that a stimulus will still be needed some time into the future.

Likewise, even today, many macroeconomists (even those who consider themselves Keynesians) would agree that under normal circumstances, monetary policy is particularly important for stabilizing the economy. The reason governments are turning to activist fiscal policy is because central banks are already putting in the strongest monetary stimulus imaginable, and it's not yet enough.

So again, my point is that I don't think there has been a huge change in the academic point of view. Instead, there has been a massive crisis that has required the most aggressive policy response we have seen in decades, something many people had forgotten was even possible. And if there has been a big change in the academic point of view, it didn't come in 2008, but rather in the 1990s, as the New Keynesian theory developed.

Of course, some people think New Keynesianism isn't really Keynesianism. But to the best of my knowledge those people are still a fringe minority.--Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rinconsoleao , as the crisis has got much of the general public interested in economics, articles covering recent events like this should perhaps be mostly referenced with sources readily accessible to the general reader not journals. Also perhaps you'd agree the quality press sometimes provides a better overview of recent events , all though granted they dont compare to the better journals for precision or accuracy about historical events once academics have had time to assimilate the relevant data? Still I'd agree that one ought not make sweeping statements about academia without being familiar with the journals, so certainly I can cite them for this discussion.

First thanks for your addition of the links to Monetarism, RBCT ect. I hope you dont mind if I add back the IPE link though as that supplies the general reader with a quicker overview on the key debate about the optimal level of government involvement?

Moving on to your point that many macroeconomists agree that under normal circumstances, monetary policy is particularly important for stabilizing the economy - I really cant agree with that.

Its now rather widely accepted that monetary policy was a key contributor to the current crises, both in the journals and the quality financial press. Essentially as the US CPI hadn't been significantly rising , Monetary theory led the FED to interpret that as a signal to keep interests rates at far too low for too long. The result from an asset price bubble. http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight23.pdf Its merely incidental that the obvious distress started in the sub-prime sector.

Of course everybody agrees that using the wrong monetary policy is a bad idea. In fact, Milton Friedman's explanation of the Great Depression is that it was caused by excessively tight monetary policy. Back in 2001 or so there was a huge debate among New Keynesian macroeconomists and policy makers about whether central banks should raise interest rates when asset prices (like stock prices or housing prices) are increasing unusually rapidly. Some thought it was a good idea, but others, particularly Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, argued that it was a bad idea. In hindsight, many people think they were wrong. But that is completely different from saying that we should now forget about monetary policy and concentrate on fiscal policy. On the contrary, most economists agree that aggressive monetary policy (including bank rescues by the world's central banks) is an absolutely central part of the required response to this crisis. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Even six months back I'd agree with you that many economists were still debating about Monetarism. But not anymore, certainly Im not aware of more than a handful from the journals or from forums busy with senior economists such as Vox or http://www.rgemonitor.com/euro-monitor . However there are those boldly speaking out against the failure of both Monetarism and "New Keynesian" economics: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3210 .

You are right, 'there are those'. But Buiter's viewpoint appears very far from the consensus. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that until very recently it was only the fringe that seriously questioned the neo-classical / New Keynesian synthesis. However no sources I've looked at dispute that New Keynesian Economics did not favour fiscal intervention – and there’s not normally a qualification to say under normal circumstances such as for a down turn that’s predicted to be of short duration.

From a 2004 paper http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118595084/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

“ A common view is now pervasive in policy research at universities and central banks, which one could call the New Keynesian consensus, based on an endogenous money supply. This new consensus reproduces received wisdom: in the long run, expansionary fiscal policy leads to higher inflation rates and real interest rates [and unemployment just as high or higher as it would have been without the fiscal stimulus - the core of Friedman's attack] ”

Other papers you can read in their entirety without signing up: http://users.uoa.gr/~sdrakop/SJPE92.pdf and http://www.rep.org.br/pdf/36-7.pdf

And note the above two papers were written in the 90s and comment on New Keynesian Economics, a development that didn't move economics back towards Keyne's original ideas but further away!

Id suggest the Reformation section is supported by the sources, the NYT article clearly showing a massive shift in opinion. Certainly I can and will support it extensively from the journals , but before I do can you first find even a single current reliable source (last few months) that suggests a sizeable minority of academics still favour the monetary / new Keynesian consensus? I really dont think any such source exists and for us to start citing extensively from the journal would IMO be unnecessarily elitist and create a false impression that there is still a live debate on this issue?

