Jump to content

Talk:Monetary economics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical monetary theory

[edit]

Does it strike anyone as strange that this page and several others (the Chartalism and Monetary_circuit_theory pages, to name two) refer to something called "classical" or "mainstream" monetary theory, yet there doesn't appear to be any article describing what this theory is, who first proposed it, or even what it is called? My understanding is that chartalism is the mainstream view and that circuitism is the alternative view. I am not aware of anything called "mainstream monetary theory" that is distinct from chartalism. Is anyone else? If so, please create a page about it! RaulGroom (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after doing a bit of reading I now have a better understanding of what is going on here. It seems that there is an "orthodox" or mainstream view of monetary theory which is called "Metalism" or "M-form" theory and which holds that the value of money is necessarily linked in some way to the value of a commodity. What's confusing is that while this theory seems to still be the "mainstream" view among interested laypeople, it's not clear (at least to me) to what degree this view still dominates among actual economists, particularly economists who specialize in monetary theory. It seems that at the very least this page should make mention of "metalism" and should link to a wikipedia page describing this theory (no such page currently exists AFAIK.) Even better would be if the true state of modern thinking on the origins of money could be more conclusively established via citations of recent definitive works. 173.53.31.46 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, if you are still interested in this topic and the metalism-chartalism controversy you may find this article sheds some light on the issue: http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp/wp10.html 95.160.102.220 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

It is hard to read with so many references at the end of each sentence. I hope a way of improving this to be considered. --Aleksd (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The footnotes should be combined. Is there a reason for so many citations? Some reasons I think are reasonable:
  • Since this is a survey of a large field, multiple citations establish relevance (i.e., to establish that the topic mentioned is one of the central topics of monetary economics.) If so, then two or three citations of major textbooks might do the trick.
  • Since this is a short article, multiple citations might represents an editor's suggestions for improvements. (i.e., An editor hopes that eventually someone will write a sentence or two about the ideas in each of these citation.) If this is the motivation, then the citations belong on the talk page, along with the editor's ideas about how they should be used.
In any case, they can be combined, to make the article look better to the reader. Is there a local editor who wants to do this and can enlighten us about the motivation for the multiple citations? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is a clear case of WP:Citation overkill if I ever saw one. -- Ϫ 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, more than one are reading the article after all (: ). That said, I do take the above comments very seriously, and appreciate their constructiveness and thoughtfulness. In that spirit, let me offer a proposal followed by related points:
Proposal: Combine each of the groups of consecutive footnotes (hereafter clumps) into one footnote of consecutive but new-line citations, analogous to fn. 41, 76, & 118, as suggested by CharlesG & in œ's cite of WP:Citation overkill. On the latter, for the record, that's a WP essay, not a guideline but does have points worth taking account of.

A word on order within a given clump. The citations do have some implied order and are not merely related by subject. The order where possible is from the general (for example a survey article) to the particular or sequential, reflecting differing research threads or citations in the literature. The latter is of course one measure of influence on the subject. Many of the citations are themselves cited in the literature as called as for in WP:Verify and WP:Weight.

As suggested above every one of the clumps of citations in the article could be amplified into its own section (adding or dropping references along the way). This, however, is easier said than done right. In the meanwhile, leaving them there allows everyone an equal chance to follow up on whichever references seem most interesting. Moreover, most of the footnotes have links. They are more than just titles and allow an interested person to pursue the reference in more depth immediately. I believe that that could be a tremendous scholarly convenience, and one that would be widely supported in academia.

I'll do the first clump in the article along the lines of the proposal above and wait for a response. Thank you for your consideration. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Changed fn. no. above per last para. 22:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the number of footnotes from 122 to 22 by combining each clump of citations into a single footnote. I believe that this meets the concern of top-of-the-article template in "rearranging citations so they interrupt the text less frequently." It has the added advantage of allowing the reader to see more clearly where each clump (treating a common subject) begins and ends. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely an improvement, aesthetically. I've removed the tag. -- Ϫ 12:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of monetary economics

[edit]

The section "Current state of monetary economics" contains only one paragraph, which was introduced on 4 December 2007, and as far as I can see no revisions have been made to it since then. It covers only a small portion of monetary economics, in a single paragraph that was cut-and-pasted from the article "Monetary policy". But the intro of this article lists twelve different areas that monetary economics studies.

Could someone with wide knowledge of monetary economics take on the task of expanding this section? Duoduoduo (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of improving article

[edit]

In line with the previous section, I'd say the most direct and obvious way of improving the article might include expanding the first paragraph and the respective bulleted topics in the Lead using the footnoted linked sources to develop into a paragraph or 2 each in sections after the Lead, possibly with "Other references," that is, those not directly used, retained at the end of the paragraph(s), available for further consultation or elaboration.

In the meanwhile, the footnoted source links might be consulted. No one "owns" this article of course. And anyone who studies good sources may be in a good position to improve the article. Best wishes. P.S. Here are some general references from the Lead footnotes in the article that might also be used as a basis of organizing paragraphs or sections:

Alternative major subjects and overviews are also found in:

  • Handbook of Monetary Economics, Elsevier.
Friedman, Benjamin M., and Frank H. Hahn, ed. , 1990. v. 1 links for description & contents and chapter-outline previews
_____, 1990. v. 2 links for description & contents and chapter-outline previews.
Friedman, Benjamin, and Michael Woodford, 2010. v. 3A & 3B links for description and chapter-abstract links.

Of course these are meant to suggest leads, not to foreclose possibilities. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) --22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monetary economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Monetary economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Monetary economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Monetary economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The "History" section needs to be improved as it contains a lot of opinionated content, and also phrases like "presumably because", "carefully examined", "he failed to take the lessons" etc. BeŻet (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeŻet: I've copy edited the history section a little - does it still contain bias in your opinion? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work @Jonpatterns:, it's better, but a sentence like "his bank failed (...) perhaps because he failed to take the lessons of the Spanish Price Revolution seriously" is still something that shouldn't be here. We shouldn't be "guessing" what the reasons were. BeŻet (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References (again)

[edit]

Many of the references are multi references with many sources bungled into a single note. Each bungle is WP:Citation overkill for what it is referencing. To make matters worse the references also contain many symbols and html tags.

I propose breaking each ref bungle into individual refs. Then either removing superfluous ref, or expanding the article with references that contain additional information that is relevant to the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monetary economy

[edit]

Monetary economy 2401:4900:4BC8:A5CF:5D84:2EEB:12E5:3AB7 (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monetary_economics&oldid=1198791508"