Talk:Exogenous growth model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] No need to explain technological progress
I don't know how somebody can say that the model needs to explain why technological progress occurs. That sounds pretty much like wondering why mankind exists...
No. In some cases you get a lot of technological progress, in others little. What accounts for the difference is an important question.radek 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Golden Rule Savings Rate
There needs to be some mention of the golden rule level of savings here that sets the savings rate to maximize consumption. But, unfortunately, no such article on that exists yet. Scott Ritchie 22:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, I've added a stub under the name "Golden Rule (growth)". I've chosen this name to match similar names on the Golden Rule disambiguation page. Presently, it is a stub; perhaps you are able to extend it?
- Cheers, Wragge 23:03, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
- I moved the page to Golden Rule savings rate, as I believe that to be a more complete article title that helps avoid the need for parenthesis (which also might confuse it with the British thing mentioned on the Golden Rule disambig page.) Thanks for getting the ball rolling :) Scott Ritchie 21:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Solution is wrong
Janpieter 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) The solution of the equotations isn't correct. After the differentiating-part the formula is incorrect. Variables are changed. The d is used for multiple purposes, it isn't clear. The same with the variable t, where is it introduced?
Furter, the images of the formulas are incomplete.
I'll try to work it out, but I'm not sure if I'm capable of that.
Well, it looks more messy than wrong - t is standard usage for time, d generally means derivative. The other d stands for depreciation - generally denoted by a delta but hard to do here. It does need to be fixed up a bit. And if possible put that sucker in continues time.radek
Can anyone tell me which d needs to be changed to δ and which should be replaced by delta?
The whole thing is incredibly disorienting. How do you set up a neo-classical model without defining preferences and endowment, and then link UPenn? The analysis looks like a bad undergraduate explanation where the professor ends up waving his hands magically at the end of the proof. I'll try to find some time to put together something more efficient.
-
- This is the Solow version of the neo-classical model, not the Ramsey, which I started here Ramsey growth model but haven't had time to finish. This one too needs to be seriously cleaned up. radek 03:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Work
I'd like to congradulate the editors of this article for doing a much better job explaining this model than my professor. -Drdisque 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
