Talk:Circular flow of income

message: Merge the articles already...the temp file is a lot more detailed and I dont see why it shouldnt replace the non temp one. But I don't know whats best for this site but I reckon they should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.205.181.117 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, merge them if you want. The temp page is separated because it was simply tacked on to a pre-existing article, and because it was suspected of being a copyright violation. -- Scott eiπ 08:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: There are no references for any of the information on this page.  I know this is basic economics 101 type information, but can someone please provide them? 24.17.42.210 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this article in 2005...I'll see if I can fish up some of the references I would have used. If anyone else wants to go ahead and do it feel free.--Ari89 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: the article is still awful.  At the very least, a graph of how to use the leakage-injection model to analyze international trade would be nice.  I would make one, but it's exactly what I came here to learn how to do...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.111.65 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six years later... 

message: The title is wrong. Incomes are someone elses' outcomes, but in fact what is circulating is money, pure and simple. The various diagrams are not very exact and in fact the whole macroeconomy may easily be considered as one subject having a circulation between its 6 sectors or entities as shown in the attached diagram. This diagram incorporates 19 mutual flows of goods etc. with money flowing in the opposite direction and is a fair description of a closed macroeconomy or social system which has been made sufficiently comprehensive as to cover the whole of the "big-picture".Macrocompassion (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title and Subject Matter 

message: I strongly recommend that this notice box be deleted.
I agree completely with many of the observations above:  this article would benefit significantly by a thorough cleaning up—i.e., extensive rewriting and reformatting, as well as the addition of detailed sources/references.
But I don’t believe the section marked by the “Original Research” notice box contains anything even remotely resembling original research (unless the editors or WP policy consider specific numerical examples to be “original research,” which would be absurd in contexts like this).  Perhaps the editor who added the box has never studied the discussion of the circular flow of income in a typical introductory or intermediate macroeconomics text and, as a result, misinterpreted something in the section’s wording as being, or suggesting, original research.  But the material is, in fact, pretty standard stuff—albeit an advanced (i.e., more complete) model, which some intro econ courses may not have time to cover. Based on my personal experience teaching this topic, though, it’s absolutely not original research.
::--Jackftwist (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Original Research” notice box is NOT justified 

message: The five-sector model does not separate the two roles within capitalism, namely that of investor and of landowner. This important difference comes about because when Adam Smith defined the 3 factors of production, (namely Land , Labor and Capital) he included the landowner as performing a separate role or activity from that of the capitalist, whose role was one of owning and hiring out the durable capital goods. Land he separated, because it should not be taken as being an investment object having been made by earlier work. This results in there being a six-sector model which does not include "the rest of the world". 
The diagram for this 6-sector model may be found in my book "Consequential Macroeconomics" and also in two working papers: SSRN 28675571 "Einstein's Criterion Applied to logical Macroeconomics Modelling" and to SSRN 2600103 "A mechanical Model for Teaching Macroeconomics" . Macrocompassion (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Sector Model 

message: This topic has not been mentioned and it should be because when the whole system is reduced to its various kinds of exchanges of money for goods, services, etc., it is found that there are 10 kinds of these exchanges and them must circulate between the 6 sectors that are the various parts of the whole system. Without this system the money that continuously circulates would be found to be unable to balance the values of what it is being used for. This system and its model have been well-explained in my short working paper SSRN 2865571 "Einstein's Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modelling". The six sectors are: Government, Landowner, Producer, Household, Finance Institution and Capitalist. (It should be understood that the activities of a landowner and a capitalist are different.) This criterion (applied to the hypothesis of any truly scientific investigation) is to include all of the system in the most simple yet comprehensive way. In the Wikipedia explanation of a system this model is used for purposes of illustration the circulation of money. (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Six Sector Model