Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of macroeconomic thought/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:47, 14 June 2011.

History of macroeconomic thought

 * Nominator(s): Bkwillwm (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is a comprehensive overview of the development of macroeconomic theory and is thoroughly referenced with high quality sources. The article has been through a peer review and a copyedit, and I am not sure how else I can make it better. I think it meets the criteria of an FA. Bkwillwm (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lots of pesky and time consuming 2c problems; 1c looks decent enough  Random sampling for probably undergraduate textbooks revealed no problemsFifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on bringing the article this far.
 * Variance in footnotes between Author (Year) and Author Year; due to partial implementation of internal linking?
 * The copy editor added the internal linking to the existing citation system. Should I change the other references to match the Author Year format? Would that suffice?--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FAC requirement is consistency, you don't need the internal linking, but neither is it forbidden. You need to choose one way or the other and then implement throughout the footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem with fn124, and another (Ball), Shapiro, C.; Stiglitz, J. E. (1984), edit suggestion appearing "^ See Fischer, S. (1977). "Long-Term Contracts, Rational Expectations, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule". The Journal of Political Economy 85 (1): 191–205. doi:10.1086/260551. edit"
 * I think the "edit" is a result of the JSTOR citation template. Should I replace the template?--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All links from footnotes to bibliography work; JSTORS, ISBN, dois clear in footnotes except: broken doi: Smets, Frank; Wouters, Rafael (2007). ; suggest nominator checks ISBNs, JSTORS, dois in bibliography
 * Fixed Smets and Wouters.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lacks a title, Lipsey, R.G. (February 1960). Economica. 27. pp. 1-31., "The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1862-1957: A Further Analysis"
 * Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lacks Author or indication it is an editorial: ^ "A model approach". Nature 460 (7256):
 * Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * p./pp. versus [no page indicator] inconsistent
 * lack of n-dashes in page ranges
 * terminal fullstops in footnotes inconsistent
 * commas, colons and periods within cites inconsistent
 * Bibliography publisher location inconsistency (ie: Blinder, Alan S. (2008) not listed) resolved
 * The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is an online publication and no location is given in their citations.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * State or Nationstate listing for non-major-publishing cities inconsistency; Fletcher, Gordon (2002) has it, Davidson, Paul (2005). doesn't.
 * Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Improbable publisher location?—Mark, Nelson Chung (2001).
 * Fixed. That reference was all wrong.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Title? Farmer, J. Doyne; Foley, Duncan (6 August 2009). Nature. 460. pp. 685–686. doi:10.1038/460685a.
 * Fixed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this Woodford, Michael (1999). a High Quality Reliable Source, or a Reliable Source at all; a personal or departmental paper doesn't cut it. And it was presented at a conference, was it peer reviewed, is the named chair enough?  Cite the conference regardless of the RS/HQRS outcome.
 * What do you mean by "named chair"? Are you referring to Woodford's stature? Woodford is very well known, so the article has clout. The same mimeo was used as a reference in Blanchard (2000). If it's good enough for Blanchard in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, then its good enough here. I'll add the conference..--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ta. If someone is sufficiently expert, then non-peer reviewed papers can be fine.  Australia's HERDC reporting, for example, considers keynote papers as "peer reviewed" if they were delivered to a peer reviewed conference, even if the keynote itself wasn't peer reviewed.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I standardized the footnote format and used ndashes for the page ranges. This should take care of the formatting issues.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment With a title including "history", I was expecting something beginning much further back. The article begins "Macroeconomic theory began with John Maynard Keynes who described the economy as a whole instead of looking at individual, microeconomic parts", but I wonder how true this is. From the little I know about the subject, much early economic thought at least tried to grapple with larger issues.  Later on, a section begins:  "Modern macroeconomics can be said to have begun with John Maynard Keynes", & I think the qualifier is necessary.  Also why "thought"?  "Theory" is what the article uses, & seems more correct.  So History of modern macroeconomic theory would seem a better title. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stuck with "thought" over "theory" following the convention in History of economic thought. Aside from inconsistency, I'm not opposed to that change. I do oppose qualifying the article with "modern." Many sources say macro began with Keynes, and most history of macro overviews start with Keynes (see Mankiw (2006). Unlike many works on this topic, this article does include earlier work. Like Blanchard (2000) and Woodford (1999), it starts with work in business cycles and monetary theory. I haven't seen a survey of macro that gives proportionally more attention to pre-Keynes work, so I feel like this time period is given due weight. Considering that most sources, including Mankiw 2006, don't consider macro to have begun until Keynes, I don't see a point in adding "modern." Moreover, "modern macro" is sometimes used to refer to macroeconomics after the development of rational expectations. Renaming could cause confusion. I will add some sentences at the beginning of the lead referring to the "origins" section.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIA, Macro begins with Keynes. Previous system wide analyses used fundamentally different methodologies to Keynes, and were generally known as Political Economy IIRC.  (And, even while some later Macroeconomics work is also Political Economy… "its complex"). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Source for MONIAC caption, King's College caption?
 * Which Neo-Keynesian model does that graph represent?
 * File:Phillips_and_MONIAC_LSE.jpg - from the page linked as "Permission": "many of our images are of unknown provenance, with no accompanying data about their creators or date of creation. If you make use of an image from our photostream, you are reminded to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding with a particular new use". Was this done?
 * File:ACEGESGUI.png - source link is dead, and without it there's no evidence of the image's PD status. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking the images on the page. I'll add a King's college ref. Both the IS/LM and Philips curve captions were accidentally removed when I added alttext to those images. Captions have been fixed. The user who uploaded the ACEGESGUI image exclusively edited ACEGES and related articles. The user's screen name is the same as that of the ACEGES ‎PI. I give the SN the benefit of the doubt here. It looks like it belongs to the image's copyright owner. I sent a request to the ACEGES site to verify this through OTRS, just in case. The MONIAC image is the complicated issue. I assumed that the Flickr no known restrictions license was acceptable because it was an eligible selection in Commons. If not, I can get another image for the lead image.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through the ACEGES website and contacted the author of the ACEGESGUI.png image and had uploaded the image to Commons. He documented permissions for this image through Commons OTRS.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I created a new composite image of free photos of economists here. I think all of the image issues have been addressed.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC) I'm trying to review the whole article this weekend. I'm not knowledgeable in this area, so consider my comments as comments of an interested lay person. The article so far is extraordinally well-written, but I do have a number of comments:

