Talk:Structural and cyclical deficit

message: Greedy Gideon .. did you post this bollocks... :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.17.110 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: Both external links in this article are to British sites.  This raises the question whether "structural deficit" is a British phrase, relevant to politics and economics in Britain.  If so, it should be defined as such.Jedwards01 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brit-enomics? 

message: "Structural deficit differs from cyclical deficit in that structural deficit exists even when the economy is at its potential."
Potential what? Is that sentence complete? If so then this is some technical use of the word potential not clear to the non-specialist. Sergeirichard (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point, I don't think the article is written particularly clearly. You're right that that sentence really isn't complete as it never tells us what a cyclical deficit is (I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the article). So unless you assume everyone knows what a cyclical deficit is, which of course they don't, it's unclear how they differ. I might give it a copyedit if I remember, but would welcome input from someone with more specialist expertise. --jjron (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Done. As above, someone with more specialist expertise may like to check over it. --jjron (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: the criticism section appears to be based entirely on an article written for the investors chronicle by Chris Dillow. He describes himself as a marxist and a labour party (UK) supporter. he wrote the cited op ed in response to a letter to the times criticising the government (that he supports) for not dealing with the stuctural deficit. the letter was signed by many leading economists.
Can this possibly meet the standards required for wikipedia? I would suggest that unless a better source could be found the section should be removed. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: well i've made some changes to reflect the above. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Monetising the debt can lead to high levels of inflation, 
The highlighted part does not appear to be supported by the source. Would be genuinely interested to see sources that describe examples of countries that successfully monetised their debt and managed to controlled inflation and how they did it.Levelledout (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement not supported by source