Talk:New classical macroeconomics

message: The two are quite separate and distinct. Neoclassical economics is based around Marshall's work - the current article at neoclassical economics describes it well. New classical economics is the name generally used for the school of thought that developed in the 1970s and 1980s by e.g. Robert Lucas that uses neoclassical microfoundations to build macroeconomic models. The two articles should not be merged. 80.4.4.158 15:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New classical economics and neoclassical economics

message: They're too different things. In particular New Classical economics focuses on supply shocks as the driving force behind macroeconomic fluctuations - which is what makes them Classical as opposed to Keynsian where it's the demand doing the work. Neoclassical is a much broader and less well defined term. Both New Classical and Keynsian economics (at least of the American kind) would fall within the broader tent of Neoclassical economics.
:Agreed. "New Classical economics" is a general equilibrium approach to macroeconomics, while Neoclassical economics is the standard, mainstream microeconomic approach. They are completely different topics. Jackson744 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't merge

message: The article claims
At any one time, the macroeconomy is assumed to have a unique equilibrium at full employment
If "New classical economics" refers to the return of macroeconomics to micro foundations, then surely search theory has to be included as a central part of this movement.  Indeed, Lucas and Prescott -- two of the four economists listed in the article -- wrote  "Equilibrium Search and Unemployment" in the Journal of Economic Theory in 1972.  Moreover, search theory, which clearly makes no full employment assumptions, has remained an important branch of modern macro.
The view that "New classical economics" refers merely to a set of models that do not focus on unemployment is not (AFAICT) supported by the econlib entry cited in the article.
Therefore, I think it would be better to say something like:
* new classical economics is the return of macro to micro-foundations.
* some models that attempt to explain X, Y, Z find it convenient to assume full-employment.
* some other models that attempt to explain A, B, C use search theory to describe how people look for work when they are unemployed, and how people decide whether to accept job offers, or do other things like help out with the family.
--Clausen 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full employment assumption and search theory 

message: As of Sept 2007, this page has the title 'New economics' instead of 'New classical economics' or 'New classical macroeconomics'. This is obviously wrong (did someone vandalize this?)  I agree with the comment above that 'New classical' is not a synonym for 'neoclassical'. But calling it 'New economics' is even more incorrect. 
To the best of my knowledge, there is no school called 'New economics'. Therefore, this page should be deleted in order not to mislead people; its content should be moved to 'New classical macroeconomics'. --Rinconsoleao 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a school of thought called 'New Economics'. That was a label for Keynesian economic policy in the USA in the 1960s. 128.132.1.10 (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New economics??? 

message: The capitalization of this article's title does not adhere to Wikipedia standards. I am moving the page from "New Classical Macroeconomics" to "New classical macroeconomics". --JHP (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving page

message: The article states:
"The most famous New Classical model is that of Real Business Cycles, developed by Robert Lucas, Jr., Finn E. Kydland, and Edward C. Prescott,..."
I argue the statement is false because there is a substantial difference between New classical model with rational expectations developed by Lucas (1972), in which unanticipated monetary shocks have an impact on the real economy, i.e. unanticipated monetary shocks, subject to certain assumptions, cause the cycle and the one know as RBC. 
In RBC model developed originally by Kydland and Prescott (1982) monetary shocks (even if unanticipated) do not influence real economy, i.e. do not significantly influence real GDP and therefore do not cause the cycle. According to RBC theory, exogenous, unpredictable technology shocks are the key driver of the cycle. 
Finally, in modern economic literature, New classical model developed by Lucas and RBC model founded by Kydland and Prescott are considered as separate theories, even though they have some common features such as rational expectations and microeconomic foundation. 
RBC model has not been developed by Lucas. RBC model is not a New classical model it is just build on New classical foundations but differs in assumptions, and substantially differs in conclusion about the nature of the business cycle and ability of monetary policy to influence the real economy.
Pvavrinec (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas vs RBC 

message: It is not an assessment if the "assessment" is only based on Peter Galbacs of the Budapest Business School but leaves out a lot more prominent critics. I will shorten it. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: The new Keynesianism arose after Lucas's criticism and in response to it. Lucas's competitor is the old classical Keynesianism, post-Keynesianism or simply Keynesianism, which ignored the microeconomic foundations.
"New classical macroeconomics strives to provide neoclassical microeconomic foundations for macroeconomic analysis. This is in contrast with its rival new Keynesian school that uses microfoundations, such as price stickiness and imperfect competition, to generate macroeconomic models similar to earlier, Keynesian ones." TimurMamleev (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Keynesianism is not a rival school 

message: "New Classical and monetarist criticisms led by Robert Lucas, Jr. and Milton Friedman respectively forced a labored rethinking of Keynesian economics. In particular, Lucas designed the Lucas critique primarily as a means to cast doubt on the Keynesian model. This strengthened the case for macro models to be based on microeconomics."
Friedman's monetarism is superfluous.
At the same time, they forgot to mention Robert Barro, Prescott, Sargent. TimurMamleev (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Friedman