Origins
 * The term "money velocity" seems to be crucial to the whole article, yet, it is nowhere explained. Please do so. Consider spending quite some detail on this.
 * I tried to explain this a bit parenthetically.
 * OK. Consider changing "(the frequency with which a given piece of currency is used in transactions) (V)" to "... transactions, V)". Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You indicate a "simple version of the quantity theory". In the interest of a comprehensive article, what are the less simple ones?
 * Distinguished the two main versions.
 * Just to make sure I'm following you: the simple one is Fisher's, the other one is Keynes' and the Cambridge school? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Keynes's general theory Keynes's successors
 * Say's Law is stated only for money in section 1. How is it applied to labor markets, as well?
 * Section 1 says it was applied to the whole economy. I think the wording is OK now. Say's law just says you have X of whatever goods, labor, etc. on the market. The price will drop until all X are sold.
 * OK, I get it. However, how about changing "which stated that whatever is supplied to the market will be sold" to something like "which stated that whatever is supplied to the market, be it goods or labor force [...or whatever else is important...] will be sold"? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starting with "Classical economists" is very repetitive. In the interest of a concise exposition, I'd urge you to eliminate these redundancies: "Keynes rejected the assertion that money velocity is stable and uncorrelated with output." says exactly the same as the sentence directly following it. Moreover, this par. says almost the same as the last par. in section 1. I think the last par of section 1 should go and whatever is important there should be merged into section 2.
 * Cleaned up a little bit. There's some difference between section 1 and 2. I'll work on making this clearer.
 * I don't understand "During downturns, government could increase spending to employ excesses". What do you mean by employ excesses here?
 * Reworded.
 * This may totally be just me (I'm not a native speaker), but "government could increase spending to purchase excess and goods " does not sink in with me. How can one purchase an excess? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "externalities" -- jargon.
 * Yes, it's jargon, but I feel like it's OK. This article can't explain every economic term. Each math article doesn't explain what a real number is. I have to draw a line somewhere, and externalities are a microeconomic concept. The term is ilinked for those who don't know it.
 * True. However, the comparison does not quite work: it takes some space to explain real numbers, whereas here you could simply reword to " external factors "? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 3.2. says that Keynes' work did not include price levels. I assume this means he did not care about inflation? If so, why is Philipps' curve "the weakest part of the Keynesian system"?
 * There's a difference between Keynes's system and the Keynesian system. Keynes ignored price level. Keynes's successors added the Phillips curve to the Keynesian system even though Keynes was dead. I could try to reword this but its conventional terminology and it should be clear what's going on.
 * This must be one of the trivial things for insiders. But, indeed, I was wondering. Do you see a good way of pointing out the difference between the two (i.e., emphasizing that Keynes' stuff and Keynesian stuff are not exactly the same)? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New classical economics
 * "They did share the Keynesian focus ..." -- I don't understand who did and who did not share what. As it stands, it reads like the new classical economists broke with Keynesian theory "completely", but "did share" K's focus. A contradiction?
 * NC's shared the Keynesian focus on the short-run, but didn't adopt any Keynesian theory. Reworded to clarify.
 * I'm still concerned about the word "completely". You will know better, but saying that someone disagrees completely means he does not like a single bit of that one, right? Would replacing "completely" by "largely" or the like be still OK with you? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the diagram integrates relatively poorly with the text: what is Q, what is D, what is the red and blue curve? If you consider the diagram to be important enough to be in this article, it deserves a more thorough coverage. Like this, it is of little use for newcomers.
 * Explained elements of the graph in the caption.
 * An improvement, thanks. However, please be mindful of MOS which asks for succinct image captions. In fact, it is easy to conform to this: "John Muth first proposed rational expectations when he criticized the cobweb model (example above) of agricultural prices. Muth showed that agents making based on rational expectations would be more successful than those who made their estimates based on adaptive expectations, which could lead to the cobweb situation" -- all of this should not need to be in the image caption, I believe, but in the main text instead. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace (1975)[85] applied rational expectations to the Phillips curve and found that " -- how did they find that?

