Talk:Macroeconomics: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis No edit summary |
imported>Stephen Saletta |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Point taken. But I don't want to overburden readers at the outset. I will try to cover it in the section on qualifictions and extensions. | Point taken. But I don't want to overburden readers at the outset. I will try to cover it in the section on qualifictions and extensions. | ||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 15:07, 25 September 2007 (CDT) | [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 15:07, 25 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
:The current treatment of monetarism seems a little editorialized at the moment. I would state what it is (money supply is the only thing that matters). I think it would also be reasonable to state that it has been surpassed by the neoclassical synthesis and if you want to mention some neokeynseian critique, that would be reasonable as well.[[User:Stephen Saletta|Stephen Saletta]] 07:00, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
== What's left to do? == | == What's left to do? == | ||
Revision as of 08:00, 13 November 2007
The treatment of monetarism
In this draft I have dismissed the simplistic version of monetarism without coming to a conclusion about the validity of the more sophisticated version employed by monetary economists. This avoids unnecessary controversy. To my mind the matter is, in any case, not worth pursuing. Monetarism was abandoned because monetary control was found impracticable, not because its theoretical grounding was found wanting. I plan to bring that out in the section on the management of the economy.
Nick Gardner 10:45, 24 September 2007 (CDT)
You make a reasonable point about the empirical experiences of monetarist policy. I wonder whether we should mention in passing some of the more sophisticated approaches -- just for encyclopaedic completeness.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:52, 24 September 2007 (CDT)
Point taken. But I don't want to overburden readers at the outset. I will try to cover it in the section on qualifictions and extensions. Nick Gardner 15:07, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
- The current treatment of monetarism seems a little editorialized at the moment. I would state what it is (money supply is the only thing that matters). I think it would also be reasonable to state that it has been surpassed by the neoclassical synthesis and if you want to mention some neokeynseian critique, that would be reasonable as well.Stephen Saletta 07:00, 13 November 2007 (CST)
What's left to do?
It is time to consider what has been left out. Under economic policy I plan to cover the supply side and globalisation constraints on domestic policy. What else should be included? And should there be a concluding section dealing with speculative issues? Suggestions please!
Nick Gardner 07:24, 28 September 2007 (CDT)
Fin
That's that - for the time being, at least. I may come back with some changes in a few months' time.
I will try to get round to draft the articles that I have "invented" by creating links, but I hope somone else will help out regarding the dissenting views.
I am sorry that my plea for comments seems so far to have fallen on deaf ears, but I live in hope!
Nick Gardner 11:28, 12 October 2007 (CDT)