Jump to content

Talk:Keynesian economics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Turetzsr (talk | contribs) at 03:48, 17 December 2013 (→‎Revision 585418614). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Prononuciation of "Keynes"

How to pronounce "Keynes"? Here's a .wav file: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/k/k0046600.html Can someone edit it nicely into the page? I seem to have difficulties with it. (Anonymous 21th June 2006 at 6:10 AM)

What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?

This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.209 (talk • contribs)

spending and investment

"If the government increases its spending, then the citizens are encouraged to spend more because more money is in circulation. People will start to invest more, and the economy will climb back up to normal."

that is not even a crude simplification ... it's somewhat wrong

private spending = consumption

private saving = investemt

Definition

I made a change to the definition recently from "a macroeconomic school based on K" to "the group of macroeconomic schools based on K". I did this because of the name--Keynesian economics, as in Keynes. Any macroeconomic school of thought based on his stuff should be called "Keynesian" and any macroeconomic school of thought called "Keynesian" should be based on his stuff (unless it's based on another Keynes). Historically, "Keynesian economics" has referred to a specific set of theories, but if someone took Keynes' work and offered a different spin on it, it would still be "Keynesian" as long as it borrowed heavily from his work. Furthermore, there are profound doctrinal differences between various sub-schools of Keynesianism, so it would appear that "Keynesian economics" as it is commonly understood (as a group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes as opposed to any group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes) is already a group of schools and not one school. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 April 2012

Undid revision 532035545 by 130.126.241.243

No reason was given for adding the request for citation. I believe that such a request needs to be discussed in "Talk." Citation doesn't seem possible to me. If someone does feel the need and is able to add a citation to content "The bidding up of house prices due to the abundance of credit prior to the Global Financial Crisis add credibility to the Austrian perspective, but does not form part of the mainstream thought." at the end of section "Austrian School," by all means please go ahead and do so.   SteveT (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 585418614

Doesn't the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=585418614&oldid=585418472 merit some discussion, first? It seems somewhat arbitrary to me -- what makes Hazlitt "not notable?" He's a relatively well-known figure among us students of economics. SteveT (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlitt is not in any history of economic thought textbook that I know of. He is a journalist, and only relatively well-known among adherents of Austrian economists. I'll be happy to see any critiques sourced to a standard textbook of macroeconomics or economic history. LK (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that he wrote one | Economics in one lesson - Henry Hazlitt - Google Books) that sold over a million copies count? SteveT (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's Austrian School, it's still fringe and contradicted by reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might say that if it's Keynesian, it's fringe and contradicted by reliable sources, but that would be my opinion and, since I am not a "notable economist," everyone else would be justified in considering such a claim laughable.
My reply to Lawrencekhoo (and to which I'd like to hear others' replies, since I am not willing to accept only Lawrencekhoo's judgment) remains: [although Hazlitt may not be included "in any history of economic thought textbook that I know of"], does the fact the Hazlitt wrote a textbook that has sold over a million copies count? I would consider Paul Samuelson to be a "noted economist -- despite being a Keynesian <grin> on that basis, so I would hope the same principle would apply to Hazlitt, a student of the Austrian School. SteveT (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keynesian_economics&oldid=586441697"