New Keynesian eco
 * The distinction "nominal" vs. "real" occurs a number of times, but is nowhere explained (unless I missed it). This applies to wages here and rigidities later.
 * Added more in the "Origins" section to set this up. Also tried to do a better job explaining real rigidities.
 * You use the word "shirk" about 10 times. Consider rewording this a bit.
 * Swapped in "slack off" a couple times.
 * Hm, there are still 7 shirks in this one paragraph + image caption.... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New growth theory Another point that keeps popping up and leaving me unsatisfied: the
 * "Marginalist revolution" -- again, hard to understand without background.
 * Added time period to this and explained that it was a period of micro research.
 * The first few sentences leave me puzzled: when was what? Especially the sentence "Research on the topic ..." seems ill-placed. I suggest putting everything in strict chronological order.
 * Sentence reworded. Section is now in chronological order.
 * "basically" sounds a bit weaselly.
 * Removed "basically."
 * Reworded.
 * "The first challenged the assumption of diminishing marginal returns to capital by introducing positive externalities to capital accumulation." -- Sorry. I cannot make heads nor tails of this. What are "diminishing marginal returns", what are "positive externalities"?
 * Tried to reword to reduce jargon. Positive externalities are spillover benefits.
 * "The second saw technological growth as endogenous, so entrepreneurs would be more likely to expand knowledge given more of an incentive to profit." -- I don't (again, this may be my fault) understand why the second part of the sentence is a consequence of the first.
 * Probably my fault. Simplified.
 * "The final set" -- is this just the third set? Why do you call it "final"?
 * Yes, this is the third set. Merged with last sentence to be clearer and more concise.

Heterodox theories
 * will review in the next few days.

Financial crisis Misc comments
 * will review in the next few days.
 * Things like mid-1950's should have a hyphen, I think? (Several times throughout the article)
 * This is not an FA requirement, just a suggestion: things like "Keynes (1940) showed..." could be formatted a bit more nicely by using the Harvard citations template:.

