Talk:Phillips curve

Editing issues

10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Adaptive expectations will also get you a shifting Phillips curve. You don't need rational expectations. In fact, Friedman's original critique was made within a adaptive expectations framework.radek 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an example of this shift somewhere in the article, especially in the Stagflation section.

The image appears corrupt to me? hammodt 02:18, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Same here :/ - Marc K 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image of the Philips curve itself really should be first priority. - Slagfart

I added a simple definition at the front, that was sorely needed. I paraphrased some reliable textbook definitions obtained from a Google search "Phillips curve definition". (Jonfernquest 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We need to put in some references in this article. --RickardV 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs that starts "Since 1974, seven" (at the end of the history section) states there were *seven* of them, including the *eight* named in the final sentence. First, the use of the word "includes" implies that there were more than those eight. Secondly, how can those eight (or more) be "included" in the seven? WarrenGaebel (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pragmatic" Economists Use the Phillips Curve?

I have talked to economists, and be they Austrian, Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, or supply-side, no one thinks the Phillips Curve has any validity. - MSTCrow 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked to economists as well, and few have said that it has no validity whatsoever. They recognize that it is fundamentally flawed, sure, but not without any merit at all. Either way, it is a relatively important concept in the history of economic thought and should be addressed as it is.139.78.97.13 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I agree. But not having talked to economists there is the distinction between the original Philips curve and the Philips curve that is mounted with rational choice theory leading to a straight up line with just one level of unemployment. So what do these economists not find valid? RickardV 10:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical or theoretical?

The first line of the article defines the Phillips curve as a historical (ie empirical) relationship. If we define it as an empirical relationship, then we should distinguish that from any theory which purports to explain the empirical relationship. Therefore I deleted the words "in the theory" and also "tradeoff" from the opening definition.

Of course, it might be better to state two related definitions of 'Phillips curve': it referred originally to an empirical relationship observed in the data, but nowadays it also often refers to a theoretical relationship that occurs in (some) macroeconomic models. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No citations?

This needs to be flagged as not citing anything. 128.54.48.14 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher's contribution

Shouldn't the sentence on Fisher end that *Fisher's* curve examined money wages, not Phillips'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.81.205 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stagflation section

Hello, I have some problems with the Stagflation section. It doesn't differentiate between the short run and the long run, and simply says:

Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman—arguing that the demonstrable failure of the relationship demanded a return to non-interventionist, free market policies. The idea that there was one simple, predictable, and persistent relationship between inflation and unemployment was, at least, questioned.

This seems deceptive to me. A stagflation section seems important, but I think more information needs to be integrated into it.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the information a bit. The sections was never really on stagflation. It might be better just to erase it.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when inflation was high, unemployment was low

The implication in this section sound like an attempt to make a causal link. e.g High inflation promotes unemployment.

However, if you have high employment (low unemployment), then people have more money to spend. More money chasing similar levels of goods produces inflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.215.54 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Demography

Should the question of the impact of the Baby Boom in this era be raised in this article on Phillips? Like Expectational Theory, economic demography was raise by researchers such as Susan Wachter (Wharton) in an attempt to explain how stagflation was occurring at the time. I am commenting from memory.Charley sf (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Smith's comment on this article

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

The beginning of the article is OK as a short introduction, but subsequently, although it has some useful material, it cannot really decide what it is about. The "Mathematics and the Phillips Curve" section seems too detailed and a shorter discussion with references to the detailed treament might be better. One might completely miss that the Phillips Curve lives on (together with an IS curve and a Taylor rule) in the standard rational expectations New Keynesian model that is so widely used, nor that it is interpreted as a supply curve. Of course whereas the original curve was between wage growth and unemployment the current one is between inflation and the output gap (marginal cost). Although I have only given it 3 stars, I think it would be a difficult entry to write well.

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

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

Reference 1: Ron Smith & Gylfi Zoega, 2007. "Global Factors, Unemployment Adjustment and the Natural Rate," Kiel Working Papers 1367, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Reference 2: Smith, Jennifer, 2010. "The Ins and Outs of UK Unemployment," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 944, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The curve?

