Talk:Aggregate demand

Merge with Keynesian economics

Isn't aggregate demand the total quantity of goods that would be purchased at different given prices? Or, more simply, isn't aggregate demand just the total demand from different buyers added together? I am not comfortable with the current definition on this page. It is confusing.

Whoever wrote the definition of this aggregate demand section is either a complete moron or an undergraduate with poor grammar; either way, this entire section must be done again by a graduate level or above.---[Shiznaw|John Allen Shaw] Univ of UTah, Grad Student Econ

The definition is misleading. This definition is only valid in Keynesian economics, which isn't really being studied any more at any reputable program. I think some of this article can be salvaged in a merge, but then a more general definition should be used. (Like MWG). Hawk8103 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The explanation under "Keynesian Cross" is confusing, with its frequent references to "the AD line". We're talking about a two-dimensional graph here of AD vs. Y. Here, "the AD line" is the Y-axis. Surely this is not what the author intends to present, and is confusing to me. I think what is intended is 'the AD vs Y line', or 'AD vs Y graph'.Xperrymint (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Keynesian economics is studied extensively in political economy courses, and is an integral part in understanding the economic influences of the 20th century. There's still a lot to learn from Keynes, as there is from Marx. Should articles on Marxian economics be simplified and lumped together because it isn't such a dominant theory anymore as well? What are you trying to get at here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storleone (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone studying economics looks in a book for aggregate demand they will see something completely different. That is they will see the microeconomic definition (the sum of the individual demands) as indicated above. Five years ago this definition was in many macroeconomic textbooks, but since most macroeconomics uses micro foundations this is being phased out rapidly. Both definitions are correct, but the definition that should be used is the one is most frequently used in economics. Perhaps the article should be called Keysian aggregate demand?Hawk8103 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hawk that they are indeed different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Marxist Critique?

Could someone with a knowledge of this topic come in and provide a Response to the Marxist Critique for arguments sake? There must be Keynesian response to these assertions, perhaps bordering on the line of these objections in general don't amount to a grand impact on the actual calculation of the aggregate demand? Thechosenone021 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be confused at best. A lot of the quibble seems to be with the specific form of, say, the consumption function or things which shift the aggregate demand, not with aggregate demand = expenditure on GDP per se. And I wish there was a cite or a link since it sort of looks like original research to me, but then again I don't know that much about Marxian economics.radek 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Marxist critique should be deleted - it does not contribute much to the topic. Until a more knowledgeable person can explain the points, it contributes very little to the argument. For example "Firstly, GDP as a measure of value added excludes purchases of all intermediate goods used up in production." This is well acknowledged in macroeconomics - it isn't a problem for GDP because GDP only aims out counting final goods (otherwise there would be many instances of multiple counting of things). --Vince 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Marxist critique should be deleted. Or every other critique should be added (e.g. Austrian). But deletion sounds best. Rjljr2 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that the critiques from all the other schools be included. I am just starting off with educating myself in economics, but already I see that the Keynesian model is much in dispute today. I just read a critique by Miller that includes the monetarist equation, and it's fairly simple.Xperrymint (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Aggregate Demand =/= Aggregate Expenditure

This is Aggregate Expenditure:

$Y=C+I+G+(X-M)\$

This is Aggregate Demand relation:

$Y=Y({\tfrac {M}{P}},G,T)$

The two are not the same as stated in this article. Granted they look similar and have similar determinants they needed to be properly labeled. I might go as far to say that all the AE stuff should be moved to the Aggregate expenditure page. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. The two are the same at equilibrium (actual output). Output is the point at which AD = AE, by definition. It is not possible to have a case where aggregate expenditures do not equal aggregate demand. How would that be? Someone is demanding goods but not buying them, or buying goods he isn't demanding?

The functions for AD and AE are the same, but one is with respect to prices and the other with respect to income. If there is a case where quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied and prices are held constant, firms will respond by increasing supply until the two are at equilibrium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.143.81 (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to unemployment - request for help

The article doesn't expound on the relationship between aggregate demand and unemployment.

In editing the article about the Budget Control Act of 2011, I wrote, "The spending cuts implemented by the Act will reduce aggregate demand in the economy and thus worsen the unemployment problem." Someone deleted this, characterizing it as "opinion stated as fact." Isn't this "opinion" pretty much consensus macroeconomic theory? I assume there are some dissenters but it seems to me we're getting into the realm of "Shape of the Earth: opinions differ."

I'm not an economist. Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable people following this article could develop appropriate language for this article, which would improve its exposition of the subject of aggregate demand. Then I could incorporate the point in the other article by wikilinking or by citing a source used here. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 19:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC) please use talk pages to discuss how to improve the article, not to chat about the topic

Math typesettings reverted

Oiyarbepsy reverted my edit on mathematical typesettings, claiming that there was a bunch of errors. I checked the revisions and all the formulas were rendered correctly. Can someone please explain this issue? I'll revert the revert in a week if there's no further evidence that there are errors. --Worst regards, Greek Fellows". Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 03:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Greek Fellows: the changes in the Debt section at the end did not work,[1] but I have reinstated the rest of your edit. – Fayenatic London 06:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Marriage=Aggregate?

Relevance to synonymous terms 71.178.33.122 (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)