General questions/qualms
 * At few places, the article mentions connections to the "real world". It gives a bit the impression that the theories were developed without a view towards applications/the current economical situation. I believe this is not the case? I don't have any request what should be in here, though, but this is just because I don't know the topic well.
 * Macroeconomists create models that are extreme simplifications of very complex systems. When one economist doesn't like another's model, it's easy to pick at the simplifying assumptions as unrealistic.
 * OK, maybe my comment was unclear: the fact that Keynes did not care about inflation might be explained by the fact that little inflation occurred when he did his work. (Right?) Pointing out such connections between theory and ambient "real world" seems beneficial to me: after all a theory reflects in some sense what its creator wanted it to be. Does this question make any sense to you? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. A concern with economic policy and problems (unemployment, inflation) is one of the characteristic features of macroeconomics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar issue: even though all of this is very very scientific, I imagine that many of the theories build on certain assumptions that often reflect ideological beliefs or are based on other, ultimately subjective ideas. Is this right? If so, the article should, I think, carve out more clearly what underlying ideas (or axioms) drove the development of these ideas. The ideological confrontations between the schools is briefly mentioned in the article, but as a reader I don't feel satisfied in this respect.
 * I tried to avoid framing this in ideological terms. I think it would easily become POV heavy otherwise. Most other macro surveys also deal with ideology with a light hand. While Keynesians trend left and monetarists/new classicals lean right, the break downs between economic schools of thought aren't necessarily political anyway. Greg Mankiw is a prominent Keynesian and well-known conservative who advised George W. Bush. Volcker is associated with monetarism, but he advised Obama.
 * Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to dig my heels in. What I'm after is this: "everyone knows" (?), and the article in one place acknowledges, that much of the debates were inflicted by ideological assumptions etc. If this impression of mine is true, you have to reflect this state of things in a certain depth, I think. Ideally: find a neutral, secondary source which deals with the ideological ruptures etc. surrounding this and base your discussion on this. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a quote discussing ideology and Europe/disequilibrium and American/equilibrium ideologies, in a footnote. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, something else where I think the article is weak: almost nothing is said about the methods of macroeconomics. Why? How did these scholars get all their results? Just two points that come to my mind: there is a whole philosophical branch studying philosophy of eco. E.g., to what extent are the empirical data useful at all? Also, increasingly sophisticated mathematics have been developed and used in economics. This qualm of mine is somewhat confirmed when one looks at the references. The article is well-referenced, it seems, but if you take together the books Garrison 2005, Snowdone & Vane, Mankiw 1990, Froyen 1990, Romer 2006, you have more than 50% of the citations. I'm not questioning the reliability of these and other sources used, but this means that half of the article consists of what is contained in these books. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but for a huge topic like this, this strikes me as relatively narrow a scope.
 * I noticed that a few of your comments seemed to request an explanation of methods. I tried to focus on theory instead of methods to limit the scope of the article, but I'll add a little more on methodology to try to make the article less abstract. I did rely heavily on S&V, but it's the one, recent book length treatment of the history of macro. Moreover, S&V takes a neutral approach to the subject while other surveys are usually trying to push a point of view or pitch a certain perspective on the subject (like Mankiw's scientists vs. engineers). I also used every other reputable survey I had access to (Blanchard, Mankiw, Woodford), and several topic specific sources like Delong and Goodfriend & King. Collectively, it was works by Mankiw, Romer, and S&V that I relied most on. Mankiw and Romer are two of the top textbook writers and respected research economists themselves, and S&V is the top source on this subject. I think those are reasonable sources to build on the core of this article. The other sources add a few more perspectives, and I don't think there's a notable perspective that's absent.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Perry Mehrling's book. I think that he studied with Desai (more of a LSE/Cambridge post-Keynesian and Douglas Gale). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'll buy your statement that S&V does cover most of what we need to have in this article. (Not so much because I'm convinced, but because I don't have enough insight into the topic, nor do I have this book or other books). I will also post on WT:WikiProject Economics to get expert input on this question. However, I'm fairly convinced that the article needs to have more on methodology. Imagine an article History of genetics that aims to be comprehensive (an FA criterion) that just says: Mendel "found" this and that, Watson and Crick found this and this, without ever saying how they did so. This would simply be wanting in depth. Displaying how a science evolves necessarily includes the development of its methods. In this case: Mendel actually fooled around in his garden with peas (or what was it?) and prevented them from mixing among each other, Watson and Craig used microscopes in their work etc. Not telling this and similar bits implies that the reader will never know why certain things were not possible before they were actually done etc. Back to this article: I just looked at google.books and S&V, which talks (p. 680) about the "wrenching transformation [of economics] from operating as a purely verbal science to [...] a purely mathematical science". Of course, this is just one particular quote and I'm not insisting you put this particular one into the article. However, it is an aspect not at all talked about in the article as it currently stands. If you agree with that quote and consider it non-POV etc., you basically have to tell something about this "wrenching transformation". Otherwise the article is, I firmly believe, not comprehensive. You might object that the article becomes too technical etc., when talking about complicated maths (or whatever else complicated might occur). Yet, it is an FA's job not to "dumb down" the topic (while doing the best possible in explaining the things, so that the largest reasonable audience will benefit). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add a few more methodological elements to the article. The neo-Keynesian synthesis produced much of the shift from words to math you mention above. I'll discuss that more. I'll discuss monetarist methodologies more. And I'll do more on RBC and DSGE methodologies (probably where better discussion of methodology is needed most). I think that, on top of what's already there, like the large-scale macromodel section, should be enough methodology for a theory article. I'm still going to argue that methodology isn't central to a theory article. I don't see a history of theoretical physics dwelling on the methodological differences between Newton, Einstein, quantum theory, and string theory. It would focus on differences in theories and maybe make mention of certain methodological tools that play a major (particle accelerators). I also got my hands on A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. I'll use that to a little more diversity citations.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert M. Solow concluded that mathematical economics was the core "infrastructure" of contemporary economics: Economics is no longer a fit conversation piece for ladies and gentlemen. It has become a technical subject. Like any technical subject it attracts some people who are more interested in the technique than the subject. That is too bad, but it may be inevitable. In any case, do not kid yourself: the technical core of economics is indispensable infrastructure for the political economy. That is why, if you consult [a reference in contemporary economics] looking for enlightenment about the world today, you will be led to technical economics, or history, or nothing at all. I think that the article should emphasize the methodological shift from viewing the economy as a system (Leontiev models and structural models with simultaneous equations) to optimization/equilibrium modeling. In particular, in the 1970s, the recognition of dynamic and stochastic optimization problems required the movement from static GE to dynamic programming, probability, and functional analysis (e.g., Telser, Lucas & Stokes, etc.). There is no recognition of mathematical progress in economics. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding mathematical economics and econometrics: I quote from the New Palgrave article:

