Talk:Taylor rule

message: This appears in paragraph 3: "The main advantage of a general targeting rule..." To me this implies that the Taylor Rule is a general targeting rule, but the reference for this paragraph (Svensson), says that the Taylor Rule is an "instrument rule," as opposed to a "general targeting rule." If we want to compare it to a general targeting rule, shouldn't we tell the reader what kind of rule the Taylor Rule is? In any case, this sentence doesn't follow naturally from the previous one. I suggest deleting the last two sentences of paragraph three. Michael Stanford (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Instrument Rule?

message: This page is copied almost word-for-word from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco's website, here. I'm not sure if this is with permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.134.66 (talk • contribs) 
This was taken almost verbatim from San Fran Fed Reserve Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.243.125.101 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not sure when these comments were written, but they are no longer true. Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The page history indicates that those comments were written in May 2007. I subsequently reformatted this section and added the signatures and title, but did not change the content. They would have been referring to this old version of the article. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: The coefficients a are not defined, nor is there discussion as to how they are chosen in practice.PhysPhD 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Coefficients

message: Taylor's original paper wrote the rule like this (see his original paper, page 202):
:i_t = \pi_t + r_t^* + a_\pi  ( \pi_t - \pi_t^* )  + a_y ( y_t - \bar y_t )
(In the original paper, r was used in place of i, and p in place of \pi, but the equation was of the form shown here.)
However, many papers today write the rule like this:
:i_t = R_t^* + A_\pi  ( \pi_t - \pi_t^* )  + A_y ( y_t - \bar y_t )
Notice that these two versions of the rule are exactly logically and mathematically equivalent. But setting a_\pi=0.5 in the first version of the rule is equivalent to setting A_\pi=1.5 in the second version of the rule.
Therefore there has been some confusion among editors as to whether the correct value of the inflation coefficient is 0.5 or 1.5. The answer just depends on how we write the rule. Currently the rule is written in its original version (after all, the page cites the original paper). Therefore the correct value is a_\pi=0.5. But alternatively we could write the rule the second way, which might be more familiar to students today, and then the correct value would be A_\pi=1.5.--Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of a sub pi 

message: I assume that the nominal and equilibrium real interest rates are given in %/year; and that the actual and desired rates of inflation are also in %/year. So a_\pi\, can be dimensionless as 0.5 is. However, the logarithms of the actual and potential output must be dimensionless. This means that we need some units (presumably %/year) attached to a_y\,. However, the suggested value of 0.5 does not have any such units. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units needed 

message: The edits by  which I reverted a month ago made me wonder whether we should replace i_t \, with i_{t+1} \, in the Taylor rule
:i_t = \pi_t + r_t^* + a_\pi ( \pi_t - \pi_t^* ) + a_y ( y_t - \bar y_t ) \,
giving
:i_{t+1} = \pi_t + r_t^* + a_\pi ( \pi_t - \pi_t^* ) + a_y ( y_t - \bar y_t ) \,.
Although we would like the policy makers' responses to be instantaneous, that is unrealistic. They need to measure the inflation rate and economic output before they can use that information to set an interest rate target. What do you think? JRSpriggs (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Timing

message: So pp. 2000-2004 are page numbers? If they are, sorry, my mistake. --Biblbroks (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not sure that they are because I do not have the book. But according to the website, it has over 7000 pages. So they certainly could be page numbers. Thus we must give the editor who added that information the benefit of the doubt. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reference 

message: The picture was deleted on the basis that it does not contribute to our understanding of the Taylor rule.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.171.137 (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back. Illustrations make articles more friendly and attractive. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

text: If you can make such an informative picture or find one which is public domain, then please add it. Until then, I will put back the picture of Taylor. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would appear to be the case. If you google search for images of the taylor rule lots show up, a graph would be a great addition. And probably more helpful then the goofy picture of taylor.MilkStraw532 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The picture of Taylor is inappropriate to this wiki article. The pic of John B. Taylor is appropriate in his biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Taylor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.155 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To the IP-vandal: Please stop vandalizing this article: taking out a picture; adding a name which is not used for this rule; deleting the economics template; and insulting me. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Dr. Hayo 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. Hayo has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Bernd Hayo & Britta Niehof, 2013. "Studying International Spillovers in a New Keynesian Continuous Time Framework with Financial Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201342, Philipps-Universitat Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Hayo's comment on this article