Talk:Keynesian economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?

This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.194.209 (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

spending and investment

"If the government increases its spending, then the citizens are encouraged to spend more because more money is in circulation. People will start to invest more, and the economy will climb back up to normal."

that is not even a crude simplification ... it's somewhat wrong

private spending = consumption

private saving = investemt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.137.114 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the socialist rose should be removed

The prominent image on this article is the red socialist rose, while the capitalist counterpart above it is merely text. This is, whether intentional or not, biased in favor of socialism and undermines credibility. When the symbol of one ideology clearly dominates, then that ideology is perceived as being favored over the other.

Keynesian economics is inherently a sensitive political topic (capitalism vs socialism). There is broad consensus on what the symbol of democratic socialism is (the rose), and no consensus on what a symbol for capitalism should be. If there is no satisfactory symbol for capitalism, then the socialist rose should be removed leaving only text; exactly as was done with capitalism.

Thank you for your attention. 47.208.110.129 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I’m not sure whether it is meant to address this article or the social democary sidebar. The decision to include an emblem in the sidebar is nothing to do with this page, and I don’t think the social democrats will wish to drop it from their template on the grounds that the capitalists have dropped theirs. Colin.champion (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous edits to the section on liquidity preference

An anonymous editor made changes, believing that Keynes viewed liquidity preference as a function of the inflation rate rather than of the (nominal) interest rate. I don’t think there’s any doubt that the original was correct but I’ve added a few words of clarification. Colin.champion (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)