See also
 * This is not an FA requirement, but I often think that a FA that needs to say "see also ..." can be improved: if the see also items are important, you might integrate them in the actual text, if not, just remove them.
 * The topics are all minor or tangential. I'll remove the section.

External links all need accessdates. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

remarks leading section is too large 2nd paragraph is too large -- break it up since this is a history article, the sections should be dated, like "Keynes's successors and the neoclassical synthesis 1940s-1970s" if the leading section is not even top-notch quality, the rest of the article likely needs a lot of workrm2dance (talk)
 * Disagree with all of that, FWIW. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also disagree with all of that. Per MOS:LEAD the lead section is appropriate length for this article. There's also no requirement to have dates in headlines for history articles. Dates are not as important in articles based on the history of ideas. There are several contemporaneous movements here. The history of macroeconomics doesn't break down neatly into eras.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Qualified support. There are a couple of minor points outstanding but I am ready to support, with some qualifications. I have not reviewed images or sources; and I am not qualified to judge if the article is comprehensive and balanced. It is well-written and I have no prose concerns. The article structure is sound and I think it does a remarkable job of explaining a large, technical and abstract topic to a layperson.  Comments  by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library). I am reading through the article and will add comments. I am making some minor copyedits as I go; please revert if they are inaccurate, as I'm not expert in this field. I've completed a read through; comments are above. I will take a look at the sources and images later. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "described the economy as an aggregate whole": do we need both "aggregate" and "whole"?
 * Now "whole economy in terms of aggregates."
 * "cast doubt on the consensus and its understanding of the macroeconomy": given that the previous sentence seems to indicate there was more than one current theoretical viewpoint, I'm not sure what "consensus" refers to.
 * The consensus is explained two sentences before. Were you confused by the sentence on growth theory? Growth theory is another area of research, not an opposing viewpoint. I changed the sentence so that it says that financial crisis damaged the credibility of the synthesis/consensus with respect to business cycles. I hope this clarifies the meaning.
 * That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Business cycle theory attempted to describe the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity." I think this needs a little more at the end to clarify that this refers to an existing phenomenon: e.g. "the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity that were an observed feature of developed economies by the end of the 19th century".  I just made that up, but some qualifier is necessary for a reader unfamiliar with the territory.
 * I redid the first part of that section. I'm not sure it addressed your concerns though. Let me know.
 * I think it needs a bit more; plus now you have "activity" twice. The issue is that lay readers won't know what you mean by "frequent violent shifts in economic activity".  I'm really asking for a concise definition of business cycle to be given along with an indication that it was a well known phenomenon that needed a theoretical explanation.  How about "economists attempted to explain the frequent, violent shifts in economic activity between booms and recessions", since "boom" and "recession" are widely understood?
 * "One of several points of contention in interpreting Keynes." Looks like a sentence fragment left over after an edit?
 * Removed this. I think it was awkward restructuring.
 * "Economists even debate the interpretation of his policy prescription for unemployment, one of the more explicit parts of The General Theory, and whether it was intended as a revolutionary reaction to a serious problem or a moderately conservative solution to deal with the issue": I don't think this has quite enough information. It sounds as though the debate is not over what he said, merely over whether his proposed solution should be regarded as revolutionary or conservative -- is that correct? If so, I don't think "interpretation" is the right word.
 * I was worried that this sentence would be interpreted that way. The key is "intended." That debate is over whether Keynes himself thought of this as a radical measure or simple fix. I tried rewording the sentence. I'm not sure if its that much clearer. I think the "revolutionary" might have altered the feel.
 * I think if you change "whether it was intended" to "whether Keynes intended it" that would do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'One group emerged representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, and they merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."' I don't like "emerged" and "merged" so close together.  How about 'One group, representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."'
 * Used combined instead of merged.
 * File:Philipsus60.png doesn't label the dots with years; shouldn't it do so?
 * I don't think its absolutely necessary because its the relationships between output and input that matter most. I'll try to get a new image up though, because it would be better to have one with dates.
 * OK, striking; I think an image with dates would be informative but as you say it's not necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Near the start of the "New classical economics" section there are two sentences starting with "However". Can one be cut, or at least varied?
 * Cut one.
 * "Research on the topic basically went dormant from 1970 until 1985": a little informal, and it seems to belong more naturally before the prior sentence too. How about "... work tapered off during the marginalist revolution, and there was little or no research on growth from 1970 until 1985"?
 * Reworded.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Artoasis (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources: Several problems I found when I was converting the notes to the harvard style.
 * Cooper & John 1988: missing from ref section
 * Mankiw & Romer 1991: also missing
 * Sargent 1998: also missing


