Talk:Irving Fisher

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Economics C‑class High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rolodex?

Who invented the Rolodex? This page says Irving Fisher, but Arnold Neustadter states that Neustadter invented the Rolodex. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.117.0 (talk • contribs) .

Kardex is not same as Rolodex

Caught in the Crash

isn't this the guy who predicted that the stocks had reached a plauteau just before the crash? where's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.28.153 (talk • contribs)

Well, he did strongly suggest that the economy as whole had achieved a new, higher base level. And he lost Big Bucks in the crash. —SlamDiego_←T 15:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and time preference

Fisher's theory was a formalization and simplification of the work of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk — and Fisher largely acknowledged as much. The notion that time preference has some significance long predates either man. Fisher himself did not see how to integrate time preference into his formalization — the 45° line is the axis of symmetry for his indifference curve. It was Hans Mayer (a protégé of Friedrich von Wieser) who noted that Fisher's model could be made to accommodate time-preference by changing that. —SlamDiego_←T 05:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal ideals

This sounds like Progressive Fascism, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fisher not freidmann

To equate Fisher with Friedman and the cold water school is unfair to both. Neither Fisher not Minsky would claim to be Friedemanites and i wonder whether Friedmann would claim to be a fan of either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.11.138 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote confusion

cut here ---------

Tobin (1985) argues the intellectual breakthroughs that mark the neoclassical revolution in economic analysis occurred in Europe around 1870. The next two decades witnessed lively debates in which the new theory more or less absorbed or was absorbed in the classical tradition that preceded and provoked it.<ref>James Tobin, "Neoclassical Theory in America: J. B. Clark and Fisher" American Economic Review (December 1985) vol 75#6 pp 28-38</ref> In the 1890s, according to Joseph A. Schumpeter<ref>Schumpeter, A History of Economic Analysis (1954), p. 754</ref> there emerged

"A large expanse of common ground and ... a feeling of repose, both of which created, in the superficial observer, an impression of finality -- the finality of a Greek temple that spreads its perfect lines against a cloudless sky. Of course, Tobin argues, the temple was by no means complete. Its building and decoration continue to this day, even while its faithful throngs worship within. American economists were not present at the creation. To a considerable extent they built their own edifice independently, designing some new architecture in the process. They participated actively in the international controversies and syntheses of the period 1870-1914. At least two Americans were prominent builders of the "temple," John Bates Clark and Irving Fisher. They and others brought neoclassical theory into American journals, classrooms, and textbooks, and its analytical tools into the kits of researchers and practitioners. Eventually, for better or worse, their paradigm would dominate economic science in this country."

cut here ---------

This appears to have a 1954 work citing a 1985 work.... Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

math equality symbols wrong

the expression relating real and nominal interest rate looks like it has the approximately equals sign in wrong place. It would make more sense if it said r ≈ 2nd expression= 3rd expression. This not a matter of economics but algebra! (Unless Fisher also made this error in which case you could add "[sic]")Adokian (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that it's fine, if the rates are understood to be per year (or some other finite period), as is usually the case in economics. After a year in the bank, an amount of money M becomes M*(1+i), where i is the nominal interest rate. You can also write this as M*(1+r)*(1+p), where r is the real interest rate and p is the rate of inflation. Then you get the first equality for r. It reduces to i - p when p is small, or if the rates are measured instantaneously (something that probably only a mathematicians would do). - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Views on prohibition

The section on social campaigns says that Irving Fisher supported the Prohibition movement. However, he wrote in the preface of his book _Prohibition at its Worst_ that this view changed:

"[This book] embodies the notes which I have been collecting on the alcohol problem for twenty years - during which time I have radically changed my attitude toward Prohibition."

The relevant excerpt is here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4389987;view=1up;seq=11

Can someone fix that section to clarify what his initial and final opinions were, and how/when/why they changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.208.55 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]