Talk:Macroeconomics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Saletta |
imported>Stephen Saletta mNo edit summary |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Nice Rewrite== | |||
Very nice. Much clearer and easier to read. Couple of comments: | |||
:It was clear from the statistics at the time that changes in the money supply do not have an instantaneous effect upon prices. | |||
::''At what time?'' | |||
:...the control of inflation was widely adopted by governments and central banks in the early 1980s with results that are described below. | |||
::''Where? Please link.'' | |||
:techniques for testing relationships incorporating time-lags were applied to United States statistics <ref> Friedman and Meiselman The relative stability of monetary velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States 1897-1958 in ''Stabilisation Policies, CMC Research Papers'' p165 Prentice-Hall 1964</ref>, and they indicated that price increases had followed money supply increases with lags that were long and variable. Critics argued that this was not conclusive proof, and further statistical tests <ref> | |||
[http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/monetarism/monetarcont.htm The development of monetarism (CEPA)]</ref> were attempted to test the Keynesian theory that the ''[[transmission mechanism]]'' was such that increases in the money supply would not affect the prices of goods because they would be spent on financial assets. | |||
::''I think this might be a little too detailed of a description for an introduction. I would suggest something simpler along the lines of "... an empirical question whether newly created dollars are spent on goods and services or on interest bearing securities as claimed by Keynesians..."'' | |||
On Money supply: Evidence that emerged some years after the initial formulation of monetarism established its validity, together with some serious limitations upon its usefulness. | |||
:: ''I think this paragraph might need some rewording.'' [[User:Stephen Saletta|Stephen Saletta]] 20:00, 15 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Thank you for your reassuring comment, Stephen. I had been wondering whether the reversion to a textbook-style explanation would be more acceptable. I have tried to meet your criticisms by deleting unnecessary verbiage - bearing in mind, also, that the subject seemed to be getting too much space. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 03:29, 16 November 2007 (CST) | |||
:Nick, I hope I haven't been too critical... you've clearly been doing the yeoman's work around here. This article is already much more lucid than the one at WP. If my if my comments aren't constructive or you think I'm dumbing things down too much, I will be happy to shut my pie hole and go back to work on [[public good]]s (and would appreciate your feedback over there on my treatment of externalities). On the other hand, if there's a way feedback could be more helpful to you, it would be great to hear about it. I know everyone appreciates your work and is anxious to see this article approved. [[User:Stephen Saletta|Stephen Saletta]] 21:24, 16 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Your comments and criticisms have been very welcome, Stephen. I am confident that they have prompted improvements to the articles. It is not easy to stand back and take a detached view of one's own work, so a bystander's view is almost bound to be helpful. Please keep it up. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] | [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 23:55, 16 November 2007 (CST) | ||
== | ==Towards approval== | ||
In an effort to move this article along, I've moved some of the older/completed discussion to [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]. Perhaps a fresh look at the main article and comments would be in order. [[User:Stephen Saletta|Stephen Saletta]] 22:22, 17 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
[[ | |||
[[User: | |||
Latest revision as of 21:24, 17 April 2008
Nice Rewrite
Very nice. Much clearer and easier to read. Couple of comments:
- It was clear from the statistics at the time that changes in the money supply do not have an instantaneous effect upon prices.
- At what time?
- ...the control of inflation was widely adopted by governments and central banks in the early 1980s with results that are described below.
- Where? Please link.
- techniques for testing relationships incorporating time-lags were applied to United States statistics [1], and they indicated that price increases had followed money supply increases with lags that were long and variable. Critics argued that this was not conclusive proof, and further statistical tests [2] were attempted to test the Keynesian theory that the transmission mechanism was such that increases in the money supply would not affect the prices of goods because they would be spent on financial assets.
- I think this might be a little too detailed of a description for an introduction. I would suggest something simpler along the lines of "... an empirical question whether newly created dollars are spent on goods and services or on interest bearing securities as claimed by Keynesians..."
On Money supply: Evidence that emerged some years after the initial formulation of monetarism established its validity, together with some serious limitations upon its usefulness.
- I think this paragraph might need some rewording. Stephen Saletta 20:00, 15 November 2007 (CST)
Thank you for your reassuring comment, Stephen. I had been wondering whether the reversion to a textbook-style explanation would be more acceptable. I have tried to meet your criticisms by deleting unnecessary verbiage - bearing in mind, also, that the subject seemed to be getting too much space.
Nick Gardner 03:29, 16 November 2007 (CST)
- Nick, I hope I haven't been too critical... you've clearly been doing the yeoman's work around here. This article is already much more lucid than the one at WP. If my if my comments aren't constructive or you think I'm dumbing things down too much, I will be happy to shut my pie hole and go back to work on public goods (and would appreciate your feedback over there on my treatment of externalities). On the other hand, if there's a way feedback could be more helpful to you, it would be great to hear about it. I know everyone appreciates your work and is anxious to see this article approved. Stephen Saletta 21:24, 16 November 2007 (CST)
Your comments and criticisms have been very welcome, Stephen. I am confident that they have prompted improvements to the articles. It is not easy to stand back and take a detached view of one's own work, so a bystander's view is almost bound to be helpful. Please keep it up. Nick Gardner 23:55, 16 November 2007 (CST)
Towards approval
In an effort to move this article along, I've moved some of the older/completed discussion to Archive 1. Perhaps a fresh look at the main article and comments would be in order. Stephen Saletta 22:22, 17 April 2008 (CDT)
- ↑ Friedman and Meiselman The relative stability of monetary velocity and the Investment Multiplier in the United States 1897-1958 in Stabilisation Policies, CMC Research Papers p165 Prentice-Hall 1964
- ↑ The development of monetarism (CEPA)