Talk:Neo-Keynesian economics

message: This article seems to talk about the Neo-Classical synthesis. Neo-Keynesian economics is a term used to describe the work of the likes of Malinvaud which is a theory of general DISequilibrium, from which you have a role for stabilisation policy and government action because there can be involuntary unemployment of resources because of trades occuring at out-of-equilibrium prices. A good reference for this article would be Kaldors book "Involuntary Unemployment" which is a great discussion of the development of economic thought, albeit from a Keynesian.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.171.32 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is not about Neo-Keynesian Economics

message: Why is the word "Economics" capitalized in this article's title? Shouldn't it be "Neo-Keynesian economics" rather than "Neo-Keynesian Economics"? --JHP (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I fixed it. --JHP (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is "Economics" capitalized in the title?

message: Usually, the introductory sentence of an article gives a brief description of the topic, i.e. "Neo-Keynesian economics is...", but this article does not do that. In fact, the entire introduction to the article does not say what neo-Keynesian economics is. It just gives a description of the changes in economic thought. Also, this article does not explain what the difference is between Neo-Keynesian economics and New Keynesian economics. --JHP (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, so what the hell is Neo-Keynesian economics?

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*
===Discussion===
:Any additional comments:
*You're not proposing to move this page. You are proposing to blank it, and make it a redirect. Right? 87.114.136.92 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: :Any additional comments:
*You're not proposing to move this page. You are proposing to blank it, and make it a redirect. Right? 87.114.136.92 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The neoclassical synthesis is equal to neo-keynesianism so why we have two articles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.44.149 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The synthesis

message: WP:NPV The sentence in the intro paragraph "The new Keynesians helped create a "new neo-classical synthesis" that currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory." is just opinion, and very arrogant opinion at that.  It has no place on a website that purports to support unbiased information.
There are dozens of schools of thought within the economics community.  Who decided that one school was "mainstream"?  The citations to political journals supporting this arrogance all represent extremely left wing political viewpoints or neo-keynesian economists.  The other schools of thought are not even mentioned, much less consulted on this "mainstream" opinion.
Neo-keynesian THEORY (that is all it is) is one of many schools of economic thinking within the United States, and that doesn't even bring into the discussion the many countries around the world that question US economic thinking in general.  Do the communists in China think their entire economic model is wrong, and they should obey the political edicts from neo-keynesians?  How about Singapore's economic model?  Over the last few decades, Asian economic growth has far exceeded the west.  Neo-keynesianism is not even accepted in much of the world, and it is one of many schools of thought within the US.  Other49states (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording you keep deleting says "The new Keynesians helped create a "new neo-classical synthesis" that currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory." You keep on arguing that Keynesian economics is not in the mainstream, which is not what was stated. The statement is that the new neo-classical synthesis forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory. This statement is supported by references to papers that have been published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (Mankiw), the American Economic Journal (Woodford), and a paper published by Federal Reserve economists in the NBER Macroeconomics Annual. The journals are ranked 13th and 14th top economics journals. These are hardly "political journals" and anybody with a passing knowledge of economics would know that the idea that they represent "extremely left wing political viewpoints" is ludicrous.  So far you have produced zero sources supporting your viewpoint, you misunderstand the text you are deleting, and you have written off what are clearly reliable sources as partisan, political journals. Maybe China has a different mainstream consensus behind their macroeconomic theory. If you have a source that discusses this, great, we should add that viewpoint. Until then, we should stick with Wikipedia's policies and state what is supported by verifiable and reliable sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only a neo-keynesian would claim their opinions are "mainstream" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neo-Keynesian economics. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020605064049/http://homepage.newschool.edu/het/ to http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came here to get an idea of neo-keynesian economics. I find the article quite confusing. Terms are often not defined, relationship between theories (supports ? oppose ?) or theories with scientists, are not always defined. As a Wikipedian I recognize the work done, but this article need better synthesis, wording, pedagogy. Please, help if you have the relevant expertise and knowledge. Yug (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some love !