Talk:IS–LM model

LM Curve

I know this is not that important, but there is a small error in the section about the LM curve, where it is said that "As GDP is considered exogenous to the liquidity preference function, changes in GDP shift the curve. For example, an increase in the demand for money for transactions will increase interest rates through the money market, and cause the LM curve to shift to up and to the left." Explanation: While GDP, or Y, is considered an exogenous variable on the money market, changes in it still do not shift the LM curve, since Y in on one of the two axes. An increase in GDP would increase the demand for money for transactions and therefore the interest rate, but this would graphically be represented by walking on the LM curve (in the upward/right direction), not shifting it.

I have another doubt. It is mentioned that in LM curve, Income is the dependent variable. I understand the line of logic that LM curve is derived from Liquidity preference curve and Liquidity preference curve shifts with changes in Income. Hence, for different levels of income, rate of interest in estimated (for given money supply) taking analogous values from respective Liquidity preference curves. My doubt is: isn't interest rate the independent variable in Liquidity preference curve considering speculative demand. For given Income, current rate of interest (nominal) is the key source of expectations about rise or fall in interest rates in future (For further on this refer to last paragraph from wiki page of speculative demand). Thus, interest rate influences speculative demand and income influences transaction demand so overall demand for money is a function of both income and nominal interest rate. So aren't both income and interest rate playing the role of independent variables in bringing about equilibrium in money market? Akhilgoyal19 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The LM section needs some graphs

I found the LM section particularly confusing. The first reference to a graph refers using he Liquidity Preference function, which is downward sloping. It sounded as though Liquidity Preference were the actual measurement used to determine the more abstract LM.

It took me a while (and several paragraphs) to realize that the downward sloping Liquidity Preference wasn't actually displayed; it was just an unseen intermediate step towards generating the upward-sloping LM. JimJJewett (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I have created and added a money market equilibrium diagram. I would appreciate somebody checking it for errors and/or improving it. --NilsTycho (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Endogenous money

EM flattens the LM. Cn we graphically show this? [1](Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)).

We need better sourcing for the strong claims being made against Hicks etc

Concerning the history of the model our article is currently completely dependent upon an online document which does not appear to have gone through any peer review, and which presents itself as disagreeing with the mainstream. See our present footnotes 5 and 9. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A better source, I notice, might be:

• Young, Warren; Fuller, Edward W (2022), Reinterpreting Mr. Keynes: The IS-LM Enigma Revisited

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, those edits are by a vociferous crackpot who wrote the cited work. His work that is published is in vanity/predatory journals or in self-published books. He alternately claims that those with whom he disgrees either did not read the relevant passages of Keynes or are guilty of misconduct. If you sample his work, you'll notice that he cannot even punctuate properly. (For example, he tends to put spaces before and not after commas.) —68.105.244.163 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That could be, but we should fix the article? It doesn't seem like the topic should just be deleted though, as shown by the source I've cited.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, let me summarize:

Book: “The IS-LM framework originated with Keynes, but Keynes was a mediocre mathematic economist and so stepped away from the model rather than risk getting thrashed again, as had happened with the Treatise on Money. But, thereafter, multiple economists who had had been exposed to IS-LM models by Keynes or nth hand developed them in an attempt to capture Keynesian thought. The best known of these economists was Hicks, albeit that Hicks had his doubts both about Keynesianism capturing the truth and about Hicks's version of an IS-LM model capturing Keynesianism.”

Crackpot: “Hicks stole the IS-LM model from Keynes and took credit for himself!!!”

Now, what should the article say? Seems straight-forward to me.

The book is short and thorough and anyone who wants to write on the history of the IS-LM framework or more generally on the history of Keynesianism ought to read it. —68.105.244.163 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you think the book is an acceptable source we can use instead of the current stuff? So we can go ahead on that basis? (But I'm not sure I saw him being called a "mediocre mathematic economist", and in any case even if he is, I'd suggest we probably shouldn't cite that strong opinion unless it is crucial to the thesis, and then with attribution.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Were Wikipedia not hopeless, then I'd just have editted the article myself; but Wikipedia is hopeless, and I've only commented to note why the article had its absurd attack on Hicks, and then to distinguish what was said in Y&F (the book to which you pointed) from what the article said. I'm not making any claims about what the article should say when I summarize the point that Keynes were a mediocre mathematic economist. On that point, make note of 5.8 in Y&F, bearing in mind that the IS-LM models are, if nothing else, mathematically quite simple. —68.105.244.163 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Keynes own IS/LM

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-91342-7#toc

I have stumbled upon this book. It might of interest here.

“Furthermore, the book discusses the implications of newly discovered archival material, including a previously overlooked document showing that John Maynard Keynes himself was the first to present the IS-LM model equations in a lecture he gave on December 4, 1933. It focuses on the implications of this material in terms of understanding the evolution of Keynes’s approach from 1933 to 1937, later interpreters of his General Theory, and the ongoing debate between Keynesians and Post-Keynesians on the nature of his system. Given the revelations it presents, this book will transform the profession’s understanding of the origins of the IS-LM model and modern macroeconomics.” 86.52.76.106 (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

That book was already discussed above. None-the-less, in true Wikipedia fashion, subsequent to the discussion someone else dove into the article, and replaced the cranky Brady content with the false mainstream narrative. —2607:FB91:822D:8B28:A6BA:5A64:FDBE:615E (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)