In the Revival section Id already identified James Galbraith, as one of the key early influences on the resurgence, citing this reference http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/CollapseofMonetarismdelivered.pdf which I hope you read as its my fave one for boldly highlighting the flaws of the new consensus without obscuring the point with too much subtle nuance. Very much a man after my own heart for the way he engineers big changes in Congress and so punches above his weight. Im pleased to say he's very much alive and in good health, or he was when we exchanged emails last month. Thanks for the point though, I'll add his first name to the new section in case someone doesnt read the whole article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes this final paragraph most certainly reads like original research. I get that same wikipedia-is-going-to-loose-its-credibility feeling I do every time I read a bad wiki page.

"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller and James Galbraith, the Keynesian resurgence was largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists." Unsubstantiated, needs a citation.

"Until very recently mainstream economists have not generally favoured robust fiscal or counter cyclical policies." This is true, but we are talking about really bad recessions, not counter-cyclical policy. There are two issues. Most economists believe, and still do, that you use Monetary policy to fight the business cycle (or do nothing at all). They also believe in a hands off approach to most recessions. But when you're dealing with "the worst thing since the GD" and the interest rate is at 0% then it's time to dust off Keynes. This assertion is confirmed by all these citations, including the NYTs article: no one cared for Keynes style spending with recessions because it's usually a bad way to deal with the business cycle. Now Keynes is in vogue because this looks closer to the GD than a business cycle dip.

"While a school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has been widely taught at universities , that system had become so integrated with pro free market neo-classical influences that it largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations advocated by Keynes himself, and some economists consider the label 'Keynesian' to be a misnomer. [49]" Ok, but I don't see how this is relevant. We are (or at least should be) talking about a Keynesian resurgence--a resurgence in the idea that Keynesian style spending is applicable to this crisis--not any of the economic schools that are known to be largely based on Keynes. Most economists could agree with the idea that Keynes-style spending is applicable to the current crisis, but deny that they are New Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians.

The "resurgence" may well have been due to confusing the issue. No one surveyed economists and said, "If you had a 0% interest rate and near double-digit unemployment, and -6% growth, with a financial system in shambles, would you use government spending to prop up demand?" Who knows, I bet the majority of Economists in the IDEAS rankings would agree with that." What the NYT saw at the 2008 meeting was the answer to the question, "If you had a standard recession, would you resort to fiscal policy to solve the problem (thus resulting in crowding out)." and most economists do not agree with that. Either way, I could be wrong in all of this but what is clear is that we have a new section supported by the opinion of a NYTs reporter and Galbraith's opinion of the literature months after the crisis hit. Compare this to the intro paragraphs where several prominent Economists all over the spectrum (including Mankiw) are cited. And I'm pretty sure there are papers that analyze consensus out there. There must be a better way to make this shoddy argument stronger, if it is possible. --128.146.33.195 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Danger of inflation?

The article seems OK on a first glance. But what about the danger of inflation? No word! Economy should be a quantitative  science, and the question is, whether the present Keynesian policy of the states really suffices quantitatively, or whether the somewhat hesitating policy of Germany, exceptional as it looks, does not have serious quantitative reasons? In other words: do the states have enough money, to solve the problems (e.g., the car selling problems, will they be over next year?), or does one need another "new deal" which was succesful, but only after a decade? If the state does not have enough money (and the interest rates are already now on an historical depth) there is the danger that the money-printing machines will be working again, as Europe has experienced two times. - The article spreads optimism. Let us hope that this is relevant. - With regards, 87.160.125.51 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections 125.51 and your thoughts on the article , they are much appreciated. Ive expanded the criticism so it mentions inflation, most likely other editors will further expand that section over the next few weeks, which might address any concerns you might have about the article being over optimistic.

Ive no doubt youre right these policies will cause at least modest inflation, although their will be determined efforts to stop inflation getting too high. From a Keynesian perspective , modest inflation is often an unavoidable price when you want to raise general prosperity and deliver close to full employment. It's a difficult concept, but the General Theory argues strongly that too much concentration of wealth is not good for the majority. Clearly inflation will hurt those who depend on interest from capital , and those who arent in a good position to achieve wage rises, but this can be mitigated by appropriate government action. Essentially we seen the pain as being clearly offset by the reduction in misery to the unemployed and the impoverished. In recent history even modest inflation could offset potential gains from fiscal stimulus due to the adverse affect on balance of payments – but this should be less of a problem now Keynesian policies are being pursued globally, and especially once the key global institutions adopt measures to penalise high trade surpluses , something Keynes had pushed for back in Bretton Woods.