 * Prose
 * "This was consistent with the classical dichotomy view that real aspects of the economy and nominal factors ... can considered be independent from one another."
 * can be considered independent...
 * ... in which individual markets interact with each other in a system...
 * I think one another might be better here.
 * ...a trade off between inflation and output...
 * trade-off
 * One group emerged representing the "orthodox" interpretation of Keynes, and they merged classical microeconomics with Keynesian thought to produce the "neoclassical synthesis."
 * emerge and merge too close?
 * Monetarism lost influence among central bankers, but its core tenets of long-run neutrality of money ... and use of monetary policy for stabilization became enshrined in the macroeconomic mainstream even among Keynesians.
 * enshrine is a very strong word.
 * Commentary ridiculed the mainstream and proposed a major reassessment.
 * mainstream macroeconomics
 * In the Austrian model, inflation is only a secondary problem stemming from monetary expansion, capital misallocation is the primary concern.
 * A semicolon  would work better between "expansion" and "capital".


 * Lead
 * I think you could consider linking these concepts in the lead:
 * price level, Keynesian theory, business cycle, demand for money and money supply.
 * The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession cast doubt on the consensus...
 * By consensus, do you mean the "new neoclassical synthesis"? It could be a little confusing.
 * I adopted all of your recommendations except for the first under prose. I reworded it to flip the "considered" and "be." I don't know if that's what was causing your problem. It sounded like you wanted to cut out "one another." I don't think leaving it as "independent" will work. Its ambiguous. "Independent" of what? They're not completely independent of everything. I could say "independently," but I think "from one another" or "each other" is best.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I was meant to suggest you flip "consider" and "be", not remove "one another". I should have finished that sentence instead of using... Sorry again, :) Artoasis (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Image
 * Keynes (right) at a 1946 International Monetary Fund meeting
 * I think it would be better to also include White's name. Keynes (right) at a 1946 International Monetary Fund meeting with Harry Dexter White (left)

These issues make the article not yet worthy of FA status, imho. This article is at GA status, which is a great accomplishment given its scope and the (essentially) one-man writing  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I (and now User:Volunteer_Marek, VM) left comments on the talk page of the article. I list problems roughly in order of importance:
 * 1) The neglect of econometrics and policy is a severe problem about the scope of the article. There is little about macroeconomic-policy evaluation, although a lot of talk about "Lucas critique". Its treatment of data (time series on GDP of countries, for example; or microeconometric models of consumption function), macroeconometrics and econometric evaluation is negligible.
 * 2) It has problems with undue weight, certainly with regard to (a) the "agency based models" which cite non-economics journals and The Economist. VM couldn't find high quality reliable sources for these claims. I claim that there is undue weight given to (b) fringe economics (so-called "Post-Keynesian" and "Austrian"); VM argues that the discussion is appropriate for an article on the history of macroeconomics. These sections have no claims that these "theories" (unlike DSGE models) have succeeded in making predictions, so I would remove them all. (WP should not promote pseudo-science, particularly cultlike pseudo-science: There was a discussion of the undue weight of some WP editors promoting "Austrian economics" some years ago at the WikiProject Economics, which succeeded in improving things civilly.)
 * It, following popular graduate textbooks, over-emphasizes new-classical economics and DSGE economics. Frank Hahn demolished many of the bizarre but popular claims about these models long ago, but they are often repeated by textbooks and by this article. Criticism of these models occurs only in the section on the recent economic crisis, which cites popular accounts rather than detailed professional vivisections by Hahn and Solow from 15 years ago.
 * 1) It neglects disequilibrium economics, represented for example by Presidents of the Econometric/European-Economic Societies (Malinvaud and French economists; Drèze and Belgian economists). (In a collection of the 1980s, Hahn praised Drèze's model very highly. Drèze was elected to be the first President of the EEA. Thus, this neglect seems possibly undue weight. Drèzes's Presidential addres to the EEA would be a good source for this article.)
 * 2) It included many statements that "article x showed y", many of which I copy-edited.
 * Regarding point one, this is a theory article. I limited this to "history of macroeconomic thought" instead of "history of macroeconomics" so I could write something that was not too unwieldy. I intentionally avoided econometric and policy issues unless they clearly broached on the work in theory. If I'm missing something theory related on econometrics or policy, please let me know, but the limited treatment of these aspects of macroeconomics is intentional and in keeping with the scope of this article.
 * Macroeconomics was invented to explain the great depression and its initial formulations guided policy, with some success, as noted by Hahn and Solow. Your article just has assertions about theory, without any attempt to assess policy relevance or empirical adequacy; this is particularly problematic given your focus on the Lucas critique of policy. Some statement of the empirical adequacy of the "theories" is needed, particularly for the weirdo "theories", which have nothing to say about reality apparently.


 * Regarding two, three, and four: I am worried that your own personal views are guiding most of your comments about undue weight. I tried very hard to check my biases when I wrote this article and it's content is based on what other sources on this topic covered and mimic their content. Most history of thought sources cover heterodox theories, so this article should too. Snowdon and Vane and "A Companion to the History of Economic Thought" both have entire chapters on Austrian and Post Keynesian economics. They should be represented here too. Each has a small section here and feel like a completely appropriate amount of weight is given.
 * I have suggested that you look at Solow and Hahn, particularly since you have written an article repeating claims that new classical economics is based on general equilibrium theory, which Hahn just laughs at. Given Hahn's knowledge of GET and monetary theory, you should take his views seriously---much more seriously than "historians" writing about macroeconomic theory. Again, you don't cite any of the Handbooks of Economics, JEL, JEP, or New Palgrave (2nd ed., which stoped the undue weight of weirdos in the first ed.), despite their being the usual reference books in economics. Tell me, how many chapters do "Austrian economics" or "post Keynesian" "economics" get in the Handbook of Economics?  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think handbooks on economics are the best sources for this article, and definitely not a good guide to weight. Handbooks are generally focused on the current state of the field and not the history. I looked through the Handbook on Macroeconomics and there was nothing on Post Keynesianism or Austrian economics, but there was also nothing on Dreze or general disequilibrium. Malinvaud had two works in the bibliography, but nothing in the text.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment also implies that we should use empirical tests to validate what gets covered here. I think you're completely breaking from Wikipedia standards. I looked at the literature, I put in a lot of effort to weight things based on the different views are presented. Do you have any source you're working from? It seems like you are just throwing out your personal (albeit informed) views.
 * You misunderstand me or have trouble with logic.
 * Every "Principles of Economics" textbook and see that the presentation of macroeconomics includes a discussion of its empirical adequacy (particularly for prediction) and of policy implications.
 * Every serious textbook on graduate macro-theory also includes some discussion of these matters. To exclude such discussion is undue weight.
 * I think this is especially clear given your third point. Yes, I followed popular graduate textbooks, which is exactly what I should be doing. You may have your own opinions about DSGE models and new classicals, but they are both part of the mainstream and are presented based on mainstream viewpoints. I also included scrutiny of both. While the article does emphasize the demonstrated importance of these topics, it doesn't push them.
 * Solow and others criticized new classical and and DSGE models long before the current crisis. Others asserted the improved predictive performance of DSGE models before the crisis. Both these important points are missing. The second omission is due to the systematic neglect empirics in your article.


