Talk:Nominal rigidity

message: I guess this is an American economic recovery? If so state that its American! This will lessen confusion. --Albert 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Fixed. --David Youngberg 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jobless recovery" 

message: Aka "Islands" or "surprise model" is described in its own page -- Lucas-Islands_model . As another important explanation for price stickiness it's probably worth linking to from here. 128.164.16.120 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas Imperfect info model 

message: This section is still not very useful for the non-specialist. We need some further amplification on the taylor and Calvo models.  They should really have their own pages. But in the meantime, why not add something here?Byronmercury (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the sticky information section. It was definitely needed. The "Evaluation of sticky information models" section seems like it might have original research problems (see WP:OR). It doesn't look like anybody has published the criticism that sticky information models lack nominal price rigidity. Am I missing something? Does one of the sources evaluate sticky information models based on their lack of nominal rigidities?--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement. In the evaluation, I was just repeating what I had heard people say. However, you are quite right, the wikipedia guidelines require references. I will take a look at some articles to find a suitable reference and remove the evaluation section if I cannot find one. Byronmercury (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added references.  The Knotec is especially relevant and a really cute title.  Thanks for your comment: it got me to read some new papers. Most of the references I first looked at were aimed at criticizing the indexation assumption for being at odds with the micro-data (e.g. Cogley and Sbordonne AER 2008)rather than sticky information models, although of course the argument is exactly the same.Byronmercury (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: there is now a new Taylor contracts page.  It has the maths: am working on Calvo page.Byronmercury (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A Calvo staggered contracts page as well (a start at least!).Byronmercury (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taylor and Calvo 

message: Bender235moved this page from "sticky (economics)" to "nominal rigidity." I'm not completely opposed to this change, but I think it requires some additional work. At the very least, we have to do something with the "sticky information" section since it doesn't belong in a "nominal rigidity" article. I know that "sticky prices" and "nominal rigidities" can be used interchangably, but occasionally there is an important distinction. "Nominal rigidity" is often only used when talking about high-level, aggregated models (AS-AD) while "sticky prices" is more often used when the specific mechanism or model for rigidity is being discussed (menu cost, Calvo pricing). Any ideas how this should  be organized. Should we go back to a very general "Sticky (economics)" article? Or maybe have a "Nominal rigidity" that discusses sticky prices and another sticky information article? I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I don't think we can leave the current name/organization as is.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from "Sticky (economics)" to "Nominal rigidity"

message: Dr. van Rens has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. van Rens has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Benedikt Herz and Thijs van Rens, 2011. "Structural Unemployment," Working Papers 568, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. van Rens's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Blanchard has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Blanchard has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference 1: Blanchard, Olivier J & Gali, Jordi, 2008. "Labour Markets and Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Model with Unemployment," CEPR Discussion Papers 6765, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
*Reference 2: Blanchard, Olivier J & Gali, Jordi, 2008. "The Macroeconomic Effects of Oil Shocks: Why are the 2000s so Different from the 1970s?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6631, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Blanchard's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Nakov has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Nakov has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference 1: Costain, James & Nakov, Anton, 2011. "Distributional dynamics under smoothly state-dependent pricing," Working Paper Series 1333, European Central Bank.
*Reference 2: Costain, James & Nakov, Anton, 2011. "Precautionary price stickiness," Working Paper Series 1375, European Central Bank.
*Reference 3: James Costain & Anton Nakov, 2009. "Dynamics of the price distribution in a general model of state-dependent pricing," Banco de Espaa Working Papers 0831, Banco de Espaa.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Nakov's comment on this article 

message: We now have three comments on the current article. I agree very much with Olivier Blanchard that we need more on examples of nominbal rigidity and not to mix up real and nominal. Dr Van Rens has also raised some excellent points: the need to include work on wages and also add Rational Inattention to the sticky information section. I think the Nakov comment indicates the need for a clearer structure. The current page has grown up organically, and needs some overall editing of the structure as well as the specific points raised.Byronmercury (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: New section on evidence for price stickiness to meet Blanchard.  Will add some on wages laterByronmercury (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to ExpertideasBot

message: Dr. Colciago has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Colciago has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Ascari, Guido & Colciago , Andrea & Rossi, Lorenza, 2011. "Limited asset market participation: does it really matter for monetary policy?," Research Discussion Papers 15/2011, Bank of Finland.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Colciago's comment on this article 

message: The introduction of the article misstates Keynes's position on nominal rigidity. The article reads: "In his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes argued that nominal wages display downward rigidity, in the sense that workers are reluctant to accept cuts in nominal wages. This can lead to involuntary unemployment as it takes time for wages to adjust to equilibrium, a situation he thought applied to the Great Depression."
In fact, Keynes assiduously denied that involuntary unemployment would be remedied by wage flexibility. Much of the book is dedicated to constructing a theoretical apparatus that shows this notion (which he identified specifically with Pigou) to be fallacious. This is because a general reduction in money wages would reduce aggregate demand, limiting the extent of possible unemployment reduction. As Keynes writes in Chapter 19: "To suppose that a flexible wage policy is a right and proper adjunct of a system which on the whole is one of laissez-faire, is the opposite of the truth." He goes on to argue that "the maintenance of a stable general level of money-wages is, on a balance of considerations, the most advisable policy for a closed system."
The introduction should be rewritten to properly reflect Keynes's position, or to attribute the argument to Pigou instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.196.99 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keynes and nominal rigidity