Talk:Permanent income hypothesis

Why the Greek explanatory footnotes?
I can't see a single advantage of these over ordinary Latin alphabet footnotes. I would "be bold" & change them, but it would take some time. For future reference, the template used is Template:Efn-lg.

Other articles, even rather technical ones in the scope of wikiproject economics, do not use these type of notes:


 * Shapley–Folkman lemma uses lowercase Latin letters


 * Brander–Spencer model uses Arabic numerals

I will probably change this when I get a moment, if nobody else gets there first or objects.

Separate issues
(not sure what I'll do with these even if I had time):

1. Footnotes beta, gamma, delta, and eta all repeat the same stuff (distinction between MPC and MPS). Can those be consolidated to one footnote? Better yet, can we simply delete the later scattershot footnotes? (Why footnote MPC under Policy implications but not Empirical evidence, for example?)

2. Footnote gamma doesn't even lead to the "right thing." It's attached to APC (which is not defined anywhere, and only mentioned once, much farther down the page).

3. The table is labeled "Fig. 1". That's not ordinary style for Wikipedia. Why not just "as shown in the table below"? Is there a figure 2? What if a different figure 1 gets inserted above? The caption "Fig. 1: Analysis of consumption...." isn't typical either. Lastly, even in an academic paper (at least those publishers I know), this would be a table, not a figure. Is this perhaps a remnant of the formatting of the original source of this table?

--Officiallyover (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)