Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive 1

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)

Bravo, Prescott ripped me a few months ago when I brought up one of Barro's paper... amusing how history may view things. That said he'd love the "conservative school" title although it is hardly NPOV-- how exactly is theory political?

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)

please i want to know more about the basi c element of keynesians rebuttal of yhe monetarist.

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.250.181 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

FSN often covers it Tehd 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References broken

I added proper references for the Blaug and Frisch references.

Can someone knowledgable in the subject place a reference in the text for the Snowdon-Vane book ?

Cmskog 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A question for the knowledgeable

Would the floating of a country's currency be considered a macroeconomic reform or a microeconomic reform? Thanks. Timeshift 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

responded to your (same) question at Talk:Microeconomics. Corebreeches 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corebreeches (talk • contribs)

Austrian economics is not a form of "macroeconomics"

Austrian economics rejects "macroeconomics", hence it's not a form of macroeconomics. Macroeconomics deals with the behavior of economic sectors and aggregate forces. Their methodological individualism explicitly rejects the macroeconomic\microeconomic distinction, the mainstream notion that firms and individuals act in ways that are quite different from the way that economic sectors act. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Suppose that government spending was increased by 10 units and that this increase was financed by a 10 unit increase in taxes. Would equilibrium income change or remain the same as result of these two policy action? If Equilibrium incime changed, in which direction would it move, and by how much? please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.185.68.121 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- the is ridiculous, intellectual error created by a simple semantic confusion. Boom and bust phenomena take place and must be explained. This is "macroeconomics" and Friedrich Hayek spent a good part of his career working in this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Ransom (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The entry is an intellectual embarrassment

The history contained in this entry is massively false.

Example 1: There was all sorts of macroeconomic empirical work pre-1936. There were business cycle research institutes in many of the major countries of the world in the 1920s. Many of these still exist today. Mitchell's work was widely known far before 1936.

Example 2: There were all sorts of people working on trade cycle and monetary problems in the 100 years prior to 1936, folks in Germany, England, Sweden, and America. And its a fraud to represent these people as some sort of uniform "classical economics".

Example 3: Much or most of what people take to be "Keynesian Economics" existed in the work of other economists prior to Keynes' 1936 work (see Laidler, Fabricating the Keynesian Revolution", and the main pillar of 1930s-1970 "Keynesian Economics" wasn't Keynes, it was Hicks and Meade, etc.

Can't we fix this massive intellectual embarrassment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Ransom (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Innovation Economics

Uh, while there was a substantial literature that started in the 90's that focused on long term growth and innovation, I'm not sure that calling it an "alternative school of macroeconomics" is accurate - it was just one strand of Macro lit.radek (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of "three approaches" is completely nonstandard (and unsupported by citations). Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the innovation economics as a school of macro thought.--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

need answers

investigate the requirement at the different stages of growth of an organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.7.1 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I disagree with most of the proposed list. I was planning on expanding on this article by presenting some basic textbook models. I would mainly focus on IS-LM/AS-AD and also cover growth (focus on Solow model with a discussion of new growth) and open economy (focus on Mundell-Flemming with discussion of new open economy macro. I would then address macro policy given the IS-LM/AS-AD framework with discussion of alternative theories. After those sections are added, I think the core part of the article will be done. In your list, I think "Nature of" and "Purpose of" would be too subjective and POV. "Usefulness" is definitely POV. I'm not sure what value there would be in "educational aspects." I suggest looking at other encyclopedia articles and textbook treatment of this topic to guide it's content.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Look out for possible copyright violations in this article

This article has been found to be edited by students of the Wikipedia:India Education Program project as part of their (still ongoing) course-work. Unfortunately, many of the edits in this program so far have been identified as plain copy-jobs from books and online resources and therefore had to be reverted. See the India Education Program talk page for details. In order to maintain the WP standards and policies, let's all have a careful eye on this and other related articles to ensure that no material violating copyrights remains in here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Flow diagram of the Economy

The Flow diagram of the Economy, does not reflect current economic thinking and is a idiological representation. (its quite marxist in its ontology) It should be substitute by something that corresponds with todays text books. It could be also regarded as original research as it has no reference and I am unaware who today would produce such a flow diagram. (see also comment below, that indicate that this model original research. Davoud Taghawi-Nejad

