Talk:Monetary policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Monetary policy was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Various misplaced comments

could a logged-in user movethis article to "monetary policy of the USA" plase? Then we need non-country-specific articles on Monetary policy and Monetary theory (currently a redirect) -- tarquin (loggedout)

Did that -- now someone should sort out what parts of Monetary policy of the USA belongs in the general Monetary policy article and what is US specific. -- till we *) 14:13, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Removed recap of the history of currency, since that is the article which should have those details, am going to add more on the expansion of monetary policy through the Bretton woods and floating currency eras, as well as the Mundell-Fleming model. Stirling Newberry 13:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poorly written and explained. Needs to be redone. I reccommend deletion pending rewriting.

[edit] Please, can economic experts relate this page and its relatives to the page Debt-based_monetary_system!

The article Debt-based_monetary_system stands currently unrelated to the bulk of the articles on monetary policy and closely related matters. What is worse, it is completely non NPOV, offering only critique of credit based money and absolutely no explanation of the point of such a system, cherry picking quotes of obscure figures and highlighting how many believe the system "leads to tyranny" and the like. It seems like the criticisms offered on this page should be incorporated into the currently existing pages, sobered up a great deal, and counterbalanced with criticisms of the criticisms. I tried to add one paragraph of more level headed context at the beginning, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do so authoritatively. 32F 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic policy: please help!

I've just made a start at rewriting Economic policy covering fiscal and trade issues as well as monetary topics. Please join in! The Land 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because

Please review Wikipedia:What is a good article. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Four citations is not enough. Great basic summary, though. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

How many citations should I add? Sasha Slutsker 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Monetary theory and this article overlap, but since this article is much more completely developed, I propose merging monetary theory into monetary policy. (Given the refs there, this may also help restore MP to its GA status.) Jeremy Tobacman 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. Monetary theory may possibly be expanded to cover the different models of monetary economics such as the Quantity Theory of Money, Keynesian and post-Keynesian theories or the different attempts to incorporate money into dynamic general equilibrium. It may also discuss issues like the efficiency of monetary exchange vs. barter or the relationships between credit and money. None of this would be possible within an article on monetary policy. The references would also not help too much. I haven't seen the Edward Elgar book but the other books are more focussed on theory than on policy. Jyotirmoyb 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge. The theory of what money is, and how it works, is a huge topic by itself; what macroconomic policies best control its effects is another field featuring 800-page textbooks. That is, I completely agree with Jyotirmoyb's comment. --Rinconsoleao 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, in the most common current usage "monetary theory" and "monetary policy" are of the same central-bank-issued coin. Monetary theory is used to determine optimal monetary policy; historical variation, due partly to monetary policy, informs current prevailing theory. One well-regarded current six hundred page textbook sees fit to treat them together. Jyotirmoyb and Rinconsoleao, I think much of "what money is and how it works," including relation to barter, is now sensibly covered in the money article. Discussion of MV=PY, in my mind, fits well in an article on monetary policy, as it captures the first-order long-run lesson for central banks. Jeremy Tobacman 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we merge "medical science" and "healthcare policy"? Why don't we merge "automaking" and "moving violation"? Why don't we merge "reproduction" and "family law"? Those overlap in about the same way. Go to it - you have a lot of WIKI ground to cover if you believe your own position. 76.247.107.101 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, given 600 pages, I agree that they could be treated together! But for Wikipedia's purposes, I think the money page, which discusses the nature of money for nonspecialists, should be linked to but separate from the monetary theory page, which should cover questions about how economists model money, including Baumol-Tobin, OLG, CIA, MIU, matching, and other classes of models. As Jyotirmoyb pointed out, theoretical treatment of efficiency of money, for example, also wouldn't fit will in the monetary policy page, which is very much a topic in its own right. --Rinconsoleao 11:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sterilization?

I can't find any page for the term Sterilization and it is also not mentioned on the pages for Economics and Monetary Policy. Perhaps it would make sense to include it somewhere. --Smallchanges 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Managed float badly worded

The "managed float" section is very derogatory towards the Reserve Bank of India and seems to directly accuse it of lying. I think this is in desperate need of rewording, but unfortunately I know nothing of economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.87.105 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing derogatory about saying that some currency follows a managed float. And many central bank policies differ in practice from what they are officially called. Still, the statement about the Indian exchange rate regime lacks citations (or lacks a graph that would illustrate the claims). --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is the section on managed float almost entirely about India? Aren't there other countries that have managed floats too? Finnancier (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)