Germany has a favourable balance of payments comparable to China and unlike the Chinese doesn’t depend on high growth to check underlying social problems. Im not exspecting them to act against the best interests of the planet in the long term, they'll come round soon! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it. (I agree that there are big changes in economic policy being reported in the press, but until the phenomenon is given a widely-recognized name, Wikipedia should not invent one.) Is there a documented source for this name? This Wikipedia article should not be used to define a neologism. If 'Keynesian resurgence' is simply a description, rather than a name, then it should not be capitalized. If it's a phrase captured from some newspaper article, then it would be reasonable to say

the press has spoken of a 'Keynesian resurgence'

or something like that. But if the person who started this page was inventing a new term, then it's original research, and should be removed. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the second usage of the term to match the FT article title The undeniable shift to Keynes that's source no 1 ("resurgence of Keynesian " ) . I agree neither Keynesian Resurgence or Revival are terms one would find in a dictionary. Yet that this phenomena is real is now undeniable, and we need to have a label for it.

In other words, you are clearly admitting that the term was invented by a Wikipedia editor (maybe you). That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy on original research and neologisms. This page is not remotely acceptable on Wikipedia until it is re-edited to avoid being a compilation of your original ideas. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not arguing that most of the article is wrong. I agree with much of the analysis on the page (though I strongly disagree with your summary of academic viewpoints). All I'm saying is that it is grossly inconsistent with Wiki policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal where new research is published. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For example, I see that you have also created a page on the Keynesian revolution. It appears to be largely accurate, and it's much better than the mess on the Keynesian economics page. Since 'Keynesian revolution' is already a well-established term, and since the page is documented with verifiable published sources, that page appears completely appropriate to me. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'd made these points last year against the Resurgence when it was just a sub section on the main Keynes article I'd have to concede I was inventing a new term. However since then the sub section has been reproduced countless times on the Web, and quite possibly one of the FT journalists took the word Resurgence from the Keynes article. Im very sorry if I've broke any policies by using Wikki to influence events and make the shift to Keynes seem more a fait accompli than it really was, especially given the link between the media and what's decided at the frequent international conferences addressing the crises. Still that’s the past now, the best available sources now confirm a Keynesian resurgence has undeniably took place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just made the change, I hope you agree the first use of the term Keynesian Resurgence is referring to the title of the article. It doesn’t necessarily imply the term is widely used. The phenomena has happened – that is undeniable , and we need a label for it. If you insist, we could change the first use of the phrase to "the phenomena that the Financial Times has reported as being a Resurgence of Keynesian policy making" - I cant think of a better formulation that strictly obeys the wording of the Wikki rules - but IMO that would be unnecessarily clumsy and ugly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it." The phenomenon is widely recognized[1] [2] [3] [4], but there is no common name - the articles I just linked talk variously of a resurrection, comeback, and return. If 'resurgence' sounds too strong, 'revival' (already used in a section title) may be unobjectionable. Mporter (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phenomenon exists. I'm just arguing that Wikipedia policy requires that Wikipedia should not invent the name for the phenomenon. And we should report interpretations from reliable publications-- we should not invent those interpretations ourselves, because that would be original research. I believe the article can be and should be rewritten in a way that removes original research. This does not require huge changes. Also, this is probably best understood as an article about current events. Many articles about current events include a disclaimer stating that the situation may change. Including that here would be appropriate. How big and important this change in macroeconomic thinking will appear some years down the line is not at all clear right now, in my opinion. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Mporter! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets try and achieve some clarity here Rinconsoleao. I didn't admit to an editor coining the term. It may be I was the first to use it in a prominent media to refer to the emerging phenomena, but I dont know that for sure. Wikki policies dont apply retrospectively as far as Im aware , and anyway I cant agree I was clearly violating them. When I first stated there would be a return to Keynesian thinking back in summer 08 ( no1 link on a google for “farewell to capitalism”) Id admit it would have been OR as it was based partly on private discussions with policy makers – however I didn’t post at the time on Wikki. When I first created the 'Keynesian Resurgence' section , prominent politicians like Alistair Darling had already been quoted in mainstream sources as talking about returning to Keynesian solutions. So yes the section was at that time borderline as supporting sources were much scarcer than they are now , but not really a clear violation! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

revert 12 March 09

The numerous recent edits here made earlier today and yesterday, despite the excellent contributions by the editor in question on other articles, are bordering on the absurd. For example yesterday he / she claimed Id misrepensented a straightforward NY Times articles, and only when I clearly pointed out the relvent passage did the editor admit the accusation was entirely wrong.

