![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90Â daysÂ
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Should the page be moved to 2008-2010 resurgence? Is the movement ongoing in the new year? AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This article seems like a lot of synthesis, and I'm not at all sure it's worthy of its own article. Is there a place we should consider merging it instead? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is based on a popular but inaccurate conception of the state of economic academia. It is convenient for the public and the media to see policies which were being floated as being indicative of a shift to Keynes. However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, this is inadequate. "Keynesianism" has been academically dead since the 70s- its closest living relative as far as a school to which one could "shift" to is New Keynesianism, which folded itself into the new neoclassical synthesis that provided the basis for much of the policy that reduced the impact of the GFC (Ben Bernanke, anyone)? That is to say, policy recommendations that are said by this article to be "a return to Keynes" are in fact the result of entirely contemporary academia.
At most, it can be said that there was an expansion of interest in certain policies (some of which were first recommended by Keynes), because what the conditions called for. It was not because of some paradigm shift in economics. New data meant new and better models within the existing paradigm, which also informed shifts in policy- these new models, in so far as they changed the paradigm, had very little to do with Keynes- he has been dead for years, and economics has moved past him in the same way physics has moved past Newton.
The fact that certain politically active economists describe their policy recommendations as Keynesian to news outlets is not sufficient basis for an entire article to portray an entire field correspondingly, especially when it contradicts most of the rest of wikipedia when it comes to the state of economics vis-a-vis "schools of thought".
VineFynn ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90Â daysÂ
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Should the page be moved to 2008-2010 resurgence? Is the movement ongoing in the new year? AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 12:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
This article seems like a lot of synthesis, and I'm not at all sure it's worthy of its own article. Is there a place we should consider merging it instead? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is based on a popular but inaccurate conception of the state of economic academia. It is convenient for the public and the media to see policies which were being floated as being indicative of a shift to Keynes. However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, this is inadequate. "Keynesianism" has been academically dead since the 70s- its closest living relative as far as a school to which one could "shift" to is New Keynesianism, which folded itself into the new neoclassical synthesis that provided the basis for much of the policy that reduced the impact of the GFC (Ben Bernanke, anyone)? That is to say, policy recommendations that are said by this article to be "a return to Keynes" are in fact the result of entirely contemporary academia.
At most, it can be said that there was an expansion of interest in certain policies (some of which were first recommended by Keynes), because what the conditions called for. It was not because of some paradigm shift in economics. New data meant new and better models within the existing paradigm, which also informed shifts in policy- these new models, in so far as they changed the paradigm, had very little to do with Keynes- he has been dead for years, and economics has moved past him in the same way physics has moved past Newton.
The fact that certain politically active economists describe their policy recommendations as Keynesian to news outlets is not sufficient basis for an entire article to portray an entire field correspondingly, especially when it contradicts most of the rest of wikipedia when it comes to the state of economics vis-a-vis "schools of thought".
VineFynn ( talk) 05:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)