The only illustration in the main part this article can't really be described as a curve although a large part of modern policy is based on it. It is Fig 9 of the original Phillips paper describing the period 1913 to 1948 but lacking the regression line that he included.

The illustration here is Figure 1 from the same paper and it is much more widely reproduced in textbooks and the web. Whether this is a justifiable use I'm not sure and the correlation coefficient isn't very high. But shouldn't some such graph be used? Chris55 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NAIRU section

This line "the concept of rational expectations had become subject to much doubt when it became clear that the main assumption of models based on it was that there exists a single (unique) equilibrium in the economy that is set ahead of time, determined independently of demand conditions. The experience of the 1990s suggests that this assumption cannot be sustained" is vague. There is no evidence of this "experience of the 1990's"- what statistic supports this contention? How does it support it? Generally, this section aims at discrediting a crucial criticism of the Phillips curve, without sufficient evidence or citing supporting sources. 2600:6C67:617F:421D:AA6B:EEC2:D0A3:C6A7 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to revising the language here to clear up any vagueness, but as indicated in the edit summaries of those of us who have reverted you, this edit is based on an unreliable source, and this one (i.e. without the source) is simply original analysis. At this point, probably the best way forward would be to suggest a revised version of the statement in question here on the talk page before attempting to edit the article again. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "unreliable source" consists of data from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), which is used elsewhere in this page- graph #12 in this "unreliable source" is identical to the graph in the modern applications section of this page- should both be deleted? As for the central claim of this "original research"- that rational expectations implies that there is no meaningful tradeoff between inflation and unemployment- this has been common knowledge among economists for decades. Combining FRED data with conventional wisdom of the entire profession is forbiden "original research"? I know that the REH is controversial and disliked by many, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, open to multiple viewpoints. 2600:6C67:617F:421D:AA6B:EEC2:D0A3:C6A7 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a standard, mainstream viewpoint, you should have no problem providing a mainstream reliable source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for details on what we typically look for. Generalrelative (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what your source cites, it still isn't RS. It appears to be someone's blog and our policy clearly is against that. A non-RS citing a RS doesn't mean it is ok. If you have issues with other sources currently in the article.....that's a subject for another section. Right now, we are talking about the source for something you added. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These supposedly unreliable sources have been reprinted elsewhere e.g. https://mises.org/power-market/folly-federal-reserve-stabilization-policy-part-ii-1985-2023

As for sources on the standard mainstream viewpoint, as you put it, this can be found on multiple Wikipedia pages- which cite numerous sources such as this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy-ineffectiveness_proposition, and also the Phillips Curve page that you edit right here, in a different section, which I will quote.

"A cursory analysis of US inflation and unemployment data from 1953 to 1992 shows no single curve will fit the data". This NAIRU edit simply puts the pieces together. 2600:6C67:617F:421D:AA6B:EEC2:D0A3:C6A7 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mises.org is far, far from a mainstream/reliable site. We could perhaps use it as a source for what Austrian school enthusiasts think (just as we might use a bigfoot-believer website as a source for what bigfoot-believers think) but being printed there is pretty much a self-admission of WP:FRINGE. As to the sources cited elsewhere, we're not going to do your homework for you. Bring them here, draft up some text, and we can evaluate it. Regarding simply puts the pieces together, please be mindful of WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mises.org isn't on our RS list and hasn't gotten a good reception on our noticeboard. So I don't know that will fly as a source. The rest of your argument appears to be WP:OTHER. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of this Phillips curve article includes the views of Jeffrey Herbener, a scholar at the Mises Institute whose views are definitely fringe. That bit on Herbener posts that a citation is needed- so it seems that sometimes unsourced fringe views are allowed on this page, if you feel like doing so. This page lacks the serious discussion of arguments and evidence which indicate that there is no stable Phillips curve, and you don't seem to want for there to be such a discussion. Goodbye... 2600:6C67:617F:421D:AA6B:EEC2:D0A3:C6A7 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I'll get rid of that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]