Now to justify this change which falsely implies theres some doubt about fiscal stimuli being implemented, the editor says: "The fact that the press says it is a fact. The claim that it is true would be original research" Have a word with yourself Editor! Not only are the stimuli reported in the quality financial press like the FT and WSJ , theres been accademic studies of the size of the stimuli around the world, as per "global survey of stimuli" in the external links section. Id LOL, only the economic crises is already causing poverty, mental stress and even suicides which affect a great many families around the world. Clear information like this helps folk, this is clear both from my offline contacts and scores of web posts. Im confident a good admin would agree many of the recent justifications for the changes made are bordering on wikki lawyering, obscure this important subject and are contary to this mission of this fine encylopedia! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that active fiscal policy is being implemented (on a massive and worldwide scale!!) My point is that interpreting this as a change in how economists or policy makers regard Keynesianism is an opinion. Therefore to make it into a documentable fact, we can say 'the press argues that policy makers are acting in a Keynesian way'. That is a fact, demonstrated by the excellent citations you have provided. Saying it is a renewal of Keynesianism is probably true, but it is nonetheless an opinion, and is therefore original research. Therefore I'm afraid I still feel the page is inappropriate Wiki-wise, and I will revert to my version (but including the additional source you have cited). --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, two of the articles you have cited use the word "resurgence", but none of them talk about a "Keynesian Resurgence" as if it were an established term (or as if it deserved to be capitalized). So 'resurgence' needs to be treated as a description-- otherwise it remains a neologism. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 'Keynesian Revival' would have been a better title, and for the first 3 weeks after creating the article I had a request to that end on this talk page ( I don't know how to rename articles myself). But now we're at a point where aggregators like Samepoint find over a thousand incidents for "Keynesian Resurgence" , many of which link or refer to this article. We'd be making things inconvenient for them by changing the name.

Granted there is no established term, but then there rarely is in the social sciences for a phenomena only a few months old. That the phenomean exists, is hugely imporant and needs a label is surely beyond dispute? As the two most respected financial broadsheets refer to a resurgence, surely wikki rules don't demand we change the name - there's not that much difference between "Keynesian resurgence" and "resurgence of Keynesian" (as per FT) ? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Feyd, I have not found time yet to continue this discussion. But I'm still concerned that trying to find a name for this newly-recognized phenomenon, and providing new analysis of it, is inconsistent with WP:OR and WP:NEO. I would ask that you please refrain from removing my tags-- since you started this page, and since I have raised reasonable doubts about its consistency with Wikipedia policy, it should really not be in your hands to remove the tags. That should be left up to other editors. One possibility is that we could make a request to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics for outside opinions. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection there is a case for tagging the article as a neologism and you’re right the community should decide these sorts of issues not any one editor. Sorry am still learning the wiki way of doing things. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is dumb, even if this is a Keynesian revival, all this phenomenon deserves is its own sub section in the macroeconomics or neo-keynesian economics article. The only thing this article is informing us of is our own bickering. Why does this deserve a whole new article!?! I admit the financial crisis and global recession are pushing through big issues in Economics today, but we can easily reflect this in articles about economics that are well established. If we are at a watershed moment in neo-keynesian economics and macroeconomics, then it should be reflected in those articles. Selfexiled (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rinconsoleao, you are clearly in support of having an article on this phenomenon, but you seem to be against the title, claiming it is a neologism. This may be true, but you haven't offered an alternative title for this article. Please do so. 86.173.255.107 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some input over at the OR noticeboard with a view to having the tags removed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that the word "resurgence" is lowercase, is the objection the implication it's a "neologism" satisfied? Professor marginalia (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating original research

The original research tag shouldn't be removed yet. There are OR problems, especially in the "background" section of the article. If this article confines itself to what other sources have already written about the return to Keynesian remedies it will comply. But where it starts to assemble from sources that have not written about this new wave of Keynesianism then it's going off into original research. In other words, just because it's about Keynes, or just because it's about economics or fiscal/monetary policies does not mean it can be used here. By the same token, background about the political context, or the global financial situation can't be brought in either. These issues may be important-but wikipedia is not the publisher of new thoughts, ideas, correlations, etc. Authors of published sources can make the associations. Wikipedia's editors can only use such claims when and where those sources who do so are found and cited. Simply put, use sources which are writing about this return to Keynesian fiscal policy to source any relevant background and context for it-editors can't do that job themselves. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for your good advice Professor, i intend to edit this accordingly after giving it some thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to continue to pursue this article I'd recommend limiting the scope of the background information towards the evolution of fiscal policy since the publication of The General Theory of Employment. I would suggest focusing on major theme of the rise of monetarism over fiscal stimulus policies in the United States and the IMF and, obviously, stagflation. In other words the background should focus strictly on the demise/falling-out-of-favor of Keynesian economics. This competing views section is trying to sum up the historical bickering over Macroeconomic policy in one section, this does no justice to that topic nor this article. Selfexiled (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, there's certainly a lot that can be said on that topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)