Talk:Policy-ineffectiveness proposition

theory section deleted

Why was all the theory section deleted???? Should someone revert? Alex.g 08:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on producing the lucas critique.

to my knowledge, the lucas critique arose out of rational expectations nad less so of policy ineffectiveness proposition. so is it accurate to say 'it produced the lucas critique'? I'm modifying that statement tentatively until someone clarifies. Benuel 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman vs the new classicals

In the "Criticism" section it mentions Milton Friedman, but gives no citation and lists no work in the "References" section by him. I don't have a specific work by him to point out, but I found this article to be informative in contrasting his views with the "new classicals" (primarily Lucas, but also Sargent & Wallace) about rational expectations and the short-run effect of (nominal/monetary) policy to be informative: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/10161/1921/1/Hoover_two_types_of_monetarism.pdf That's by K.D Hoover who is presenting Friedman's views to contrast them. He lists and quotes from a few works by Friedman, but I haven't read them myself and so don't feel it would be appropriate for me to give them as citations.

I also found an interview where Friedman himself critiques the new classicals, but only vaguely for "taking a good thing too far", concluding that they have had "too much influence". http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3748 TGGP (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Ineffectiveness Proposition → Policy-ineffectiveness proposition –

WP typically does not caplitalise laws, theories, propositions, hypotheses, etc. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – obviously the caps are wrong, but why not restore the missing hyphen at the same time? See [1], [2], [3], and many other good sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – now that Tony has modified the RM to include the clarifying hyphen as many better sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.