Talk:Monetarism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale |
| High | rated as high-importance on the importance scale |
[edit] This article has been gutted
Over the past couple months, I see that this article has been gutted by people who have been removing substantial amounts of information -- both in support of and against Monetarism. Wikipedia should be NPOV, not blank to avoid controversy. Both sides should be presented. A description of the rise of Monetarism during the 1970's stagflation is noteworthy, as are the modern criticisms. If you have a problem with something because it's poorly worded or not sourced, please improve the article by editing it and\or sourcing the statement rather than just deleting large blocks of text. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Monetarism in action
Should we put the UK governments recent hand over of control to the Bank of England in there? Or would you not really class it as monetarism in action?Lukeitfc 09:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hrrm - many missing key figures. Schwartz and Bernanke specifically.
Should we use the term M1 for money supply?
-M1 does not include all forms of money, if I recall correctly. I would prefer to keep referring to money supply as money supply. -USMA2010
[edit] Removing this:
"Many monetarists back, or at least are sympathetic to, a return to some form of gold standard as a way of preventing misallocation of capital and preventing fiat money from being inflated, since their view is that government action is at the root of inflation."
As it's completely false. The closest I can think of an example would be Mundell, but he's generally not considered a monetarist and definetly not a 'definitive' one. As a matter of fact i can't think of any serious economists other than him who support a return to a gold standard.radek 06:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs work
The article is mostly correct, aside from a few imprecise statements. However it does suffer from a lack of organization and needs to be revised for clarity. Working on it.radek 07:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] more on asset price inflation and the wage/profit bargain=
I d like to see more on this subject. Historically asset prices were not included in Friedman's formula. I think it is now admitted that it was the main flaw in the model, no demand for liquidity for the acquisition of assets (or goods produced in former years) was included. Monetarism has been also disproven by the fact that the wage/labor arbitrage seems a major contributor to inflation-deflation, inflation and deflation being therefore not only monetary phenomenon. For instance wages and prices are kept low now and in the 20's by lack of labor power on the labor market, due to anti labor policies and pro free trade policies (globalisation). During the 70's on the opposite Labor being very strong managed to get ever higher wages causing an inflation spiral.
[edit] Who wrote this article, Murray Rothbard?
What a joke, its very biased. I bet a lot of mises.org fanboys visit this article daily to insert weasel words. It needs a clean-up
[edit] "...accept Keynesian economics and then critique it on its own terms"
Re: Milton Friedman, who was among the generation of liberal economists to accept Keynesian economics and then critique it on its own terms.
Could someone who understands this please expand or reword it to be more specific? It's confusing to the average reader. I have a basic (layperson's) idea of Keynesian economics, but in what way does Friedman "critique it on its own terms"? Thanks. --Singkong2005 ยท talk 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Inflation targeting
I assume inflation targeting is a form of monetarism - however, both articles need to be a bit clearer, and link to each other. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nicholas Kaldor
What a joke, no mention of Nicholas Kaldor! How could an article on Monetarism fail to mention its most outstanding critic during the 1970s and 1980s?
[edit] Split
This article needs to be split into Monetarism and Monetary economics. Monetarism is a school of thought while monetary economics is a branch of macroeconomics. Monetarists emphasize monetary economics as the crucial part of macroeconomics, but the two are not the same thing. Non-monetarists still study monetary economics. Lumping the two together confuses the topics.--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- on second thought, parts of this article related to "monetary economics" can be moved to Monetary theory. I will start the change soon.--Bkwillwm (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
