Talk:Solow–Swan model

message: Why is this written as L[t+1] = L[t]*(1+gL) instead of L[t+1] = L[t]*(1+n)?
n is mentioned above the section as the population growth rate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.116.245 (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in workforce 

message: I don't know how somebody can say that the model needs to explain why technological progress occurs. That sounds pretty much like wondering why mankind exists...
No. In some cases you get a lot of technological progress, in others little. What accounts for the difference is an important question.radek 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to explain technological progress  

message: Janpieter 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the Solow version of the neo-classical model, not the Ramsey, which I started here Ramsey growth model but haven't had time to finish. This one too needs to be seriously cleaned up. radek 03:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution is wrong

message: I'd like to congradulate the editors of this article for doing a much better job explaining this model than my professor. -Drdisque 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Work

message: What about the economic situation in Austria? Did they introduce special measures for growth? Which were they? Please mention sources. --Maestral 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the model 

message: There is a page on Lucas' Law and not having heard of it before I had quick look on the web and in other references and have been unable to find anything about Spencer Lucas and his Law and the page is unreferenced and it all seems a bit odd. It has a link to "exogenous growth". Does anyone here know anything about this Lucas? (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas' Law 

message: The term 'Neoclassical growth model' often refers to the Ramsey growth model, in which consumption is chosen endogenously, instead of the Solow model in which consumption is an exogenous, constrant fraction of income. The links and redirects between these pages need to be improved. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are both referred to as "neoclassical growth model". Perhaps a disambiguation at the top of the page is needed?radek (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

text: True. For instance, Acemoglu (Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Ch. 8), refers to the Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans model as "the neoclassical growth model". This article needs to be rewritten. Let's start be moving it to the appropriate lemma. --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramsey model 

message: The production function with different technology presentation, we could solve all the growth model with the following different technologies:
*Labor augmenting (Harrod neutral) technology Y=F\left(K,AL\right)=K^{\alpha}\left(AL\right)^{1-\alpha},
*Capital augmenting technology Y=F\left(AK,L\right)=\left(AK\right)^{\alpha}L^{1-\alpha}
*Hicks neutral technology Y=AF\left(K,L\right)=A\left(K\right)^{\alpha}L^{1-\alpha}
*embodied technology Y=K^{\alpha}L^{1-\alpha}, after remove technology from K, Y=\left(A\bar{K}\right)^{\alpha}L^{1-\alpha} where \bar{K}=\frac{K}{A}, then when viewed with Y and \bar{K}, it is capital augmenting technology.
By the way, which technology was used in Solow's original paper? Is there anyone who has checked this?
Jackzhp (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology things

message: I think the first graph should have a k rather than the K as the variable on the horizontal axis. k=K/L so I think as it stands it is potentially misleading. The other graphs also seem to be labelling axis with Y and K even when variables are y and k. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Basically you have to copy the graph to your favorite image program and manually change it, then re-upload it to Commons as a derivative work (easiest if you use their "old upload wizard").  Volunteer Marek  10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I have made a minor pigs ear of the graph with a stry k in the title - still it is better than it was.... I will tidy later (Msrasnw (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible problem with the graphs 

message: "A key prediction of neoclassical growth models is that the income levels of poor countries will tend to catch up with or converge  towards the income levels of rich countries as long as they have similar characteristics – for instance saving rates. Since the 1950s, the opposite empirical result has been observed on average. If the average growth rate of countries since, say, 1960 is plotted against initial GDP per capita (i.e. GDP per capita in 1960), one observes a positive relationship."
The key phrase in the above is "as long as they have similar characteristics". Hence this para is talking about conditional convergence. Then the article goes on to say:
"These observations have led to the adoption of the conditional convergence concept....Evidence for conditional convergence comes from multivariate, cross-country regressions."
So the article contradicts itself. What it is obviously trying to do - very very clumsily is to say that "absolute convergence" doesn't hold but "conditional convergence" does (sort of). But "absolute convergence" is NOT an implication of the model, and especially not a "key prediction" of it.
 Volunteer Marek  10:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong 

message: Neoclassical growth model redirects here, but surely it should redirect to the Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans page, which is only rarely identified as Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans and is almost always called the neoclassical growth model. 128.135.100.102 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neoclassical growth model"