Talk:Real business-cycle theory

message: The intro to this article, though good, is the appropriate intro to the business cycle article, not the real business cycle article.  I'll add it to the talk page over there, and work it in soon. Mgw 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing intro

message: I'm in the middle of some major edits, the article is in a wierd space right now.  Mgw 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits 

message: The next time I swing by this page I will consider making two changes. (1) The real business cycle model is very simple when explained with economic jargon and a few first-order conditions, so the author devoted an unwieldy middle portion of the article to explaining micro jargon.  I don't think this is the right approach to take in WP.  If there are no objections I may try to craft a non-technical explanation. (2) I believe it is worth spelling out why, precisely, unemployment poses a model for Prescott and Kydland, given that the explanation is (a) simple (b) relatively compelling (c) explains why the real business cycle is not mainstream in economic theory. 140.247.163.157 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two proposed changes 

message: The current text of the article makes this statement without qualification:
"Economists have come up with many ideas to answer the above question. The one which currently dominates the academic literature was introduced"
This implies that there is widespread agreement about RBCT among economists.  I think that this is only really true amongst a particular group of economists, and that the other branch of economists is distinguished primarily by disagreement with RBCT.  
Either way, this is a statement of opinion that is provided without citation.  I recommend that we either (1) provide evidence that there is widespread agreement with RBCT, or (2) that we remove the commentary about the economic profession and stick to the facts.128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dominates the academic literature 

message: I've only read some about the theory but it seems as if it has gained more acceptance than it had in 1986 when the article which the criticism part is based of was published. Prescott and Kydland got the Nobel prize in economics in 2004. 
Moreover, George W. Stadler published an article in 1994 that explained the model in a simple way and what it usually consists of. If someone wants to have a go at it, it would probably ease the understanding for readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.234.245 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Lack of sufficient sourcing for any business cycle theory.  
Fails to compare RBC to other business cycle theories in a comprehensible way.  
Professorial tone, rather than encyclopedic  Why is it full of rhetorical questions?  To allow simplistic answers.  
Prolix.
Thoroughly unbalanced -- suggests there is but a single answer to why there is a business cycle, that being the RBC theory.   Heavy POV, lack of objectivity.    
That such non-encyclopedic writing and one-sided presentation of a fringe viewpoint has been allowed to endure so long reflects the very small relevance of RBC theory to actual economics.   What remains is designed to appeal to those who understand no other theory and are new to the issue of the business cycle and are ready to swallow whole whatever they are fed.   
Is the policy prescriptions of the RBC theory that workers should be thrown into the street without social protections and be forced to be re-hired at whatever much-lower compensation business wishes to offer them?  Whatever the policy prescriptions may be, both the prescriptions and their effects on the lives of working families are conspicuously absent from this discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.16 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some ways in which this article's tone or style are not appropriate for Wikipedia 

message: Dr. Mandelman 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. Mandelman has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Mandelman, Federico S. & Zanetti, Francesco, 2013. "Flexible prices, labor market frictions, and the response of employment to technology shocks," Working Paper 2013-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mandelman's comment on this article