Talk:Cambridge capital controversy

Economics B‑class Low‑importance

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some of the language in this article is unnecessarily one-sided in favor of Neo-Kaynesianism, such as this passage: "Most practically-minded neoclassical economists reacted to this problem by simply clinging to the simple model that they had inherited from Solow and Swan."

Same goes for the language in the conclusion section. "Sweeping it under the rug", etc. 141.30.25.56 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article could benefit from copy editing, including the language here, but in terms of the substantial point, this statement is simply true. [While I may simply be revealing myself to be what Bliss describes as a "true believer", the Cambridge controversy simply didn't have a great impact on the historical course of economic theory. One side basically "won" the argument, but then its members proceeded to die off, leaving the "losing side" to act as if the whole thing never happened. This is the significance of rather mischievous reference to "necrophilia".] Also on a pedantic point, this debate was conducted on both sides by "Keynesians", and modern day neo-Kenynesians (people like Stiglitz and Krugman), are the actually the followers of Solow etc. Those that follow Robinson are today known as post-Keynesians. Bighairything (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By gum, this is a good article.

This is place is essentially horrid (most maths and science pages excepted), but this is just a fantastic piece.

It has style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.169.22 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the unknown author:

Thank you for the article. One of the better ones I have ever read here in Wikipedia. --Uncertain (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

with what is already said, and I am an economics PhD student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.26.49 (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]