Talk:Circular flow of income

Merge
Merge the articles already...the temp file is a lot more detailed and I dont see why it shouldnt replace the non temp one. But I don't know whats best for this site but I reckon they should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.205.181.117 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason NOT to merge these pages? (Posted 9-13-05) I'd like to do so on 10-1-05 if I don't see any objections here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.115.123 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, merge them if you want. The temp page is separated because it was simply tacked on to a pre-existing article, and because it was suspected of being a copyright violation.  -- Scott  ei&#960;  08:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will add sub headings to this in a week or so so that should complete the clean up of the article;) --Ari89 12:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Its great article but someone clean it up already!--Eco Nerd 11:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the two-sector portion requires a bit more work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.145.181 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Six years later...
the article is still awful. At the very least, a graph of how to use the leakage-injection model to analyze international trade would be nice. I would make one, but it's exactly what I came here to learn how to do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.111.65 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Title and Subject Matter
The title is wrong. Incomes are someone elses' outcomes, but in fact what is circulating is money, pure and simple. The various diagrams are not very exact and in fact the whole macroeconomy may easily be considered as one subject having a circulation between its 6 sectors or entities as shown in the attached diagram. This diagram incorporates 19 mutual flows of goods etc. with money flowing in the opposite direction and is a fair description of a closed macroeconomy or social system which has been made sufficiently comprehensive as to cover the whole of the "big-picture".Macrocompassion (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

“Original Research” notice box is NOT justified
I strongly recommend that this notice box be deleted.

I agree completely with many of the observations above: this article would benefit significantly by a thorough cleaning up—i.e., extensive rewriting and reformatting, as well as the addition of detailed sources/references.

But I don’t believe the section marked by the “Original Research” notice box contains anything even remotely resembling original research (unless the editors or WP policy consider specific numerical examples to be “original research,” which would be absurd in contexts like this). Perhaps the editor who added the box has never studied the discussion of the circular flow of income in a typical introductory or intermediate macroeconomics text and, as a result, misinterpreted something in the section’s wording as being, or suggesting, original research. But the material is, in fact, pretty standard stuff—albeit an advanced (i.e., more complete) model, which some intro econ courses may not have time to cover. Based on my personal experience teaching this topic, though, it’s absolutely not original research.


 * --Jackftwist (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Much as I would like to join in with this talk, I have not found the "Original Research" mentioned above. It does not exist in the article. If the writer Jackftwist is referring to my diagram with 6 sectors, or to something else, he needs to clarify what he has in mind.

The 6 sector model is significant because it separates the landlord from the capitalist and the way these two kinds of investments behave is completely different. Often when one rises in value the other remains fixed, or even drops. For a full analysis of this representation, I advise the interested reader to get my recent book: "Consequential Macroeconomics--Rationalizing About How Our Society Works" which can be reviewed as an e-copy if you write to; chesterdh@hotmail.com and explain why you are interested.Macrocompassion (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Six Sector Model
The five-sector model does not separate the two roles within capitalism, namely that of investor and of landowner. This important difference comes about because when Adam Smith defined the 3 factors of production, (namely Land, Labor and Capital) he included the landowner as performing a separate role or activity from that of the capitalist, whose role was one of owning and hiring out the durable capital goods. Land he separated, because it should not be taken as being an investment object having been made by earlier work. This results in there being a six-sector model which does not include "the rest of the world".

The diagram for this 6-sector model may be found in my book "Consequential Macroeconomics" and also in two working papers: SSRN 28675571 "Einstein's Criterion Applied to logical Macroeconomics Modelling" and to SSRN 2600103 "A mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics". Macrocompassion (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The Six Sector Model
This topic has not been mentioned and it should be because when the whole system is reduced to its various kinds of exchanges of money for goods, services, etc., it is found that there are 10 kinds of these exchanges and them must circulate between the 6 sectors that are the various parts of the whole system. Without this system the money that continuously circulates would be found to be unable to balance the values of what it is being used for. This system and its model have been well-explained in my short working paper SSRN 2865571 "Einstein's Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modelling". The six sectors are: Government, Landowner, Producer, Household, Finance Institution and Capitalist. (It should be understood that the activities of a landowner and a capitalist are different.) This criterion (applied to the hypothesis of any truly scientific investigation) is to include all of the system in the most simple yet comprehensive way. In the Wikipedia explanation of a system this model is used for purposes of illustration the circulation of money. (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)