Talk:Interest

message: Dr. Derviz 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. Derviz has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Alexis Derviz & Marie Rakova, 2009. "Funding Costs and Loan Pricing by Multinational Bank Affiliates," Working Papers 2009/9, Czech National Bank, Research Department.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Derviz's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Interest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120731053417/http://www.forexmotion.com/index.php/en/exchange-rates.html to http://www.forexmotion.com/index.php/en/exchange-rates.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a section on theories of interest in economics (some of which I’d previously put on the page ‘interest rate’). There was a very brief sketch on the topic already, most of which I’ve kept. A lot of the rest follows Schumpeter. There’s probably too much of Keynes and too little of Wicksell and the Austrians, but I’m not competent to fill the gaps.
It seems to me that the distinction between the subject matters of this page and of ‘interest rate’ is a little fine, whereas there is a more natural distinction between ‘interest (economics)’ and ‘interest (finance)’. Colin.champion (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the distinction is unclear to me; can someone explain what the distinction is intended to be? I'm not sure what exactly Colin is proposing, but if it involves dividing "concrete and practical formulas for the rate a specific person pays on a specific loan" away from "abstract aggregate macroeconomic analysis of the interest rate", then I'm all for it. Presumably this would involve an annoying merge of the current content of Interest and Interest rate.Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion wasn’t well thought through. Your distinction seems reasonable to me. The main thing is to have a hatnote at the top of 'Interest rate’ saying (e.g.) “This page is about the definition and numerical values of the interest rate. For other uses see Interest”. If some such hatnote can be agreed, I’d be willing to attempt the merging myself, though other people could do it better. Colin.champion (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

text: I’ve done a partial reorganisation (more tomorrow if I’m not stopped short). I can’t claim I’m always confident I’m making the right decisions, but the pages look more consistent and it’s good to have the hatnotes. Colin.champion (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I made some more changes and thought I’d finished, then saw that I’d been reverted, and my changes criticised, on the page on ‘interest rate’. So I’ve drawn to a halt. Please note that I’d deleted a few sections which seemed to duplicate material elsewhere. All the deletions are at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interest&oldid=813805565#Other_aspects Colin.champion (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This all came to nothing owing to unwelcome attentions, but I’ve reinstated what I wrote on Theories of Interest since I don’t think there’s much wrong with it. It was described as ‘unsourced’ but had about 22 footnote references (1 per 662 bytes) and about another 11 citations in the text. This compares with 1 footnote reference per 733 bytes in ‘Interest rate’ and 1 per 2632 in the rest of ‘Interest’. Colin.champion (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of interest 

message: Everyone knows if someone or something has an "interest" in something in the financial world, then he or she possesses an ownership or similar stake in that something. The nonsense around the usury aspect of the term leading this Wiki entry is indefensible, as it's not based in etymology; in fact, it's based in propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggzuk (talk • contribs) 
:The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article, and the current article is not about the definition you propose. - MrOllie (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake definition leads this word no more 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Interest (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress