Talk:Phillips curve

message: 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here :/ - Marc K 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing issues

message: I have talked to economists, and be they Austrian, Keynesian, neo-Keynesian, or supply-side, no one thinks the Phillips Curve has any validity. - MSTCrow 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have talked to economists as well, and few have said that it has no validity whatsoever.  They recognize that it is fundamentally flawed, sure, but not without any merit at all.  Either way, it is a relatively important concept in the history of economic thought and should be addressed as it is.139.78.97.13 16:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure I agree. But not having talked to economists there is the distinction between the original Philips curve and the Philips curve that is mounted with rational choice theory leading to a straight up line with just one level of unemployment. So what do these economists not find valid? RickardV 10:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pragmatic" Economists Use the Phillips Curve? 

message: The first line of the article defines the Phillips curve as a historical (ie empirical) relationship. If we define it as an empirical relationship, then we should distinguish that from any theory which purports to explain the empirical relationship. Therefore I deleted the words "in the theory" and also "tradeoff" from the opening definition.
Of course, it might be better to state two related definitions of 'Phillips curve': it referred originally to an empirical relationship observed in the data, but nowadays it also often refers to a theoretical relationship that occurs in (some) macroeconomic models. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empirical or theoretical? 

message: This needs to be flagged as not citing anything.
128.54.48.14 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citations? 

message: Shouldn't the sentence on Fisher end that *Fisher's* curve examined money wages, not Phillips'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.81.205 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fisher's contribution 

message: Hello, I have some problems with the Stagflation section. It doesn't differentiate between the short run and the long run, and simply says:
:Theories based on the Phillips curve suggested that this could not happen, and the curve came under concerted attack from a group of economists headed by Milton Friedman—arguing that the demonstrable failure of the relationship demanded a return to non-interventionist, free market policies. The idea that there was one simple, predictable, and persistent relationship between inflation and unemployment was, at least, questioned.
This seems deceptive to me. A stagflation section seems important, but I think more information needs to be integrated into it.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the information a bit. The sections was never really on stagflation. It might be better just to erase it.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stagflation section

message: The implication in this section sound like an attempt to make a causal link. e.g High inflation promotes unemployment.
However, if you have high employment (low unemployment), then people have more money to spend. More money chasing similar levels of goods produces inflation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.215.54 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   when inflation was high, unemployment was low 

message: Should the question of the impact of the Baby Boom in this era be raised in this article on Phillips?  Like Expectational Theory, economic demography was raise by researchers such as Susan Wachter (Wharton) in an attempt to explain how stagflation was occurring at the time.   I am commenting from memory.Charley sf (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic Demography

message: Dr. Smith 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. Smith has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference 1: Ron Smith & Gylfi Zoega, 2007. "Global Factors, Unemployment Adjustment and the Natural Rate," Kiel Working Papers 1367, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
*Reference 2: Smith, Jennifer, 2010. "The Ins and Outs of UK Unemployment," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 944, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Smith's comment on this article 

message: The only illustration in the main part this article can't really be described as a curve although a large part of modern policy is based on it. It is Fig 9 of the original Phillips paper describing the period 1913 to 1948 but lacking the regression line that he included.
The illustration here is Figure 1 from the same paper and it is much more widely reproduced in textbooks and the web. Whether this is a justifiable use I'm not sure and the correlation coefficient isn't very high. But shouldn't some such graph be used? Chris55 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The curve?