Talk:Business cycle

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bordello (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 28 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Bordello in topic Obscurity

Communist Manifesto

"It's interesting to note that Marx and Engels' 1848 specific demands in the Communist Manifesto are now almost wholly implemented throughout the once-capitalist world, with the sole exception of the abolishment of rents in land. This suggests that the Marxian analysis found some traction among decision-makers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

I deleted that. First, it isn't logical. If I accurately predict rain tomorrow, it doesn't follow I had any "traction" in the clouds, only that I understood enough about the underlying processes to predict where they were going.

Second, it isn't even relevant to the specific issue of the business cycle. Did those items help modify the swings of the business cycle, or compound them, or neither? --Christofurio 15:13, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly it is undeniable.

Which is undeniable? The first of the quoted sentences or the second. The second seems, to me, quite eminently deniable. --Christofurio 23:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Overlap with economic cycle

this page overlaps with and thus repeats much of what appears in "the economic cycle". Shouldn't they be merged and one erased? Jdevine 19:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Economic cycle now redirects here. Rd232 talk 00:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Multiplier-Accelerator Effect

Should the Multiplier-Accelerator effect be included in this or is it under a different name and I'm too tired to see it?--Tiresais 14:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

They have their own articles: Accelerator effect and Multiplier (economics). Not sure how much overlap there is right now. Rd232 talk 00:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Obscurity

I'd say this article is cluttered. In one sense, from the terse descriptions of each school of thought listed in what seems like no particular order, and in another, its willingness to concede those terms outlining causality (e.g. full employment-- extraneous technical terms) which are, within Wikipedia, obscure. For example, it attempts to explain how fluctuation may be linked to full employment without defining what full employment might mean in each specific case. Speaking as a layman, it is difficult to follow, and it reads POV to me as well. Bordello 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply