Talk:Keynesian economics

Definition

I made a change to the definition recently from "a macroeconomic school based on K" to "the group of macroeconomic schools based on K". I did this because of the name--Keynesian economics, as in Keynes. Any macroeconomic school of thought based on his stuff should be called "Keynesian" and any macroeconomic school of thought called "Keynesian" should be based on his stuff (unless it's based on another Keynes). Historically, "Keynesian economics" has referred to a specific set of theories, but if someone took Keynes' work and offered a different spin on it, it would still be "Keynesian" as long as it borrowed heavily from his work. Furthermore, there are profound doctrinal differences between various sub-schools of Keynesianism, so it would appear that "Keynesian economics" as it is commonly understood (as a group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes as opposed to any group of macroeconomic ideas based on Keynes) is already a group of schools and not one school. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

Why is there no Criticisms section like with the other schools of Economic thought?```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.119.87 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia guidance says to avoid them. “In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.” See Wikipedia:Criticism. Colin.champion (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The guidance does say they are sometimes appropriate and in many cases necessary. I think that is the case here given that so many economic theories and schools of thought have spawned out of criticisms of Keynesian economics, and given that the other major economic schools have such a section. Having a section for the reaction to an economic school of thought would be a convenient way for people to understand where this school differs from others (especially later ones that were inspired by it). Highest Standards (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Highest Standards: Jimmy Wales's words were: “In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.” In the present case I think that is exactly right: criticisms belong in the flow of the article in connection with the aspect they criticse. There is already a section on ‘Other schools of economics’ which to my mind – at almost a sixth of the total length – is excessive. Colin.champion (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Chicago school of economics theory, and the Austrian_School theory, both have Criticism section - As do all other economic though schools I can find - with the sole exception being this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics I see you postulating logical reasons for the absence of criticism in this section, but the argument is hypothetical at best that the criticism might be bad - or the weird circular argument that it doesn't need a criticisms section because most theories are already critical of it? but appears that this reasoning applies to no other common Economic School of Thought. This is strongly suggestive of a double-standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.150.41 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and may only mean that no one has got round to fixing those articles. It's meaningless to point to them unless they are FA quality articles or have been through some other form of high standard review. SpinningSpark 17:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Now hold on. If the claim that the pages devoted to other schools of thought have criticism sections is true, and it certainly looks to be, then not only is this page in violation of consistency across the topic, it is also in violation of WP:CRITICISM as well. Keynesian economics has both critics and supporters like every other economic school of thought or theory, yet not only is it 'not' required to have sections devoted to either, all of the other pages on other economic theories or schools are incorrect in doing so? Furthermore, even if it can be argued that pages dedicated to other schools or theories that were developed to address the criticisms Keynesian economics, stating that this page does not need a criticism section because those other pages exist is patently false. At the least it requires a section of links to said pages.IeShima (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia policy is not that theories should be presented without mention of the criticisms which have been made of them, but rather that the criticisms should be integrated with the text. If this is done then there’s no question of inconsistency except in layout (which surely isn’t critical, and in which it is best to follow the Wikipedia guidelines). There certainly are criticisms integral to the text; e.g. the article quotes Hazlitt’s comments on Keynes’s ‘Pickwickian’ use of the term investment. Further criticisms are mentioned in the longer article on the General Theory, e.g. Knight’s comments on Keynes’s liquidity preference theory. You may think that other powerful criticisms have been missed, in which case you can provide details. But I don’t see what would be gained by collecting the criticisms into a single section and putting it at the end of the article. Colin.champion (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There not being a Criticism section in this article sticks out like a sore thumb and is a disservice to the article and Wikipedia. Those here arguing that Criticism sections are uncyclopedic or somehow not welcome on Wikipedia are delusional. 2804:431:C7CE:2690:F470:6AD5:E8A5:E99D (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Macroeconomics

A sentence had been added asserting that macroeconomics was about ‘what has been done to have a huge multiplier effect’. Although this sentence was added in good faith (and the author should be thanked for it), I’ve reverted it, thinking it rather rhetorical and not believing the implication that in order to discuss macroeconomics you have to discuss the multiplier. Other views would be welcome. Colin.champion (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Lede section

The lede paragraph should define the topic, not just talk about it. In particular the lede sentence should consider the hover-over pop-up that people in other articles will see (-- largly because most people hate clicking on all those poorly considered lazy-link rabbit holes). Example:

 "...how in the short run – and especially during recessions – economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). In the Keynesian view, aggregate demand does not necessarily equal the productive capacity of the economy; instead, it is influenced by a host of factors and sometimes behaves erratically, affecting production, employment, and inflation."

Isn't that kinda like asserting that they believe the sky is blue? To think otherwise presumes the reader is pre-educated in this topic and is aware of certain (technical) assumptions or arguments. (Truisms are not explanations.)

Also the first several paragraphs have too much history, considering the topic still remains an undefined shadowy concept...(as if the author wants to make a future point more than to explain the concept). See: MOS:LEDE. Needs organization/focus. Thanks!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F4EA:E853:D620:CEE4 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Just Saying

People might find it helpful if you indicated which history paragraphs were ‘too much’. As for ‘isn’t that like saying the sky is blue?’ I think the answer is ‘no’. Keynesians think it’s as simple as calling the sky blue when their opponents call it green, and their opponents think exactly the same. My understanding (without being very familiar with his works) is that Walras wrote thousands of pages without once doubting that aggregate demand was identically equal to total output. It’s not that he had elaborate proofs – if you look at his proofs, the identity of demand with output turns out to be a premise. But I’m no expert. Colin.champion (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Federal reserve/central bank

There is little to no discussion on the powers of central banks / federal reserve in creating booms and busts and overall economic health. No talk on what it was like before income taxes and the creation of the federal reseve? Ooookay, sure. 173.172.127.147 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's mixing apples and orangutans. Do you have any specific suggestions?