User talk:Hazillow

Welcome, former bunch-o-numbers. 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Econ
Alright.

As you can see I've fattened the introduction and put up a pretty benign section based on Mankiw, and he serves as a relatively moderate basis for future sections. My current education in economics doesn't expand beyond AP Micro/Macro so I can't do all that much outside of elementary micro and Keynes. I'd like to dig supply side out of the pseudo economics and put it opposite of Keynes. Supply side does have an article and Keynes doesn't, so I'm thinking of developing Keynes on this page and eventually moving it onto its own page where it can grow from there.
 * Mankiw is a great starting point as the summary you posted is a pretty good introduction to mainstream thought. It might rile up the Marxists, but whatever. I'd eventually like to see the article broken up more logically -- supply side economics and demand side economics don't hold much currency in economics circles (but they make good political talking points) as the debate was largely decided by marginalism unifying the entire field in that regard. Instead, it's based more on the distinction between micro and macro.


 * I'm a semester away from a bachelor's in economics, so I don't claim to be an expert or anything. Your help would be greatly appreciated, and I really like what you've done so far. See the article now for my minor edits to the lead. --Hazillow (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's some good edits. We need an article on Adam Smith as redlinks are a big no-no here apparently (I joined yesterday fyi). I'll work on it some and hopefully you can add some depth.

I'm thinking a Micro/Macro section with mentions (but no full explanations) of schools of thought, followed by Keynes and then Friedman/supply-side. Austrian doesn't have an article yet, so I'd like at least some info on it based on how often it pops up in Ron Paul and conservative circles these days.
 * Ron Paul nonsense and the Austrian School are inextricably tied together, so it is certainly worth including, and a mention that Austrian economics aren't accepted by even the most libertarian of the mainstream economists is a good way to frame how wacky Paul actually is.
 * Thanks for the tip on the red-links. I didn't know they were frowned upon so heavily. --Hazillow (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. My knowledge of Austrian economics is pretty limited outside of a couple articles I've read about Paul, all I know is that my neoclassical/Keynesian education was revolted. Adam Smith is up and kicking, if you'd like to add some of his conclusions to it please do so.
 * I added a bit. If you could make blockquote the quote I put up that'd be great (I'm unfamiliar with wiki markup). It's bed time for me, but I'll continue to add more to economics and Adam Smith as well as create an Austrian School page tomorrow. Thanks a lot for helping me. I just couldn't handle having the economics page of a wiki that purports to be "rational" full of such inaccuracies. --Hazillow (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, as much fun as this is, we aren't an encyclopedia.  07:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, Human. I don't mind the funny and/or leftist slant. I just think that things would be a lot more rational if the page in question was accurate and it attacked/parodied what economics actually is rather than what someone thinks it probably is--Hazillow (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that you can't really mock certain economic theories as crazy unless you actually establish what normal economics is. I think we'd all love to punch loony Marxists and supply-side idiots in the mouth, but without a basis it just comes off as petty.