![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have not yet heard the term "Keynesian Resurgence" or "Keynesian Revival". The bold introductory paragraph needs support from reliable sources.
I'm especially surprised to hear about a "Resurgence" because to the best of my knowledge variations on Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking ever since Keynes. Keynesian economics has been challenged by a number of competing schools: Monetarism in the 1960s-70s; New Classical Macroeconomics in the 1980s; and Real Business Cycle Theory in the 1990s. You might argue that in the late 1970s or early 1980s Keynesianism was really out of fashion and Monetarism was somewhat more influential. But versions of Keynesianism really never disappeared and never ceased to be influential. A good history of all these recent economic debates is given by Michael Woodford in 'Revolution and evolution in 20th century macroeconomics'. His overall point is that Keynesianism has been the predominant viewpoint in macroeconomics ever since the Great Depression, though it has repeatedly absorbed insights from competing schools of thought.
To say that Keynesianism came back in 2008 especially shows ignorance of New Keynesian economics. The development of New Keynesian DSGE models of the macroeconomy has probably been the main area of macroeconomic research for the last ten years, and these are now widely accepted and used by policy makers (especially in central banks). The main reason newspaper editors think something is new in 2008 is that we are facing a really deep recession (possibly depression) for the first time in decades. The standard Keynesian prescription in that sort of circumstance is massive fiscal policy stimulus. The reason it's happening now is not because Keynesianism just returned, it's because mainstream Keynesian policy requires this kind of action in the circumstances we face today. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | The sudden resurgence of Keynesian policy is a stunning reversal of the orthodoxy of the past several decades, which held that efforts to use fiscal policy to manage the economy and mitigate downturns were doomed to failure. Now only Germany remains publicly sceptical that fiscal stimulus will work . | ” |
FeydHuxtable ( talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect Rinconsoleao I again see nothing dubious about the claim. The paper you cited earlier, http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/macro20C.pdf , speaks about those few who opposed the neoclassical synthesis as 'Keynesian Zealots' It goes on to says
“ | there is little point in insisting upon the specifically Keynesian character of the emerging theorectical synthesis" | ” |
And also in arguments about the efficacy of fiscal policy:
“ | the modern literatrue sides with the critic of Keynesianism. | ” |
So your own link supports the view that untill very recently main stream economics had moved very far from Keynes position as a result of the counter -revolutions it talks about, even if evolved forms of some of Keynes insights are retained. New Keynesian Economics is Keynesian economics in name only - I wouldnt have been confident in saying that a few months ago, but I've read many papers and talked to several prominent economists since then.
Now as for your claim that the NY article I just added doesnt make a comparision between the 2008 & 2009 meetings, please can I draw your attention to this passages
“ | At their last annual meeting, ideas about using public spending as a way to get out of a recession or about government taking a role to enhance a market system were relegated to progressives. The mainstream was skeptical or downright hostile to such suggestions. This time, virtually everyone voiced their support, returning to a way of thinking that had gone out of fashion in the 1970s" | ” |
Clearly this time is refering to the 2009 meeting which took place immediatly before the article was published , whereas last time would be the 2008 annual meeting. I looked at a few of your edits after the last time we talked, and you clearly know what your stuff in economics, i though maybe you are even an economics professor or something like that. So Im confused as to why it looks like you might be objecting without even carefully reading the sources!
The time to argue against Keynes would have been in early 2008 before the old pro free market concensus had been over turned. If were not for the harm free market fundamentalism has inflicted on millions of impoverished families, one would feel almost sorry for its advocates. (Im not saying youre a free market POV warrior Rinconsoleao , but Im confused about why you're objecting here)
Im sorry free marketeers - you're fighting a war, you've already lost.
“ | A common view is now pervasive in policy research at universities and central banks, which one could call the New Keynesian consensus, based on an endogenous money supply. This new consensus reproduces received wisdom: in the long run, expansionary fiscal policy leads to higher inflation rates and real interest rates [and unemployment just as high or higher as it would have been without the fiscal stimulus - the core of Friedman's attack] | ” |
Yes this final paragraph most certainly reads like original research. I get that same wikipedia-is-going-to-loose-its-credibility feeling I do every time I read a bad wiki page.
"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller and James Galbraith, the Keynesian resurgence was largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists." Unsubstantiated, needs a citation.
