Template talk:Macroeconomics

Suggested modifications

I think this navbox needs some serious rebuild. First of all, we should drop the random list of "Macroeconomists", since there are easily five dozens others that deserve to be mentioned as well. Second, we should drop "Schools", because there's another template for that (not sure why it is named {{Macroeconomics-footer}}, tho).

Then, the group of "Basic concepts" needs numerous additions: accelerator, aggregate demand, convergence, general equilibrium, government spending, labour supply, market failure, money demand, multiplier, Phillips curve, redistribution of income and wealth, Ricardian equivalence, seigniorage, shock, welfare. There are some more crucial concepts that are relevant to macroeconomics, like rational expectations or life-time income/consumption, but those are rooted in microeconomics.

Also, the group "models" should be sorted, to clarify the relation between the models. For instance, Ramsey–Cass-Koopmans is the baseline model for Real Business Cycle, which in turn is the foundation of New Keynesian DSGE. IS/LM, Harrod-Domar, and others are outdated models, still taught, but no longer in use at Central Banks, etc.

Any other ideas? --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixing the redundancy with template:macroeconomics-footer is a good idea (which should be renamed or merged with this template), as is dropping the list of people. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggested concepts to add, I'd also suggest Matching theory (economics). I don't really understand what you're specifically suggesting to do with the models. Phyrrus52 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is just an idea, but how about we split the models section in three: (1) growth models, (2) business cycle models, (3) trade models. Those are, in my mind, the three basic scopes of macroeconomics. Models of parts of the economy (such as Matching models for the labour market) should be dropped from this template. And then we should find consensus on which models to include: in (1), I'd say Harrod–Domar (Keynesian), Solow–Swan and/or Ramsey (Neoclassical), Romer (endogenous). In (2), it should be Hicks–Samuelson and/or Metzler (Keynesian), King–Plosser–Rebello (Real Business Cycle), Clarida–Galí–Gertler and/or Christiano–Eichenbaum–Evans (New Keynesian). And in (3) obviously Heckscher–Ohlin, and then maybe Krugman (New trade theory). Thoughts? --bender235 (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A first draft:

Comments are welcome. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]