Talk:Macroeconomic model

Needs to be merged?
I think this article should be merged with Model (economics). Any objections? Also where is the data in this article from? Is it taken from the external links. I'd never heard of some of this on the first model and am curious on the verification of it. - Taxman 16:26, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

if this article is merged, i think it should be made clear that macroeconomics is just one form of economics, and that the section is followed directly by a microeconomics section. granted i am no economics specialist, it just makes sence to me this way. -svedinjd-

I think that the greatest need that Wikipedia could fulfil is to provide a comprehensive holistic overview as well as more specialist articles. At some point (ideally at developmental age of circa 12years, with contibutary activities going right back to pre-school) school children need to be introduced to the idea of an intellectual model. Wikipedia should be for children as well as adults. The first level of all subjects should be as accessible and general as possible - followed by specialist articles. These two specialist subjects should be kept separate and both flow from a simple, general introduction to the idea of models and modelling. SunWalk-education 19th No 2005

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Large macroeconomics model
Large macroeconomics model should be mentioned specifically in the article. Jackzhp (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many macroeconomic models are 'large'. What do you have in mind, exactly? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Language Use
The name of the subject is Macroeconomics. Macroeconomic is not even an adjective. This word does not exist and has no use here in Wikipedia. All spellings and grammar that involve this change should be corrected. This is along with a lot of other changes, because as already pointed out, the quality and content of the work here is very poor. An example of a macroeconomics model has been added by me. Whilst this model is not the most ideal it is a lot better than nothing and does manage to explain what is meant by the subject.Macrocompassion (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out this Google scholar search. "Macroeconomic model" is much used. C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cretog8 has point. There are 22,500 hits for "macroeconomic model" and just 322 for "macroeconomics model". What matters most is how the term is used in the article's sources. Also, can't we use the word as an adjective in phrases such as "macroeconomic context" or "macroeconomic system"? Joja  lozzo  17:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Pagan's comment on this article
Dr. Pagan has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The distinction is made between “logical” and “mathematical” models. I am not entirely sure I understand this but I have always thought it was about how precisely stated the model was. Policy makers often have rather loose mental models that they use rather than a precisely articulated model. In many institutions models are used for scenario analysis today and forecasting is done by spreadsheets. Often these use equations for models and have some sort of structure underlying them, but it is more like the old forecasting models and is built on the national income identity. This approach appeals to those advising policy makers since it means one can have more than one equation describing the same phenomenon and these are combined together when making a forecast. It is also a good approach for utilizing non-model items such as survey type data efficiently. I think I would refer to things like IS-LM as miniature models as distinct from the larger models used in practice. They are all models of the economy but the miniature ones are useful for communication. Historically, the empirical forecasting models were also use for policy analysis. Although they were linear this was because it was found that non-linearities didn’t seem to be important, except for UK models in high inflation times. There was quite a lot of testing of this. I don’t know that adaptive expectations were the only generators of lags for the early models. It was often partial adjustment to a target, and later an error correction approach ( e.g. consumption a fixed ratio of income in equilibrium), that gave this. I thought the history in this article was good. I don’t think that the “rational choice” comment quite captures the issue. Many of the old models had choices about consumption, hours worked etc. made from some optimization e.g. the life-cycle approach to consumption. The big difference with respect to today’s models is that there are far fewer unknown parameters in DSGE models – in the simplest versions the households decide on consumption, investment, hours worked etc. simultaneously and not separately. There is also an emphasis on forward looking expectations that are computed from the model. There are often called rational expectations but “ consistent expectations” is a better description as they are consistent with a model that could quite well be wrong. Generally DSGE models are about consistent decision making. The end of the paragraph about “self-consistency” sort of captures this but I felt it could be spelled out a bit more. I disagree with the fact that there is a claim that you can forecast the future correctly on average. The future is forecasted with the model. If the model is a poor representation of the future outcomes then they won’t be unbiased. What they do is produce a forecast that uses the available information in the way suggested by the model. If you used more information then you might produce much better forecasts. I am not sure that DSGE models are that hard to solve anymore. Some of them e.g. the Area Wide model at the ECB are pretty big. So many DSGE models are not very simple any more. It is true that the RBC and NK models are often used for illustration of points, but rarely are these used in policy institutes, as they don’t have enough variables modelled. CGE models are more about microeconomic effects. They are pretty weak on macro because they deal with relative prices and so lots of macro phenomena are just assumed to be non –existent or taken to be exogenous, and then some parameters are shifted to see how this affects the answer. ACE models certainly exist but I think their influence has been pretty minor. Specifying agent based rules given that there is little data on their parameters has to make most policy makers worry. DSGE models are good because they have a framework that one can hopefully explain what you see or expect to see. ACE models are much more like a black box since they have so much heterogeneity."

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

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


 * Reference : Hyeon-Seung Huh & Lance Fisher & Adrian Pagan, 2014. "Econometric Methods for Modelling Systems with a Mixture of I(1) and I(0) Variables," EcoMod2014 7225, EcoMod.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macroeconomic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130122123833/http://www.egwald.com/macroeconomics/keynesian.php to http://www.egwald.com/macroeconomics/keynesian.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Macroeconomic model that is fully comprehensive
It is necessary to model the whole of the system of a national macroeconomy. Yet, for ease of understanding it, we need to limit the size and details to a minimum. I have a solution to this which is on the internet as SSRN 2865571 "Einstein's Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modelling". This model has only 6 sectors (or agents) and has 19 different mutual (or dual) connections for the flows of money in return for goods, services, etc. 2A06:C701:7431:EC00:D019:CDC2:28E7:6270 (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)