Talk:Neoclassical synthesis/Archive 1

Merger proposal: Neo-Keynesian economics
I believe this page covers sufficiently the same content as Neo-Keynesian economics as to warrant a merger. VineFynn (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about Neo-Keynesian Economics
This article seems to talk about the Neo-Classical synthesis. Neo-Keynesian economics is a term used to describe the work of the likes of Malinvaud which is a theory of general DISequilibrium, from which you have a role for stabilisation policy and government action because there can be involuntary unemployment of resources because of trades occuring at out-of-equilibrium prices. A good reference for this article would be Kaldors book "Involuntary Unemployment" which is a great discussion of the development of economic thought, albeit from a Keynesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.171.32 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The term has around 10 different meanings in the literature. Therefore this article should be a disambiguation page at least like here: Neokeynesovstvo. Btw, it is typical of this wikipedia that although it has existed for years now and although Neo-Keynesianism is a basic topic, nobody has noticed any problems with this article before you and even then nobody fixes anything. Assistancefromheaven (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Economics" capitalized in the title?
Why is the word "Economics" capitalized in this article's title? Shouldn't it be "Neo-Keynesian economics" rather than "Neo-Keynesian Economics"? --JHP (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I fixed it. --JHP (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so what the hell is Neo-Keynesian economics?
Usually, the introductory sentence of an article gives a brief description of the topic, i.e. "Neo-Keynesian economics is...", but this article does not do that. In fact, the entire introduction to the article does not say what neo-Keynesian economics is. It just gives a description of the changes in economic thought. Also, this article does not explain what the difference is between Neo-Keynesian economics and New Keynesian economics. --JHP (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Move

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * You're not proposing to move this page. You are proposing to blank it, and make it a redirect. Right? 87.114.136.92 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or rather to merge? In that case, we may want the bulk of the material to come from New Keynesian economics, but that doesn't settle what we call the result. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this discussion from the backlog at WP:RM, as this is not a move discussion, but a merger discussion.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many economists distinguish the two. Neo-Keynesian economics referred to a lot of extensions of the Keynesian framework especially back in the 1970s (and I don't claim to be an expert on it). New Keynesian economics refers to the contemporary integration of Keynesian microfoundations such as sticky prices and monopolistic competition into dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models. It is now the main stream of macroeconomic modelling for applied policy-making contexts such as central banks. Therefore from a contemporary standpoint, New Keynesian economics is more important than Neo-Keynesian economics, but from a historical standpoint I think it would be good to keep separate pages on the two. But I agree that the Neo-Keynesian page desperately needs improvement. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose it looks the two schools are both heirs to Keynesian, but they are associated with different times and with slightly different ideas. From what I've tried to dig up, it looks like the terms are somewhat interchangeable with both groups focusing on price stickiness, but Neo-Keynesians generally looked at labor contracts and as a source of stickiness while New Keynesians look at menu costs and information issues.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * New School History of Economic Thought - Neo-Keynesians - best description I've found of Neo-Keynesianism.

The synthesis
The neoclassical synthesis is equal to neo-keynesianism so why we have two articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.44.149 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Only a neo-keynesian would claim their opinions are "mainstream"
WP:NPV The sentence in the intro paragraph "The new Keynesians helped create a "new neo-classical synthesis" that currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory." is just opinion, and very arrogant opinion at that. It has no place on a website that purports to support unbiased information.

There are dozens of schools of thought within the economics community. Who decided that one school was "mainstream"? The citations to political journals supporting this arrogance all represent extremely left wing political viewpoints or neo-keynesian economists. The other schools of thought are not even mentioned, much less consulted on this "mainstream" opinion.

Neo-keynesian THEORY (that is all it is) is one of many schools of economic thinking within the United States, and that doesn't even bring into the discussion the many countries around the world that question US economic thinking in general. Do the communists in China think their entire economic model is wrong, and they should obey the political edicts from neo-keynesians? How about Singapore's economic model? Over the last few decades, Asian economic growth has far exceeded the west. Neo-keynesianism is not even accepted in much of the world, and it is one of many schools of thought within the US. Other49states (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording you keep deleting says "The new Keynesians helped create a "new neo-classical synthesis" that currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory." You keep on arguing that Keynesian economics is not in the mainstream, which is not what was stated. The statement is that the new neo-classical synthesis forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory. This statement is supported by references to papers that have been published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (Mankiw), the American Economic Journal (Woodford), and a paper published by Federal Reserve economists in the NBER Macroeconomics Annual. The journals are ranked 13th and 14th top economics journals. These are hardly "political journals" and anybody with a passing knowledge of economics would know that the idea that they represent "extremely left wing political viewpoints" is ludicrous. So far you have produced zero sources supporting your viewpoint, you misunderstand the text you are deleting, and you have written off what are clearly reliable sources as partisan, political journals. Maybe China has a different mainstream consensus behind their macroeconomic theory. If you have a source that discusses this, great, we should add that viewpoint. Until then, we should stick with Wikipedia's policies and state what is supported by verifiable and reliable sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-Keynesian economics. 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://web.archive.org/web/20020605064049/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/ to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//

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) 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)