Talk:Real Business Cycle Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Removing intro
The intro to this article, though good, is the appropriate intro to the business cycle article, not the real business cycle article. I'll add it to the talk page over there, and work it in soon. Mgw 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Major edits
I'm in the middle of some major edits, the article is in a wierd space right now. Mgw 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yankee White --
I touched up some spelling and the introduction, adding that the recognition of government intervention as the cause of the nasty swings in the business cycle as central to RBC theory (although not in those exact words).
This article's introduction ought to differ from the introduction on other pages of the Business Cycles as a whole, since I'd argue RBC theory is far less detached from financial statecraft and a better explanation of the Business cycle than the Austrian School (ie: Austrians refer to the 1920's as a fake growth period induced by monetary policy, whilst RBC theorists hold it to be a genuine boom, which was slowly disintegrated by massive amounts of government intervention (especially once the depression set in)).
-- Yankee White
71.224.208.65 if you look through the history has preferred to take his claims to the actual article rather than on the discussion page.
My edits to the introductory paragraph, as well as touching up the many spelling errors in this thread, are consistent with Reality.
A major branch of Philosophy is Politics and Political-Economy cannot be separated, to do so would drop the requisite context and invalidate your arguments -- RBC holds that the Government is the cause of inflation through Seniorage and RBC holds that financial markets are always in equilibrium -- as someone who uses RBC to trade the financial markets (especially by watching trends in Gold) I understand that the efficient market hypothesis is true as well as rational expectations and anyone who accepts RBC must accept these premises and recognize that Government intervention causes a massive change in the structure of production (this being the fountainhead as I mentioned of RBC).
Stop being a damn subjectivist and realize that things are what they are, no matter how much you hope you're right, you're wrong, and facts cannot be established by consensus -- this is why I do advanced research into topics before I edit them.
[edit] Two proposed changes
The next time I swing by this page I will consider making two changes. (1) The real business cycle model is very simple when explained with economic jargon and a few first-order conditions, so the author devoted an unwieldy middle portion of the article to explaining micro jargon. I don't think this is the right approach to take in WP. If there are no objections I may try to craft a non-technical explanation. (2) I believe it is worth spelling out why, precisely, unemployment poses a model for Prescott and Kydland, given that the explanation is (a) simple (b) relatively compelling (c) explains why the real business cycle is not mainstream in economic theory. 140.247.163.157 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