Agreed. I don't think the current flow diagram uses a typical representation. It also doesn't offer much since its hard to read the text in the thumbnail, which makes it hard to make sense out of the flows.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

trouble with new material

I'm going to revert this series of edits. On the whole, they don't help the article, although they're much closer than some other recent things. There are four broad problems with the edits:

• I can't verify that the book they're supposedly referenced to exists. Help in really identifying the book would be good.
• They're not placed at all correctly within the article. It seems as if the editor wants to start a new article from scratch, but there's already stuff here and it should be worked with.
• Related to the above, some of the material is redundant.
• They don't seem to show very good understanding. The bit, "Micro Economics is a Single Economy whereas, Macro Economics is a large Economy for example:- Micro Economics consist of a single family but in Macro Economics we consider large number of families." is just wrong, for instance. A large number of families use gasoline, but the market for gasoline is primarily a matter of microeconomic analysis.

Anyway, overall I just don't think the edits help the article. All the above points need to be dealt with, but the edits also just need improvement. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Logical Presentation of This Subject

The current Wikipedia presentation of Macroeconomics is inadequate and makes no attempt to present the subject in a comprehensive way. Granted that macroeconomics is a much debated subject with a number of schools of thought, it is still necessary to provide some general facts about it before entering into the variations. So I suggest that the editors for this subject begin to re-organize it according to a more logical and systematic basis.

The first thing that is missing is a statement about what macroeconomics actually is. This should not just define it but also describe what it is and what it does. Which parts of human society are involved and under which kind of general heading does it fall? Then we need to supply some general features about the subject which are distinct from microeconomics and which will not cause a student to get confused between the two. An illustration of the flow of money and materials within the whole social system would be useful at the start and help to focus the reader on the various aspects of the subject. The present diagram is unsatisfactory in this respect. It is both confusing and incomplete (see my other Talk).

The various division of the subject also need to be listed so that at least the following are mentioned: General Macroeconomics, Econometrics, Theoretical Macroeconomics, History of Macroeconomics, Moneist Theory, Keynesian Theories and subsequent Methods of Mnalysis, various other Schools of Thought in Macroeconomics, Mathematical and other Modeling in Macroeconomics to include the early Phillips Water Model and to continue with later models. These should cover various developments for both Short-Term Stability with Equilibrium and Long-term Dynamics including "Business Cycles", Ethics, Competition, Monopolies, Socialism, Taxation, Inflation, Government Policies and their effects.

No politics but the mention of lots of independent ideas are mandatory. The present write-up should be completely overhauled. Reference to the other articles on this subject would do much to save space here and make the subject more easy to understand and to find. (In other words, before re-writing a lot of planning is needed so as to cover the whole subject in a number of articles, some of which already exist.) The single main reference book most quoted at the end of the present artical implies that the article is written by somebody with a bias toward it! Surely we can do better than that!Macrocompassion (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this article is by any means complete, and I'm very open to substantial changes, but I disagree with most with most of your implied reorganization. Topics involving competition, especially monopolies, are generally considered micro topics (macro models may be based on perfect or imperfect competition, but these topics are usually treated as micro). Distinctions between methods of analysis, mathematical modeling, "other modeling," theory, and econometrics do not make sense. There is a lot of overlap. Generally, I think the best distinction would be between theory and empirical work, which still have a lot of overlap. Phillip's MONIAC is very interesting, but it was a physical representation of prior theory not a breakthrough. It didn't have much influence.

My long-run list of planned topics is: overview (covering micro vs. macro distinction, etc); basic concepts (similar to whats there now); basic textbook models covering short-run, medium-run, growth, and the open economy with some discussion of more recent work where applicable (new open economy macro and new growth); macroeconomic policy divided between fiscal and monetary; history of macroeconomic theory; finally, empirical methods. I don't think this is an ideal organization, but I think it's sensible and covers everything an introduction to macroeconomics should.

