Talk:Michał Kalecki

Untitled

The introduction of an entry of Michal Kalecki is a good idea, but the content of this article as of now may have been taken from some other website mostly (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/kalecki.htm), and so may raise questions regarding plagiarism.

Please rectify this.

Anon. 13/06/06.

Dear anon, thank you for your comments. I will copyedit the article now. Feel free to help us expand this into a unique and most useful entry on the web!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tsardom of Poland"

There was not such a state in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.117.213 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"greatest"

Calling him "greatest" economist is just offensive, you could call Marx "greatest German writer" - that would be the same. It would be better to mention the place he was born, that's all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.118.115 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand how calling sb "one of the greatest" can be offensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That shall be definition, NOT private opinion. Maybe you wanted to say "one of the best known?" or "popular"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.117.69 (talk • contribs)

Dear anon, indeed, one of the best known Polish economist would be more neutral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This guy is very important! See any of his works, also he has near folk hero status in Poland and Poles take there Hero's real serious.. Cut'em some leash....--Oracleofottawa (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

It would be nice to a get a photo of him. The one at the cepa site may be public domain: http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/kalecki.htm. What exactly are the requirements for the use of the photo at Wiki?radek (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Public domain preferably, fair use as a last resort. Check template:Poland-PD, very useful.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So if it was taken by a Polish photographer before 1994 it's in Public Domain?radek (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And if there is no watermark on the photo. That's a good rule of thumb, if not perfect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I emailed the New School page to see about the photo they got. Also, mostly out of curiosity but also as something that could be used to expand the article; where did he spend the war? He published during it, in English in fact (1942) (which suggests it wasn't Soviet Union) and on the topic of British wartime economy. So was it UK? And if so, when did he leave Poland? And when did he come back to the PRL? Anyone know? I tried finding info on this but came up with nothing. More generally this page is missing some "non-academic" type info as in where he was born, etc.radek (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Polish Wiki. Duh.radek (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on my experience, they have no idea where they got the photo from (whoever made the page copied it from something and forgot long ago), and will either ignore your @, not reply or claim they own the copyright :) Here's wishing I am wrong :) I agree this needs much expansion. Currently I don't have any materials about him - have you tried Google Print? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

Could someone, please, provide the article with the standard guide as to the pronunciation, in Polish, of the subject's name ? -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, done.--Kotniski (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Marxist

He is described in the first sentence as a 'Marxist economist'. This is not accurate: although influenced strongly by Marx he was not a Marxist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.130.116 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is sort of true. However, he is DESCRIBED often as a Marxist economist, perhaps erroneously (whether or not he himself considered himself a Marxist). Need to look up some sources on this. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

'Even more left-wing than JM Keynes'

I don't think that this should be included -- it's clear that he was on the left from the rest of the article, and neither his nor Keynes' views are easily located on a primitive left-right two-dimensional partisan scale. and further, I propose use of the term 'Marxian' (a term used for economists influenced by Marx but either not politically Marxists [i.e. they may be reformists or agnostic i/r/t politics or w/e] or substantially influenced by, e.g. Keynes.) No, he was not an orthodox Marxist but I think Marxian is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.184.123 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted it, since it implies a false statement (that Keynes was a leftist) while in some sense locating Kalecki politically. Kalecki's tendencies become clear in the article; some more sensible way of characterizing them might belong in the lead, but not this way. Yakushima (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

2.3 Income distribution and the constancy of the share of wages

The article says:

If we add to both members $W\,\$, and pass one to the other side, we have:

$\textstyle Y=k\cdot (W+M)+W\,\$

If we multiply each side by $W\,\$, and pass to the other term, we have:

$\alpha ={\frac {W}{W+k\cdot (W+M)}}\,\$

I do not understand "and pass one to the other side". Are we not instead saying that

$\textstyle P+B+W=Y\,\$

That is "output equals profits plus salaries plus wages". That is, the total value of goods and services must be reflected either in salaries, wages or profits.

I also do not understand "and pass to the other term". I would think of this as first inverting, yielding:

${\frac {1}{\textstyle Y}}={\frac {1}{k\cdot (W+M)+W}}\,\$

then multiplying by W, yielding

${\frac {W}{\textstyle Y}}={\frac {W}{k\cdot (W+M)+W}}\,\$

then recognizing that the left side is the proportion of total output represented by wages, which we are calling α , while the right side can be restated as:

${\frac {W}{W+k\cdot (W+M)}}\,\$

Michael Hurwicz (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)