Talk:New Keynesian economics

message: I think the link to Paul Davidsion in the "Relation to other macroeconomic schools" can't be right. This guy has nothing to with economics what so ever and on the Post-Keynesian_economics page the link is red as well. --58.105.106.2 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Here is the right link: Paul Davidson (economist). Rinconsoleao 10:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Davidson

message: The Wikipedia Manual of Style advises against abbreviations like op. cit., suggesting "named references" instead. However, the Manual of Style also advocates using the most specific reference possible: references to a specific page or specific chapter instead of a whole work. Unfortunately, as far as I know there is no way to use a single named reference to refer repeatedly to different chapters or pages of the same work. Therefore I have used op. cit. instead of "named references". But if someone else knows a better way of dealing with this, please go ahead. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this is in the wrong section, but I don't know how to start a new one. The problem is that in the section Microfoundations of price stickiness, second paragraph, there is a mention to Ball and Romer, but no link or reference is provided. Does anyone know which work is being mentioned, and if yes, could you provide the link or reference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viviannevilar (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  op. cit. 

message: * Disagree Not a good idea IMHO. Neo-Keynesian has a number of connotations, being used in the early days to describe both the neoclassical synthesis and post Keynesian economics, which could not be more different! New Keynesian is pretty well established now. Simem007 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: merge with neo-Keynesian

message: Paul Krugmam is mostly an international trade economist and doesn't really seem to be involved in the New Keynesian "movement." From this article in the New York times, he also seems very critical of rational expectations and New Keynesian theory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Doktorsleepless (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: His textbook and writings are consistently in the New Keynesian tradition. His essays on currency crisis, liquidity traps and Japan's 'Lost Decade' are a large contribution to the literature, and are well known among New Keynesians.  He has also described himself as such. LK (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: His textbook and policy advocacy are Keynesian, broadly speaking. But his research contributions are not particularly Keynesian. In terms of research, he would best be classified as a New Trade theorist, along with Marc Melitz, who is also mistakenly (in my opinion) on the New Keynesian list. Since most mainstream economists use (new) Keynesian ideas when they are discussing macroeconomic policy issues, it seems silly to me to classify them all as New Keynesians. The list of New Keynesians should be limited to the people who have made important theoretical or empirical contributions to New Keynesian economics. Here is a list: Template_talk:Keynesians with discussion of who should be included, and why. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Paul Krugman really a New Keynesian economist? 

message: This section really needs to be expanded.  There is 30 years of New Keynesian writing. Some of the history appears on other pages.  For example menu costs is pretty well covered.  However, there is currently no page on the Taylor model or the Calvo model. These should either be separate subsections on the sticky (economics) page or perhaps here, or even have their own page(s). I will eventually get round to this, but if anyone else has the time, please go ahead...Byronmercury (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: The lede currently states "Therefore, New Keynesians argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy would."
I was under the impression that New Keynesians were not particularly in favor of using monetary policy as stimulus (eg. QE3), favoring fiscal policy. Should this be changed?173.70.180.143 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Monetary policy

message: Since my 2012 comment (above) I have done an update of the page. I have taken some material from the History of macroeconomic thought, History of economic thought and some textbook stuff. I moved some of the existing page to the menu cost page (Golosov and Lucas) and deleted the section of micro foundations of price stickiness (since we have a pretty detailed sticky prices page).  Apologies for any existing imperfections: any help and advice welcome! It still needs some work (post crisis stuff, criticism of DGSE models etc.)Byronmercury (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Dr. Mihailov 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. Mihailov has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Stephen McKnight & Alexander Mihailov & Kerry Patterson & Fabio Rumler, 2014. "The Predictive Performance of Fundamental Inflation Concepts: An Application to the Euro Area and the United States," Economics & Management Discussion Papers em-dp2014-03, Henley Business School, Reading University.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mihailov's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Di Dio 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.
We believe Dr. Di Dio has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio di Dio, 2013. "Environmental Policy and Macroeconomic Dynamics in a New Keynesian Model," CEIS Research Paper 286, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 30 Sep 2013.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Di Dio's comment on this article 

message: Normally a page like this would include of "criticisms" or similar section. This article currently only includes the face-value claims of the theory, presented as facts.98.246.153.16 (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of criticism