"Until very recently mainstream economists have not generally favoured robust fiscal or counter cyclical policies." This is true, but we are talking about really bad recessions, not counter-cyclical policy. There are two issues. Most economists believe, and still do, that you use Monetary policy to fight the business cycle (or do nothing at all). They also believe in a hands off approach to most recessions. But when you're dealing with "the worst thing since the GD" and the interest rate is at 0% then it's time to dust off Keynes. This assertion is confirmed by all these citations, including the NYTs article: no one cared for Keynes style spending with recessions because it's usually a bad way to deal with the business cycle. Now Keynes is in vogue because this looks closer to the GD than a business cycle dip.
"While a school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has been widely taught at universities , that system had become so integrated with pro free market neo-classical influences that it largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations advocated by Keynes himself, and some economists consider the label 'Keynesian' to be a misnomer. [49]" Ok, but I don't see how this is relevant. We are (or at least should be) talking about a Keynesian resurgence--a resurgence in the idea that Keynesian style spending is applicable to this crisis--not any of the economic schools that are known to be largely based on Keynes. Most economists could agree with the idea that Keynes-style spending is applicable to the current crisis, but deny that they are New Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians.
The "resurgence" may well have been due to confusing the issue. No one surveyed economists and said, "If you had a 0% interest rate and near double-digit unemployment, and -6% growth, with a financial system in shambles, would you use government spending to prop up demand?" Who knows, I bet the majority of Economists in the IDEAS rankings would agree with that." What the NYT saw at the 2008 meeting was the answer to the question, "If you had a standard recession, would you resort to fiscal policy to solve the problem (thus resulting in crowding out)." and most economists do not agree with that. Either way, I could be wrong in all of this but what is clear is that we have a new section supported by the opinion of a NYTs reporter and Galbraith's opinion of the literature months after the crisis hit. Compare this to the intro paragraphs where several prominent Economists all over the spectrum (including Mankiw) are cited. And I'm pretty sure there are papers that analyze consensus out there. There must be a better way to make this shoddy argument stronger, if it is possible. -- 128.146.33.195 ( talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The article seems OK on a first glance. But what about the danger of inflation? No word! Economy should be a quantitative science, and the question is, whether the present Keynesian policy of the states really suffices quantitatively, or whether the somewhat hesitating policy of Germany, exceptional as it looks, does not have serious quantitative reasons? In other words: do the states have enough money, to solve the problems (e.g., the car selling problems, will they be over next year?), or does one need another "new deal" which was succesful, but only after a decade? If the state does not have enough money (and the interest rates are already now on an historical depth) there is the danger that the money-printing machines will be working again, as Europe has experienced two times. - The article spreads optimism. Let us hope that this is relevant. - With regards, 87.160.125.51 ( talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it. (I agree that there are big changes in economic policy being reported in the press, but until the phenomenon is given a widely-recognized name, Wikipedia should not invent one.) Is there a documented source for this name? This Wikipedia article should not be used to define a neologism. If 'Keynesian resurgence' is simply a description, rather than a name, then it should not be capitalized. If it's a phrase captured from some newspaper article, then it would be reasonable to say
the press has spoken of a 'Keynesian resurgence'
or something like that. But if the person who started this page was inventing a new term, then it's original research, and should be removed. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it." The phenomenon is widely recognized [1] [2] [3] [4], but there is no common name - the articles I just linked talk variously of a resurrection, comeback, and return. If 'resurgence' sounds too strong, 'revival' (already used in a section title) may be unobjectionable. Mporter ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The numerous recent edits here made earlier today and yesterday, despite the excellent contributions by the editor in question on other articles, are bordering on the absurd. For example yesterday he / she claimed Id misrepensented a straightforward NY Times articles, and only when I clearly pointed out the relvent passage did the editor admit the accusation was entirely wrong.
Now to justify this change which falsely implies theres some doubt about fiscal stimuli being implemented, the editor says: "The fact that the press says it is a fact. The claim that it is true would be original research" Have a word with yourself Editor! Not only are the stimuli reported in the quality financial press like the FT and WSJ , theres been accademic studies of the size of the stimuli around the world, as per "global survey of stimuli" in the external links section. Id LOL, only the economic crises is already causing poverty, mental stress and even suicides which affect a great many families around the world. Clear information like this helps folk, this is clear both from my offline contacts and scores of web posts. Im confident a good admin would agree many of the recent justifications for the changes made are bordering on wikki lawyering, obscure this important subject and are contary to this mission of this fine encylopedia! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Rinconsoleao, you are clearly in support of having an article on this phenomenon, but you seem to be against the title, claiming it is a neologism. This may be true, but you haven't offered an alternative title for this article. Please do so. 86.173.255.107 ( talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have not yet heard the term "Keynesian Resurgence" or "Keynesian Revival". The bold introductory paragraph needs support from reliable sources.
I'm especially surprised to hear about a "Resurgence" because to the best of my knowledge variations on Keynesian economics have always been the main stream of macroeconomic thinking ever since Keynes. Keynesian economics has been challenged by a number of competing schools: Monetarism in the 1960s-70s; New Classical Macroeconomics in the 1980s; and Real Business Cycle Theory in the 1990s. You might argue that in the late 1970s or early 1980s Keynesianism was really out of fashion and Monetarism was somewhat more influential. But versions of Keynesianism really never disappeared and never ceased to be influential. A good history of all these recent economic debates is given by Michael Woodford in 'Revolution and evolution in 20th century macroeconomics'. His overall point is that Keynesianism has been the predominant viewpoint in macroeconomics ever since the Great Depression, though it has repeatedly absorbed insights from competing schools of thought.
To say that Keynesianism came back in 2008 especially shows ignorance of New Keynesian economics. The development of New Keynesian DSGE models of the macroeconomy has probably been the main area of macroeconomic research for the last ten years, and these are now widely accepted and used by policy makers (especially in central banks). The main reason newspaper editors think something is new in 2008 is that we are facing a really deep recession (possibly depression) for the first time in decades. The standard Keynesian prescription in that sort of circumstance is massive fiscal policy stimulus. The reason it's happening now is not because Keynesianism just returned, it's because mainstream Keynesian policy requires this kind of action in the circumstances we face today. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable ( talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | The sudden resurgence of Keynesian policy is a stunning reversal of the orthodoxy of the past several decades, which held that efforts to use fiscal policy to manage the economy and mitigate downturns were doomed to failure. Now only Germany remains publicly sceptical that fiscal stimulus will work . | ” |
FeydHuxtable ( talk) 10:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect Rinconsoleao I again see nothing dubious about the claim. The paper you cited earlier, http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/macro20C.pdf , speaks about those few who opposed the neoclassical synthesis as 'Keynesian Zealots' It goes on to says
“ | there is little point in insisting upon the specifically Keynesian character of the emerging theorectical synthesis" | ” |
And also in arguments about the efficacy of fiscal policy:
“ | the modern literatrue sides with the critic of Keynesianism. | ” |
So your own link supports the view that untill very recently main stream economics had moved very far from Keynes position as a result of the counter -revolutions it talks about, even if evolved forms of some of Keynes insights are retained. New Keynesian Economics is Keynesian economics in name only - I wouldnt have been confident in saying that a few months ago, but I've read many papers and talked to several prominent economists since then.
Now as for your claim that the NY article I just added doesnt make a comparision between the 2008 & 2009 meetings, please can I draw your attention to this passages
“ | At their last annual meeting, ideas about using public spending as a way to get out of a recession or about government taking a role to enhance a market system were relegated to progressives. The mainstream was skeptical or downright hostile to such suggestions. This time, virtually everyone voiced their support, returning to a way of thinking that had gone out of fashion in the 1970s" | ” |
Clearly this time is refering to the 2009 meeting which took place immediatly before the article was published , whereas last time would be the 2008 annual meeting. I looked at a few of your edits after the last time we talked, and you clearly know what your stuff in economics, i though maybe you are even an economics professor or something like that. So Im confused as to why it looks like you might be objecting without even carefully reading the sources!
The time to argue against Keynes would have been in early 2008 before the old pro free market concensus had been over turned. If were not for the harm free market fundamentalism has inflicted on millions of impoverished families, one would feel almost sorry for its advocates. (Im not saying youre a free market POV warrior Rinconsoleao , but Im confused about why you're objecting here)
Im sorry free marketeers - you're fighting a war, you've already lost.
“ | A common view is now pervasive in policy research at universities and central banks, which one could call the New Keynesian consensus, based on an endogenous money supply. This new consensus reproduces received wisdom: in the long run, expansionary fiscal policy leads to higher inflation rates and real interest rates [and unemployment just as high or higher as it would have been without the fiscal stimulus - the core of Friedman's attack] | ” |
Yes this final paragraph most certainly reads like original research. I get that same wikipedia-is-going-to-loose-its-credibility feeling I do every time I read a bad wiki page.
"With a few notable exceptions such as Robert Shiller and James Galbraith, the Keynesian resurgence was largely driven by policy makers rather than academic economists." Unsubstantiated, needs a citation.
"Until very recently mainstream economists have not generally favoured robust fiscal or counter cyclical policies." This is true, but we are talking about really bad recessions, not counter-cyclical policy. There are two issues. Most economists believe, and still do, that you use Monetary policy to fight the business cycle (or do nothing at all). They also believe in a hands off approach to most recessions. But when you're dealing with "the worst thing since the GD" and the interest rate is at 0% then it's time to dust off Keynes. This assertion is confirmed by all these citations, including the NYTs article: no one cared for Keynes style spending with recessions because it's usually a bad way to deal with the business cycle. Now Keynes is in vogue because this looks closer to the GD than a business cycle dip.
"While a school of thought known as New Keynesian economics has been widely taught at universities , that system had become so integrated with pro free market neo-classical influences that it largely rejected interventionist policy recommendations advocated by Keynes himself, and some economists consider the label 'Keynesian' to be a misnomer. [49]" Ok, but I don't see how this is relevant. We are (or at least should be) talking about a Keynesian resurgence--a resurgence in the idea that Keynesian style spending is applicable to this crisis--not any of the economic schools that are known to be largely based on Keynes. Most economists could agree with the idea that Keynes-style spending is applicable to the current crisis, but deny that they are New Keynesians or Neo-Keynesians.
The "resurgence" may well have been due to confusing the issue. No one surveyed economists and said, "If you had a 0% interest rate and near double-digit unemployment, and -6% growth, with a financial system in shambles, would you use government spending to prop up demand?" Who knows, I bet the majority of Economists in the IDEAS rankings would agree with that." What the NYT saw at the 2008 meeting was the answer to the question, "If you had a standard recession, would you resort to fiscal policy to solve the problem (thus resulting in crowding out)." and most economists do not agree with that. Either way, I could be wrong in all of this but what is clear is that we have a new section supported by the opinion of a NYTs reporter and Galbraith's opinion of the literature months after the crisis hit. Compare this to the intro paragraphs where several prominent Economists all over the spectrum (including Mankiw) are cited. And I'm pretty sure there are papers that analyze consensus out there. There must be a better way to make this shoddy argument stronger, if it is possible. -- 128.146.33.195 ( talk) 16:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The article seems OK on a first glance. But what about the danger of inflation? No word! Economy should be a quantitative science, and the question is, whether the present Keynesian policy of the states really suffices quantitatively, or whether the somewhat hesitating policy of Germany, exceptional as it looks, does not have serious quantitative reasons? In other words: do the states have enough money, to solve the problems (e.g., the car selling problems, will they be over next year?), or does one need another "new deal" which was succesful, but only after a decade? If the state does not have enough money (and the interest rates are already now on an historical depth) there is the danger that the money-printing machines will be working again, as Europe has experienced two times. - The article spreads optimism. Let us hope that this is relevant. - With regards, 87.160.125.51 ( talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it. (I agree that there are big changes in economic policy being reported in the press, but until the phenomenon is given a widely-recognized name, Wikipedia should not invent one.) Is there a documented source for this name? This Wikipedia article should not be used to define a neologism. If 'Keynesian resurgence' is simply a description, rather than a name, then it should not be capitalized. If it's a phrase captured from some newspaper article, then it would be reasonable to say
the press has spoken of a 'Keynesian resurgence'
or something like that. But if the person who started this page was inventing a new term, then it's original research, and should be removed. -- Rinconsoleao ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
"This article refers to a 'Keynesian Resurgence' in capital letters, as if this were a widely-recognized phenomenon, and as if everybody agreed about what to call it." The phenomenon is widely recognized [1] [2] [3] [4], but there is no common name - the articles I just linked talk variously of a resurrection, comeback, and return. If 'resurgence' sounds too strong, 'revival' (already used in a section title) may be unobjectionable. Mporter ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The numerous recent edits here made earlier today and yesterday, despite the excellent contributions by the editor in question on other articles, are bordering on the absurd. For example yesterday he / she claimed Id misrepensented a straightforward NY Times articles, and only when I clearly pointed out the relvent passage did the editor admit the accusation was entirely wrong.
Now to justify this change which falsely implies theres some doubt about fiscal stimuli being implemented, the editor says: "The fact that the press says it is a fact. The claim that it is true would be original research" Have a word with yourself Editor! Not only are the stimuli reported in the quality financial press like the FT and WSJ , theres been accademic studies of the size of the stimuli around the world, as per "global survey of stimuli" in the external links section. Id LOL, only the economic crises is already causing poverty, mental stress and even suicides which affect a great many families around the world. Clear information like this helps folk, this is clear both from my offline contacts and scores of web posts. Im confident a good admin would agree many of the recent justifications for the changes made are bordering on wikki lawyering, obscure this important subject and are contary to this mission of this fine encylopedia! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Rinconsoleao, you are clearly in support of having an article on this phenomenon, but you seem to be against the title, claiming it is a neologism. This may be true, but you haven't offered an alternative title for this article. Please do so. 86.173.255.107 ( talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)