 * Based on your earlier comments, I expanded the section on general disequilibrium and added mentions of Dreze and Malinvaud. GD usually gets scant treatment in history of macro theory sources. I found only a couple mentions of Dreze and Malinvaud and S&V. I recognize that part of this likely because Francophone research in economics doesn't get adequate coverage in the Anglosphere. I found another source on Malinvaud, so I'll added some more about his theories of unemployment.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Layard is serious, and should be consulted. Hahn is serious and is another source. Thanks for your replies. (Again, I am a fan of your article, but I don't think it's at FA status now.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add a non-expert perspective to one of the points made above: the comment that too much weight is given to the heterodox theories such as the Austrian business cycle theory. Eyeballing it, it seems that the heterodox section is around 10 percent of the article text, which doesn't seem excessive for a section describing exceptions. I also think we should remember that the Austrians have gained some news coverage in the US; I gather few economists regard them as anything other than cranks, but I believe some on the Republican right in the US are taking them seriously -- I recall reading that Hayek is now recommended reading in some political quarters. I don't think that means they should be presented as credible, but appearance in political discourse is evidence of notability (or notoriety, I suppose). Even so, I'd be OK if the article were more explicit about the lack of credibility that the Austrians have in their own field, and I'd be OK with trimming that section somewhat. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Popularity among Americans is not a criterion for inclusion, otherwise we would have similarly lengthed sections about creation of the earth 6000 years ago in articles on geology and evolution. Sincerely,  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; perhaps I phrased my comment badly. Creationism doesn't need to be mentioned more than in passing in the evolution article, but it should certainly be covered in any "History of evolutionary thought" article, since at one time it was an orthodox view, and such an article would probably mention its persistence in some sections of the population.  Similarly I would not expect ABC to get more than a passing mention in an article on macroneconomics.  I don't know if ABC was ever thought of as orthodox, but the situations are somewhat parallel -- if creationism had no constituency now, its coverage in historical surveys would no doubt need to be less comprehensive.  And, as I said, I'm fine with trimming the section; it was less a comment about accuracy than about notability, and what we could infer a reader might hence want to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your clarification.
 * I would replace the lead's undue weight with something like: "Non-professional discussions of economics sometimes refer to 'post-Keynesian' economics and 'Austrian' economics, two traditions that are regarded as fringe science by nearly all economists at English-speaking research universities."
 * [Stigler and Solow describe the marginality of both traditions, in reviews of the New Palgrave (1st ed.).]
 * Sincerely, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have an MA in Economics from about a gabillion years ago. I have not read this article. But I did search for "Marshall" and found his name only in image captions. Please do forgive me, but that is an Opposable omission. I am not Opposing (dear Sandy, please note!), but rather am waiting patiently (cue Muzak) for an explanation. :-) – Ling.Nut 13:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Volunteer_Marek and I both dislike the "unusual suspects" in the initial graphic. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's so unusual about the choices for the image? Who's on there that really bugs you? I tried to get a cross sampling of various economists from various schools of thought. One of the guiding forces behind the selection was the availability of free images. I couldn't find free images for most of the people you recommended. Modigliani was already there, and I'm fine with Solow, but who should he replace?


 * I would suggest a 2x3 picture-box, without Menger, Marshall, or Scwarz.
 * NECESSARY REMOVALS: The only pre-Keynesian theorist could be Irving Fisher. I assume that Carl Menger wins points with initiates of Austrian economics, but he doesn't belong; Karl Marx has had a lot larger influence on macroeconomics (business cycle, etc.), and I wouldn't urge including him. Alfred Marshall is properly ignored by the article, and therefore must go.
 * SENSIBLE REMOVALS: Anna Schwarz', important mainly for collaboration with Friedman (not a Nobel prize-winner or an Econometric Society President, and below the level of the others); her WP article makes extraordinary claims is largely unsourced, btw.
 * NECESSARY ADDITIONS: Paul Samuelson (e.g., Overlapping generations models, which needs to be discussed).
 * POSSIBLE ADDITIONS with pictures Edmund Phelps, maybe Olivier Blanchard, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Diamond, Frank Hahn, Robert Solow.
 * LACK PICTURES: John Hicks and Jacques Drèze lack a picture. Malinvaud has a bad picture. Michael Woodford and Roger Guesnerie could be added. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On these, I'd definitely remove Marshall, since that's mostly "micro" rather than "macro". I'd remove Schwarz because she's only known for MHoUS, but it would be nice to have a woman in the picture box. Nancy Stokey? If a free pic is available. Samuelson needs to be in there, as does Solow.  For the others, it's important to recognize that we are constrained by what images are freely available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's a huge shame that there's no free image of Robert Lucas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing with you would necessitate a major investment in time and effort, tracking down a large number of references to shore up fragmentary memories from two decades ago. It is even possible that I am confusing Marshall with someone else. I fold.  – Ling.Nut 14:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.