I object to the implication that I was biased in using Blanchard. Yes, this article needs more sources, but it's still a work progress. Most of the references are to Blanchard are to his short history of macro in his textbook. I used this reference because I thought it was a good, concise summary. I don't see how it is substantively different from the content in the article History of macroeconomics, which uses a wide variety of sources. Please explain where you think there is bias. Yes, a section shouldn't rely on a single source, but this is a work in progress, and other sources can be readily added.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dimand

Two notes refererring to Dimand, but no further data over this book in the references. 198.184.231.254 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I added the Dimand reference.--Bkwillwm (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.149.1 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Macroeconomics

To start with showing a macroeconomics flow-diagram is a good idea, however the present diagram is inadequate because it does not include sufficient sectors nor their correct connections. At least 6 sectors should be shown on the diagram which are Landlords, Capitalists, Government, Producers, Householders and Banks (Financial Institutions). There are 19 relationships between them as shown previously. The present model which is from an older era also confuses the functions and natures of the various elements. The model which I previously posted does not have these faults and the previous discussion that was provided to justify its use has been eliminated! Also I am not a Marxist and the comment that this model was so is completely unjustified. So I would be grateful if the person whom changed my postings and data would reverse what he/she has done.

I realise that Macroeconomics is a difficult topic and I have not tried to make a nusence of myself over what I regard as some unthinking comments and changes. There is no guarentee that the textbooks are correct and it certainly is time for a change from the old dogged style of presentation which is not useful nor able to satisfactorily explain many recent macroeconomic phenomena. Macrocompassion (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There were a few concerns with the previous diagram. For one, do you have a source for it? I favor the current one since it is a simpler representation. The previous diagram was very complicated and required clicking on it to get much out of it. What makes you think that the current model is from an "older era"? It looks pretty conventional to me. If anything, the divisions of "landlords" and "capitalists" seem outdated. Generally, I am not a big fan of flow diagrams. They are used in introductory materials and bare little resemblance to the macromodels economists actually use. I don't see an advantage in a complicated diagram that gets all the sectors and flows "right." The virtue of flow diagrams is their simplicity not their ability to represent every complexity of an economy.

Yes, there is no guarantee that the textbooks are correct, but Wikipedia policies are based on working from sources and not including original research. If you want to introduce material to this article, you should work from a source. Arguing that uncited ideas or presentations are better than published, textbook based edits won't be fruitful.

Your previous comments were not removed. They have been archived in a standard, automatic process. They are still available here: Talk:Macroeconomics/Archive_1#Diagram_for_Describing_Circulation_in_a_Macroeconomics_System.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The main objection to the existing diagram is that in common with the loss of the landlord's entity wikipedia has follow suit. This occurred about 1900 when John Bates Clark removed it from what Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Henry George and Karl Marx all recognized as being part of the basic structure. This change was politically inspired by landed monopolists and was utterly wrong because landlords continue to exist and to speculate in land values. So what is shown here is incorrect and it will lead to worse trouble during analysis.Macrocompassion (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Dai's comment on this article

Dr. Dai has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

1) "The IS–LM model represents the equilibrium in interest rates and output given by the equilibrium in the goods and money markets"

to be replaced by "The IS–LM model represents all the combinations of interest rates and output that ensure the equilibrium in the goods and money markets"

2) "Banks continuously shift the money supply ..." to be changed to "Central banks continuously shift the money supply... "

3) "Some banks allow the interest rate to fluctuate " to be changed to "Some of them allow the interest rate to fluctuate "

4) "implement quantitative easing by buying other assets such as corporate bonds," to be changed as "can implement quantitative easing by buying not only government bonds, but also other assets such as corporate bonds,"

5) "The rigidity of new Keynesian theory" to be replaced by

"The nominal rigidity of new Keynesian theory"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Dai, Meixing, 2009. "On the role of money growth targeting under inflation targeting regime," MPRA Paper 13780, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again..

What's the point of citing a criticism of macroeconomics in the lead? Right in the beginning it reads,

"evidence regarding the consequences of different macroeconomic policies is still highly imperfect and open to serious criticism."

You know that there are few areas of research that are not open to 'serious criticism'? The whole point of scholarship is that ideas are open to criticism, and knowledge improves by a process of critical analysis. History, sociology, even the natural sciences function this way.

Actually this line is very much in the tradition of certain Wikipedia editors going out of their way to single out the discipline of economics as an illegitimate or questionable field of inquiry. There's no problem on here citing other controversial areas of research as fact, but there is certainly a crusade against economics. If it were just an article or two it wouldn't be worth addressing, but this is a reoccurring theme in the economics space.

If you really can't resist criticizing macroeconomics, and you have a sufficient number of reliable sources critiquing it in this way (not just one or two), why not just add a criticism section? The lead is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, and currently there is no section that critiques macroeconomics in this article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)