Talk:Welfare cost of business cycles

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Welfare cost of business cycles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know
- ... that Nobel Prize Economist Robert Lucas estimated that the welfare costs of the business cycle in terms of social welfare are negligible?
A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/June.

Wikipedia

Name of article

I agree that this is a notable topic, but I'm not convinced "Lucas Welfare Cost of Fluctuations" is the right name for the article, because I don't think it is a standard term. The concept and term "welfare cost of fluctuations" or "welfare cost of business cycles" is widely accepted. And it's true that the most famous analysis of the welfare cost of business cycles is that of Lucas. But the term "Lucas welfare cost of fluctuations" is not used, as far as I know.

One possibility: write an article on "Welfare cost of business cycles", and include a section on "Welfare cost measure of Robert Lucas". Alternatively, focus specifically on Lucas' viewpoint in this article, and call it "Welfare cost of business cycles (measure of Robert Lucas)" or something like that. I realize that sounds a little clumsy, but I think it is more accurate. And remember, Wikipedia should not be used to establish neologisms. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote the article and I based it mostly on Lucas' work. However, I'm perfectly fine with moving it to "Welfare Cost of Fluctuations" and hoping that someone will expand it (though Lucas is still the main figure in this literature). In fact I would very much welcome it. Move away.radek (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more small point: "fluctuations" refers to many things (waves in the ocean, for example). So "Welfare cost of business cycles" is equally standard, but clearer and more specific for general audiences, than "Welfare cost of fluctuations". --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Move to "Welfare cost of business cycle then".radek (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Welfare cost of business cycles" would be a more appropriate title. I eventually would like to add a section on the Alvarez-Jermann cost of cycles implied by asset prices. It seems silly to have separate articles for every economist who has quantified the cost of cycles. I do agree that Lucas' calculation is the most influential and important. Wik-e-wik (talk)

I was going to add Alvarez-Jermann as well as other work, but honestly the article was quite a bit of work and by the time I was finished I was a bit exhausted and put off that bit. Please expand!radek (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

controversial?

The article doesn't put the topic in context. Is the result controversial? Is the interpretation of the result controversial? The article says that according to Lucas, "the focus of both academic economists and policy makers on economic stabilization policy rather than on long term growth has been misplaced." The fact that they still are focusing on it, 22 years later, would seem to indciate that his interpretation is not widely accepted...?--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's extremely controversial, though it has also been very influential. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun?

I'm curious. How did an article that (1) has not been quality rated, (2) has not been importance rated, and (3) has a questionable (challenged by me, anyway) title which appears to be a neologism get featured in Did you know?? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually DYKs are brand new articles so very often they're not quality or importance rated. The two activities - DYKs (which just need to be new (or newly expanded), of sufficient length and proper hook) and rating articles are for all I know unrelated. Same for importance. It is generally understood that brand new articles are not going to be perfect so there is no quality/importance threshold for them. I'm actually sympathetic to the view that the Wiki incentive system is skewed towards creating new articles rather than improving existing ones (which is what the purpose of the quality/importance rating is) - but the incentives being what they are.... And your points about the title are correct, so feel free to move it.radek (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]